plained of occurred. It is indeed true that after the inJury com· plained of, and after thElY,'AAAbeen Jlotified by the board of pilot commissioners to remove the wreck, they did so, at the loss of some hundreds of dollars. :l3ut l,do, n,pt perceive how this action on their part, taken after the injury in question. can affect the question of their responsibility. at the time of, the inj ury sued for· If any duty at all on their part arose out of the statute in question, it was only remove within three days after being notified that the wiedkhadbeen adjudged by the pilot commissioners to constitute an obstruction to navigation. and that time 'had not elapsed when the .injury in occurred. every sUliken vessel is to be raised. nor does the statute say that the owner of any sunken' boat found to be an obstruction to navigation shall remove it. Allthe statute says is that wl;1en. after being notified by the pilot commissioners to reo move an obstruction, the owner fails to do so, he shall be liable to pay to county any sum .that the pilot commissioners may have expended in their removal of it. The libel must be dismissed, and with costs.
and another. 1
(DiBtrict Oourt, D. Oonnecticut. December 31, 1886.) ,
ADMIRALTY-NEW TRIAL-MoTION-FAOTS NOT OBIGmALLY PRESENTED.
A motion for Ii new trial will b'erefused if the conclusion originally reached is, after the presentation of new facts, still adhered to.
In Admiralty. Motion for Dew trial. E. L. Barney, for the motioD. Samuel Park, against the motion.
Reported 27 Fed. Rep. 113.
SHIPMAN, J. This is a motion for a new trial in the above-entitled cause. The facts were stated opinion of the court. 27 Fed. Rep. 113. The strong and vigorous argument of the counsel for the libelants ,endeavored to establish the position that on October 4, 1884, the voyage was not turned into uJ;ld did not become a whaling but that, by reason of the detention of 20 or 25 days in the ice in July, 1884, and the delay in September, on account of the services to the Isabella's crew, the proposed whaling voyagewasfrustrateu; and that the stop to whale for 20 days on the return from Cumberland inlet was a mere incident, 'which did not cause the freighting to .come to an end. This particular phase of the case was not presented upon the trial as vigorously as it was'upon the motion, but I cannot see that the conclusions to which T ()aiDe originally are incorrect.
by Theodore M. Etting. Esq.· of the Philadelphia bar.
THE SEVEN· SONS.
If not enough freight was received to fill the vessel, the contract pro. vided 'that wages are to cease, and we are to stop to whale at New Gunenke, or elsewhere, and receive" a lay in lieu of wages. The vessel did not obtain a sufficient ql1antity of freight, did stop for the purpose of whaling, and tried to obtain whales until October 24th, when, on the point of starting for home, she was compelled to stay by stress of weather. The captain would not have been endalJ.voring to do his duty towards the, owners if he had started for home on October 4th without trying towbale, and had thus virtually abandoned his undertaking; for if the vessel was not to return With freight, a whaling voyage was to be. attempted. If she had left the straits on October 24th, and retumedto New it would hardly have been contended that the monthly wageB'did 'Dot stop on October 4th. The conditions upon which the men were 110: receive a lay had taken place, and the unfortunate termination of the voyage by reason of having obtained no catchings, either in the fallof 1884 or during the season of 1885, ought not to change the pecuniary relations of the parties. The fact that the sailors are poor, and that poverty, in a contest with wealth, always enlists the sympathy of the triers, ought not to induce the court to strain the facts in order to permit the sailors to receive some compensation, for the hardShips which they endured. The new faots which were presented do not seem to me to vary the original caaematerially·. ' The motion is denied.
Tm: SEVEN SONS.
McLAuattLIN· v. THE SEVEN SONS·
.(District (J0'I.IIrl, W; D. Penn81/l'IJania.
October Term, 1l!8l1;)
. Whex;e,a fiat-boat! whe.l1 delivered under a.towing contract into the of 8 tow"boat; was In good order, but when It reached the port of destmatlOn w8sina1broken and sinkinp; condition, and the owner did not accompany the fiat-boat either personally or by agent, it is the duty of those owning or navigating the tow-boat to show how the injury occurred, and, in the absence of explanation or proof on that subject, negligence will be presumed, and damages decreed against the tow-boat.
In Admiralty. . Burlhigh Harbiaon, for libelant. H. H. for respondents. ACHESON, J. The owners of the tow-boat Seven Sons undertook to tow the libelant's loaded flat-boat down the Monongahela river, from Brownsville to Pittsburgh. The flat-boat was in good order when the tow-boat took it in charge, but when it reached the place of destination