For the. elaimants it is urged that by the maritime law the liability of the shipi in 'caBe of injury to seamen, extends only to proper care and nursing, and the expenses of cure, so far as cure is possible; and this court has so held in regard to accidents arising in the ordinary course of navigation. The City of Alexandria, 17 ·FED. REP. 390. In that case, however, the proper equipment and outfit of the ship were assumed. Pages 393,396. There is no question that in modern mal'itime law the owners are responsible for due care and diligence in the proper equipment of the vessel for the contingencies of the voyage.. Halverson v. Nisen, 3 Sawy.562. See The Explorer, 20 FED. REP. 135; The Wanderer, Id. 140. In the use of modern appliances, such as a steam-winch in connection with a derrick, as in this case, not for the proseGution of her ordinary navigation, but for the conveniences of the ship in loading or unloading, it is more rea-. sonable and equitable to apply the analogies of the municipal law in regard to the obligation of owners and masters, rather than to extend the limited rule of responsibility under the ancient maritime law to these new, modern conditions, for which those limitations were never designed. And, in applying the analogies of the municipal law, the helplessness of seamen, and the imperative duty of obedience, as I have above sa.id, ought to impose upon mastera and owners the high. est rule of diligence and care in ascertaining the sufficiency of all such modern appliances for the exigencies to which they are to be subjected. As that was not done in this case, the breaking of the derrick through its own insufficiency must be deemed evidence of negligence on their part, which equitably imposes the consequences upon them, rather than upon the seaman, who is an innocent sufferer through their want of proper care. The injuries to the libelant were severe. He was partially paralyzed; but, after being cured so far as possible, he is permanently disabled from pursuing his former occupations, though able to follow pursuits upon land. On the whole, I think $1,500 will be a proper allowance by way of damages, with costs.
RILEY v. ALLEN and others.
(District .(Jourt, lV. D. Tennessee. l!'ebruary21, 1885.)
1. ADHrnALTY....PERSONAL INJURy-BEATING A DECK HAND OR ROVSTABOUT.
The officers of a steam-boat are liable for injuries caused by se1erely beating a deck hand or roustabout. .
SAME SUBJlllOT-DISCHARGE....IMPROPER TIJ\IE AND PLAClli.
A deck hand cannot, for mere mefficiency, be driven from a steam-boat at an in,hospitable place on a dark, cold whereby he was subjected to unnecessary suffering and discomfort, without rendering the officers liable to damages for such treatment.. .
RlL,ln: V. A.LLEN.
In Admiralty. W. S. Flippin, for libelant. H. G. Warinner, for defendants. HAMMOND, J. This is a libel in persona,m against the officers and owners of a steam-boat for personal injuries. The plaintiff is a "roustabout,"-a name by which negro deck hands on the steamers plying the Mississippi river and its tributaries are known. He shipped on the Rene Macready for a .trip up the St. Francis river. He alleges and proves by his own testimony and that of three other roustabouts that the mate beat him with a stick or club, severely bruising his arm and disabling him for several weeks. The mate swears he did not strike him at all, and so does the captain, who saw the occurrence. Another witness not connected with the boat also testifies that the mate did not strike the libelant. There is no doubt, however, that on a cold night in January, when the ground was covered with water, this man was paid off, discharged, and made to leave the boat at a place where there was no accommodation for him; that, being wet from rain and mud, he had to go to a negro cabin some distance away, where he stayed all night, and ·the next morning was compelled to walk through the overflowed swamp some five miles to a railroad, where he walked the track about thirty miles to his home in Memphis. The cause assigned for his discharge is that "he was no account;" that is, did not work satisfactorily. He proves by himself and one of his witnesses that he begged to be allowed to stay on the Boat, and offered to pay his way back to Memphis, which was refused. This again is denied by the officers, who say that one Collins offered to hire him, and they thought he had done or would do so; but Collins is not produced to prove this, and it is denied by the libelant and his witnesses. A very earnest argument is made by counsel for defendants to the effect that these roustabouts are a very degraded class of laborers, and so vicious in their instincts that tl:lily are uninfluenced by any ordinary consideration that would impel a man to do his work most efficiently; and that it would imperil the interests of commerce and obstruct the navigation of this river to apply to complaints like this the llustomary rules of law that govern the contract of sea-going mal,'iners. It is urged that nothing hut the severest compulsion will make them work; that they understand this, and engage in the service with a knowledge of the fact that they ml1y be subjected to rough measures to prevent them from shirking their labor under circumstances where inefficiency is disastrous to their employers. There is a good deal of, force in this, but it is the old-time argument in favor of flogging seamen and soldiers, and cannot override the humane policy of our statute which abolishes it in the army, in the navy, and "on board vessels of commerce." Rev. St. § 4611. It is no more lawful to flog a "roustabout" than it is to so diRcipline a common seaman, and it never was lawful to beat and wound them with sticks and clubs, for which the
officers are liable, both civilly and criminally. Rev. St. § 5347; U. S. v. Oollins, 2 Curt. 194. It is often done witb. brutish violence. I have seen them come about court·house with a vague idea that in some way they were under the protection of the officers of the United States, and having the marks of violence upon them showing how cruelly they had been beaten. They have been sent to attorneys, but in some way it has been arranged so that this court has never had the op. portunityof imposing the penalty of damages for such brutality. The ordinary remedies of withholding wages, discharging for misconduct, putting in confinement or in irons, and the like, must suffice as meth· ods of discipline for inefficiency, if the penalties of the statutes by criminal prosecution for disobedience of orders do not apply. Certainly, beating cannot be sanctioned by the courts. The beating is not satisfactorily proven in this case, and the testimony of the only disinterested witness must turn the scale against the libelant on that point. But these officers had no right to discharge this man at the place they did, late at night, ltnd under circumstances which show that it was imposing upon him unnecessary suffering. His wages were paid him, butJ:.hey might have'been withheld, if it was just' to do that, or used to pay for his shelter on the I do not decide that he could not be discharged at all until the return of the boat, and express no opinion as to that; but he should not, for mere inefficient work, have been driven from the boat on a dark, cold, and wet night; at the time and place where he was compelled to go ashore. Common hospitalityand humanity should have prevented this, and the admiralty law forbids it. The proper and humane care of even inefficient seamen is the duty of every master, and whatever he may lawfully do must be done with due consideration for this principle. 1 Conkl. Adm. 429-442. It is not difficult to determine the measure of damages in this case. n severe beating had beel! proved, the court would yield to the demand for not less than $100; but it is disproved. He had been paid his wages, and might have come home on the cars, but chose to walk when he reached the railroad. I think $30 amply sufficient to compensate the libelant, and emphasize the determination of this court to insist On humane treatment even of "roustabouts." Decree accordingly.
WOOSTER v. HANDY. SAME SAME
(No.1.) (No. g.) (No.4.) (No.5.) · (No.3.)
SINGER MANUF'G Co. OF NEW YORK. SAME v. HOWE MACHINE CO.
WILLCOX & SAJlIE
SAME v. DOMESTIC SEWING-MACHINE CO., impleaded, etc. SCHENCK, impleaded, etc. SAME SAME SAME
SINGER MANUF'G Co. OF NEW JERSEY.
(No.8.) (No.9.) (No. 10.)
THORNTON and others.
BLAKE and others, impleaded, etc.
(Oircuit Oourt,8. D. New York.
February 16, 1885.)
EQ,UITYPHACTICE-COSTS-FINAL HEARING IN EQUITY TION 824, HEV. 8'1".
To constitute" a final hearing in equity or admiralty," within the meaning of section 824, there must be a hearing of the canse on its merits; that is, a submission of it to the court, in snch shape as the parties choose to give it, with a view to a determination whether the plaintiff or libelant has made out the case stated by him in his bill or libel as the ground for the permanent relief which his pleading seeks, on such proofs as the parties place before the court, be the case one of pro or bill 01' libel and answer, or pleadings alone, or pleadings and proofs.
SAME-SEVERAL TRIALS-DOCKET FEE.
The statute does not forbid the allowance of a docket fee on or foreaeld.rial before a jury, where there is a verdict, 01' on or for each final hearing in equity or admiralty, if there are two or more final hearings, such as are above defined, in the same cause.
SAME-DEPOSl'l'IONS ADMITTED IN EVIDENCE BY STIPULA'l'ION-TAXABLE FEES.
Where, on the hearing of one of several snits heard at the same time, brought by the same plaintiff against different defendants, for the infringement of the same patent, the depositions of a numher of witnesses, taken in others of said suits, are admitted in evidence by virtue of a stipulation that all the evidence taken for the final hearing on both sides, in the other suits, may be read on the final hearing herein with 1he same force and as if taken herein, a solicitor's fee of $2.50 for each deposition in each one of the cases is not taxable.
SAME-COPIES OF PAPERS.
Copies of papers obtained for use on interlocutory or preliminary or inci. dental motions or hearings are not obtained for use on trials, within the meaning of section 983.
SAME-TRAVELING EXPENSES OF MESSI!:NGERS AND ATTORNEYS.
The traveling expenses of attorneys to take evidence and attend court, and the expenses of messengers, are no part of taxable costs. Such expenses were never taxable before or since the act of 1853.
The expense of copies of models in the patent-office, properly procured for use as a part of the evidence in the snit, may be allowed for as part of the taxable costs; but the expense of other models and machines are not allowed to be so taxed.
Photolithographic exhibits, not being drawings from the patent-office, but sketches Introduced by witnesses in giving their evidence, fall under the rulQ as to machine exhibits, and are not taxable as costs.