.MARY N. HOGAN.
were the Only tugs insight, and a refusal of·assistance by the Haviland w:ov;ld,in.the event of a the Baltic,--a result contemplated as possible, for she agreed for $500 incase of failure, -have been followed by thetotalloas ofthe bark and her cargo, unless she should be'got off at the nexlllfgh'Wfe. After that tbestorm was tOo furi()us to permit of any effort to relieve her. The next high tide was at 7 o'clock Saturday evening. During Saturday a fresh breeze blew, which increased as the day wore on. When the tide rose it was such, I judge, as would have rendered the attempt to get the bark off on that tide 8, serious undertaking for any tug. That the condition of the bark would have been known in New Yor'k on, Saturday ,morning, and that some Of the numerous tugs always available in New York'harbor would have gone to her aid on Saturday, 1 do not doubt. BUft,.loaded as the bark was, no tug would have attempted'to move her until high tide, and, as the wind was at the next ti(le, moving her then would have involved great exertion, and,as it seems to me; would bavebeen attended with some risk of total failure. Certainly her reSClie by a salvor at that time would have subjected her to a liability for salvage 'exceeding in amount the sum now claimed by the Haviland. I am unable, therefore, to agree with the claimants in their contention that, withlYut the aid of the Haviland, the bark was sure of being bauledoff by some otber tug. I agree, however, that some chance of being hauled .off by another tug was open to the bark. This circumstance is to .be considered in determining the value of the services rendered. It isfiJao tQ,be considered that the tng was put to no risk wbatever, not"·was sbeoalled ou·to, display extraordinary skill, or pnt forth unusual, exertion, and she was occupied but a few hours; 80 that, although the '\talue of the property saved was considerable, and the damage to which it was exposed was serious, the tug can be largely rewarded for tbetime'expended without making the charge burdensome to the bark. In view :of all the circumstances, I think $3,500 will be a proper salvage reward,and .for that sum with costs let a decree be entered.
THE MARY N. HOGAN.·
THE MARY N. HOGAN, etc.
(Dilltrict Oourt, E.
8ALTAGJIl-TlJ'a-Loss 01l' :MOTIVE POWER-PILOT-BoA'J.'.-HoLDING TUG DURING
Tlle tug H., when some 30 miles E. B. E. of the Highlands, rolled her smokestack off, and thereby lost her motive power. The pilot-boat W. attempted to take her to New York, but'was unable to do 80, and, the 'Wlld increasing,
J RepOrted' by
Edward a.Benedict,. Esq;, oithe New York bar.
the lV/an.chored. and: held ,tHe HV,Qverhigbt,when, Ii tug,took her toNew YWlt.· tug waS,in'81,'IIJ1t,,!heu,the Ho lost her sJJ1?ke-stack, n,or did durmgthe The eVIdence showed that but for the W,. H. "iVouldhai'ebell'n eoIIipelledto atrdhoron losing hersmo!te-st8ok, with danger of becomfng' 1\ total loss in tAll g"le,which followed. ,The yY,. incul1'ed no especial pauger, The valueoftheFr. was fo.QOO. Held, that the W.should reo ceive $1,250 as a suJvage award;' ,, '
In Admil'altV'. ' George A. Biadc, for libelants. &rpente'r &' Mosher, for claimant.
j : ' -
This is an a.ction for salvage. 'The Mary N. Hogan, a tug some 90 feet long and worth $5,000, on the morning of January 28, 1885, when about 30 miles E:. S. E. of the Highlands, rolled her smoke-stack off. and :thereby lost her motive power. At about 7 A. M. the Washington, 'a pilot-boat about 95 feet long; and worth 817,500, came to the tug, 'and, being requested to tow the tug up to the Hook, 'made a hawser fast to her, and proceeded towards the Hook. At 1 P. 'M. the pilot-boat Loubat came, to them., and also took hold. The wind was increasing, and at 2 P. M., in attempting to wear, the Lol1bat's hawser fouled, and: was cut. The sea. was then too heavy to 'permit the geting out' another line,and the Louhat sailed away.' The Washington 'continued her efforts to make the but, after another hour's trial, finding that no progress was made, went back again tpwards Longisland, and anchored off Long beach, a mile or so off shore, between 4 and 5 P. M. The wind blew very hard indeed until midnight; but the pilot-boat was able u> hold the Hogan, and did hold her, until 2 P. M. of the next day; When the tug Luckenbach oame for the Hogan, and took her to New York. While the Washington lay at anchor the Hogan had her anchor over ready to let go, with 125 fathoms of seven and a half inch hawser. . The Washington was in little peril, even at the height of the storm. Her nien worked hard in the snow and hail while towing the Hogan, and it is not denied that a liberal reward should be given theni therefor. The controversy is in regard to the amount. This controversy arises out of a difference in the estimate of the peril of the situation in which the Hogan was when taken hold of by the pilot-boat. As to the other things, there is substantial agreement. The evidence shows at the time the Hogan lost her smoke,stack no tug was in sight, nor was any tugboat fallen in with during that day. If the pilot had declined to furnish assistance, the Hogan wouldi as it appears; have been compelled to anchor where w!1s, and during the severe storm that came on the following night she would have been in danger of total loss. Some witexpress the- opinion, that she would, certainly have foundered during that night. It is the extent of this peril which enhances the value of the by the pilot-boatfol' the benefit of the Hogan. There was little peril f9the pHot-boat. Some extra work was performed by the crew, and 24 hours of time were lost. It may be also that the pilot boat ran soine risk of losing her insurance. Her claim is
50 per cent. of the value of the Hogan. This I think too much. If, taking into account the perilous situation of the tng, the salvage be at $1,250, the pilot boat will, in my opinion, receive a liberal reward. Let the libelants have a decree for $1,250, together with the costs of this action. '
CoFFIN 1.l. THE OSCEOLA.
(DiBtriot Oourt, E. D. NtAD York.
COLLISlOlV,.....()VEBTAXING VESSEL"';" CLoSE APPRoACH-No SIGIULB -
Where the steam-boat 0., overtaking the 8., collided with her, and, on suit brought, defended by alleging' a sheer on the part of the 8.· but the evidence lIl!,owed that she had .approached dangerously near the S., without giving the sigtlal required by the international rules. heldtha,t, if the S. made no sheer, the O. w.as in faUlt as .theovertaking vessel; if thll S. did sheer, the O. was stUl in fault for her approach without signals.. Held, also, that, in the absence of from the 0., the sheer of the 6. was not a
Ed'lDard H. Hobbs, for libelant. Caryenter Jc Moaher, for claimant·
. BEtqIDICT,' J. If, as the libelants contend, the Spray made no sheer, the liability of the Osce()la is clear. If, on the other hand, the Spray sheer,lltill the Osceola was in fault, for she was the overtaking veBS.el;and approached dangerously near to the Spray without giving the signals required by the inspectors' rules. Had the signal been given, or been proved that the Spray had been otherwise informed of the position of the Osceola, the Spray would have been in fault for her course, when she, did, but, in the absence of such signal 01' such knowledge, her change was not a fault. . The libelant must have a. decree for his damages, with a reference to ascertain the amount.
, Reported by Edward G. Benedict, Esq., oCthe New York bar.