without fault or negligence in the navigation of the boat; If this view is sustained by the evidence, the verdict must be for the plaintiff. Secondly; That the bridge was well constructed, substantially according to lawjbut that the aceidentoccurred in consequence of the failure of the plaintiff's servants to use ordinary and reasonable care and skill in the management and navigation of the boat. If the jury shall reach this conclusion: from the evidence, the verdict must be for the defendant on its cross-Claim, for its loss in the destruction: of a spamof the bridge. Thirdly'n/nd lastly, -the jury may find, if the evidence in their view requires it, that the accident was without fault by any human agent; without negligence mthe structtlreof the bridge; and without any want of care and skill in the navigation, If the'jury so find, theu their conclusion must be that the accident was the result of causes purely physical, .that no human'agency was to blame for it,and that the injury was the result of a ca.sunltyofnavigation purely fortuitous and unavoidable. If the jUry reach this conClusion, they will find tWd verdicts,...,-one against the on its petition; andonEJ against the defendant on its. crossdemand.- .' . ., " ' , , . Of course, the jury will not faUto 'consider that accidents will some.. times unavoidably happen in the navigation of a great river :by the powerfulagericyof steam, propelling vast and somewhat-unwieldy machines; and when such, a navigation meets numerous bridges hi its way, however well, constrllcted, it would' be almost a miracle if accidents did not sometinieshrtppen, especially in seasons of extreme high wate!', in spite of all reasonable efforts for the safety of navigation. ,Bridgeaand boats alike must, under'such ciroumstances, sometimes suffer from such casualties; and, when theydo, the men who build for tbeirprofit structures 80 exposed to danger, or use vessels in such perilous service, must bear the consequences which they have good reason to foresee and anticipate.
'NoTE. . The jury found against the plainti:ff on its' claim, and .,againstthe defendant on its Plaintiff moved for a trial, which,af1;er a. bearing by t.be court, was refused. JUdgment on th,e verdict was, that de-; fendant recover all costs on the bearing of claim for damages, and plaintU;'l recover all hearing of counter-claim. . '
THE FLOWERGATE.· SLOAN
(District Oom't E. D. New York., April 7,18$7.)
The use of an eye-bolt. apparently sufficient for the purpose to whichit.iIJ applie<f, :butin:reality insufficieJ;lt solely because 0:1; I,l.ll!otent detect, _ entails J;lO liability for a personal injury caused by such defect: ..
, Libel for personal injury to a grain-trimmer while'engaged in. rigging the tackle preparatory to stowing a cargo of grain, occasioned by the
THE OYSTER. POLICE STEAMERS OF MARYLAND.
'Of an eye-bolt, set in the deck, to which it block was attached, and in U$e for the .purpose ·of moving the vessel along the dock. After the bolt broke a latent defect was disclosed below where it was countersunk in the deck. Jamea Troy and John J. Allen,for, libelant. E.B·. :Oonvers, for claimant. BENEDICT, J. The evidence is notBufficient to justify finding asa fact that the condition of the eye-bolt, when it was put to use at the time the plaintiff was injured through its giving way, was such as to inform anyone of the fact that the bolt was already partly br6ken off. . The eye was counter-simk in the deck, and the old break was"below the upper surface of ,the' deck. This location rendered the' defect in truth latent. The use.of an eye-bolt, apparently sufficient, but in reality insufficient ;solely because of a latent defect, entails no liability for damages caused by such defect. . The libel UlUSt be dismissed, with costs.
THll: OYSTER POLICli: STEAMERS OF ·MARYLAND. S.TATES 'V. THE GOVERNOR ROBERT MoLANE. SAME 17. THE GOVEiRNOR HAMILTON. SAME 17. 'rHE GOVERNOR P.F. THOMAS.
(District Oourt, D. Maryland, May 6, 18S1.) belonging to the state of Maryland, and used by its officers'in the enforcement of the state fishery laws, in the Chesapeake bay, toprotect the state oy-ster-beds and fishing rights, and to give relief to vessels in distress, are required by sections 4417 and 4418 to have their boilers and hulls inspected by the United States steam-boat inspectors, and are liable to the penalties prescribed by section 4499 for non-compliance with the provisions of the United States law regulating steam-vessels. (/3rUabU8 by the Court.)
Held, tllat .the
ANDSinPPING-lNSPEOTIOli AND REGULATION OF STEAK-VESSELS.
Thomas G. Hayes, U. S. Dist. Atty. ,and A. Stirling Pennington, Asst. U. S. Dist. Atty., for the United States. CharlesB. Roberts, Atty. Gen. of Maryland, for respondents.
MORRIS, J. The three steam-vessels above mentioned, having been ,seized for navigating the Chesapeake bay without complying with the ternisoftitle 52 of the Vnited States Revised Statutes, regulating steam'Vessels, the!le proceedings-by way of libel were instituted by the United States to enforce the penalties prescribed by sections 4499 and 4500 of ,that The libels allegE) that the were found in the ,years 1885, and 18.86 navigating waters of the United States, which are commOll highways. of commerce, and open to general and competitive