borrowed to pay a bill stands in the same relation to the vessel as the bill paid. If that was a lien, so is. the new debt created. by the loan, but not otherwise. But, without dwelling on this question, which is controlled by the second conclusion, of law finding that libelants acquired no maritime lien on said steamer J. B. Williams by reason of said draft transactions, it follows that the intervening claimaut, I. D. Risher, as mortgagee, has the better right to the proceeds of said steamer, to the extent of his mortgage lien thereon. It is accordingly ordered and adjudged that the decree of the dilltrict court declaring a lien upon and directing payment out of the pro(lCeds of said steamedn libelantB' favor, to the extent of said drafts for $9,000 and $6,500, less the $2,000, as aforesaid, be, and the same is hereby, reversed, andtlle libel.in respect to said claims covered by the third and, fourth articles thereof, together with the amended libel filed in this court is dismissed, at libelants' costs. The proceeds of the vessel, to the extent of his ,are awarded to the claimant, 1. D. Risher. and a decree be entered accordingly.
Court, .D. South Carolina. June 8, 1890.)
The schooner E. went ashore, &tI-!i . failing in its efforts to get off, sent for the tugs C. and B. The master of the C.; which first arrived, refused to do anything because of the danger, but promised to come with the other tug the next morning. Both tugs came down, and the E., having ajfain made efforts to get off and failed, was , towed into deep water, and into port. The weather was calm during the whole time, and :E.was not in imminent danger, but a gale would have exposed her to great danger. ' The tugs were at, nO time in danger.· The E. was valued at $16,000, and hercargoatU,OOO, and the tugs at $20,000 and 115,000, respectively. Held, that this was salvage service, and the were each entitled to $800, tabs USBssed pro rata on the vessel, cargo, and frelght.
In Admiralty. Libel for salvage. Smythe « Lee; for libelant. . I. N. Naihans, for claimants.
SIMONTON, J. This is for salvage. The Eleanor, ll. three-mast schooner, between three and four hundred tons burden, went ashore on the ocean beach of North island, on the night of 21st February, 1890. North island is on the northern £lide of the Georgetown bar. The weather was perfectly calm,and so continued for the whole period of her stay on the.beach. ahe lay quietly all night. The next morning, as the heur of high tide. (10 o'clock) approached, efforts were made to get her off with a kedge anchor. She could not use her heavy ancbors. Those efforts failed. They were renewed at the succeeding high tide, with the S8JJ:le result. On that master of the schooner hall requested a person who told him that he W!1S on his way to Georgetown to send to him the tugs Congdon and Brewster, the only sea tugs in thatp(>rt. The
Congdon did not get the message,but came down of her own accord, and stopped atthelanding on the Inside beach of North island. Her master walked across the island; saw the master of the schooner; refused bil request< tapun the schooner off that night, as it was too dangerous; and promised to come down the next morning with his tug and the Brewster. He went back in his tug to Georgetown. On the next lhorning tbe efforts 00 the part of the schooner to get off were renewed. Tbe two tugs came to her. The Eleanor sent a slhall boat to the Congdon, and got a 100fathom line, which was attached to her. A line was passed from the Congdon to the Brewster. Both tugs pulled straight abead, and in about 15 minutes the schooner got into deep water, was carried oVer the bar, and 'towed to Georgp.town. Tbe Eleanor t wben pulledoff, was lying on a beach open to the Atlantic. At dead low water, she was dry. The high tide came all around her. She could use only her kedge anchor, and had niade two unsuccessful attempts to get off. Aneastedy wind put: her on a ll3e shore. A westerly wind lowered the tide, which began to neap at that time. She was, not in immediate or'imminent danger, but at any time a gale would expose her to great danger. This was a salvage service. The tugs going to her rescue went out over the main entrance of Georgetown bar after sunrise. When out at sea, they steamed around, and got opposite to the Eleanor. Where she was, the beach sloped gradually, until itgotinto deep water. The chart put in evidence shows a shoal, between which and the schooner ran a slue. At this point the water in the slue had good depth, 19 and 15 feet, shoaling, however, as it approached the bar. The Congdon and Brewster, avoiding ,the shoal, entered the slue, and the former approached the schooner, stern She was under perfect command, and, at the suggestion of of striking bottom,. at .once and easily got away. Her line was pass.ed to the .Eleanor in the latter's boat. The tugs pulled straight ahead, - that is, away from the beach, - and the Eleanor floated in deep pa,rt pf the shore without serious difficulty, if any difficulty at all. So, although this was salvage service, it was rendered without exposure of life, and witb a minimum of danger to property. Indeed, with the skillful master and the pilots on the Congdon, she was at no time in danger, and the Brewster ran no risk at all. It is true that the tugs were in a slue scarcely, if ever, used by tugs. But they were not in the shoal part of the slue, which rendered it dangerous for vessels of their draught. The Eleanor is valued by libelant at $16,000; by her master, at $6,000 or $8,000. She is 12 or 14 years old. Her cargo is estimated at $4,000. The Congdon is worth, say, $20,000, and the Brewster, $15,000. Taking all these facts into consideration, let the tugs each have $300, to be assessed pro rata on vessel, cargo, and freight. If:the parties cannot agree as to the rate, upon application made I will refer it. Thelibelants who own the tugs, on the day following the rescue, stated the price they wanted. It was large; but the respondent gave no answer until the Saturday ffillowing, when he refused, and offered a very much smaller sum. His schooner was then ready for sea. Libelants had no course open but this suit. Respondents must pay the costs. Let an order be, entered accordingly.
IN RE BEINE.
In re BEINE. In r8 JOCKHECK.
In re In re CoPp. In re YOUNT. . m re RAHRER. In re BELL.
(Circuit Court, D.
SCHNIDT. In re DEISHER. In re In re SIeHER. In re TUCHMAN.·
June 14, 1890.)
!lftoxrOATING LIQUORS-ILLEGAL SALE-QRIGINAL PAOKAGES-HABEAS CORPUS.
The laws of Kansas prohibiting the sale of intoxicating liquors within the state being void, as in contravention of the interstate commerce clause of the federal constitution, in so far as they apply to sales by an agent of an importer outside of the state Of liquor in the original packages in which it was brought into the state, without regard to the size of such pa<lkages, an agent imprisoned for such sales is deprived of his liberty in violation of. the constitution of the United States, and will be discharged by the circuit court on habeas CorPU8.
Habeas COrpU8. Wheat, Chesney Curtis, David Ovcrmeyer, Hazen & lzenhart, Eugene Hagan, J. M. Sheafor, Wm. Warner, and H. M. Cau, for petitioners. A. H. Vance, R. B. Welch, andT. F. Garver, for respondents.
CALDWELL, J.. Eleven persons have separately petitioned this court for writs of habeas corpus to relieve them from alleged imprisonment in violation of the constitution of the United States. The cases were heard together; and, while there is some difference in the minor details, the material and. controlling facts are the same in all the cases. Prosecutions were instituted against the petitioners charging them with selling liquor in violation of the laws of this state. They were arrested, and, . failing to give bail, were committed, and thereupon filed their petitions in· this court alleging that they were imprisoned,in violation tion of the United States, in virtue of criminal prosecution commenced against them severally in the state courts of Kansas for selling liquor in that s4l.te in alleged violation of its constitution and laws; that .the liquor for the selling of which they were prosecuted and imprisoned was shipped by its owners, who were citizens and residents of the state of Missouri, from that state into this state, and sold by the petitioners, as ' agents of such shippers and importers, in the original packages in which, it was shipped by its owners into this state; that they sold liquor in no other manner; and that, so far forth as the constitution and laws of this state make such sales of liquor a crime, they are in conflict with the mercial clause of the constitution of the United States, and void. The uncontradicted evidence supports the allegations of the petitions, namely, that certain persons and firms residing and doing business in the state of Missouri owned and shipped from that state into this state distilled liquors and beer, and that the petitioners, as agents for said shippers and importers, sold said liquor in this state in the original packages in which it was into the state by its owners, and sold liquor in no other manner. With an exception not material to be considered in this case, the 8ti tution and laws of this state make it a crime for any person to u()r in this .state. The constitution. and laweof the state make no disv.4.2F.no.11-35