THE O. C. DE WIT'll. BATES v. THE O. C. Dl!l WIT'll.
(DIstrict OOurt, E. D. New York.
;rlUluary 11, 1894:.)
EXAGGERATED CLAIM:,.... COSTS '
PROPERTY FOROIBLY TAKEN FROM
Where one-half of the value of a boat and cargo worth $1,700 was claimed as salvage, but on the trial the claim was shown to have been greatly eXl.1-ggerated, only $50 salvage being awarded, claimants would have been allowed costs but for the fact that shortly after the service . , theY' forcibly took the property from the salvors; and no costs were given to either party.
'lnAdmiralty. Libel for salvage. to ,either pa.rty. '
DecreE! for libelant, without
, Hyland & Zabriskie. for libelant. T. C.Campbell, for Tlie O. C. De Witt. Carpenter & Mosher, (.Mr. Symmers,) for the District Judge. This ifl action to recover salvage for rendered by the steam canal boat Columllia in t}:J.e Canal boat O. C. De Witt back to the slip from W4ichshe had drifted on the evening of the 9th of September, 1893. The service rendered is a salvage service, because it was voluntary" and rendered to a vessel that was adrift, without any person Q:q board, and therefore in some peril. The peril, however, was very slight, as other tugs were present who might have rendered the same service; and, upon the evidence, the probability is that the boat, if left to itself. would have brought up on adjacent mud flats, where she could have remained without injury. The service rendered, although of some value, was very slight, occupying but a sh.ort time, and involving no risk and very little labor. The deof the service given in the-libel is greatly exaggerated. It is there stated that the boat was derelict, when the fact was that the boat got adrift in the slip during the temporary absence of her master, and because third parties moved her during such absence. It 'is also stated that the Columbia, at great risk to her own safety, after the canal boat, when in fact there was no risk whate"ter. The weight of the evidence is that the service occupied but a very short time. anq not two or two and a half hours, as stated in the libel. The libel also untruly alleges a demand and refusal. The value of the canal boat is $1,000, and the value of the cargo of coal is $700. The libelant claims half of the value of the canal boat and coal, In my opinion, for such a service, in such a case, $50 would be an 'ample salvage award. In view of the exaggerated claim made, I should feel it my duty to award costs to the claimants in this case, were it not for the fact that shortly after the rendition of the service, and while the boat was in the possession of salvors. she was forcibly taken away from their possession by the master of the canal boat, and others acting
with him. By reason of ant in costs, but I award $50 to either party.
lllQ not mulct the libelcompensation, costs
MILLER et al. v. O'BRIEN.
(District Court, S. D. New York.
February 5, 1894.)
In Admiralty. Libel by Brice Alan :Miller and others against Edward E. O'Brien for contribution of payment on bottomry bond. Decree for libelants. Butler, Stillman & Hubbard and Mr. Mynderse, for libelants. Sidney Chubb, for respondent. BROWN, District Judge. The above libel was filed against the respondant in personam as owner of the American ship Andrew Johnson, to recover £1,617.4.3, the defendant's alleged pro rata share of certain moneys which the libelants were compelled to pay at Hamburg, Germany, in order to redeem their cargo from a bottomry bond executed by the master at Callao, Peru, on September 15, 1884. ;Most of the facts are stated in the decision upon the argument of exceptions to the libel. 35 Fed. 779. It was there held that the bond remained a valid bottomry lien upon the 1,200 tons of nitrates which had been transshipped from the Andrew Johnson to the Mary J". Leslie, and which reached safely the port of Hamburg, although the Andrew Johnson, to whose cargo -all the nitrates had formerly belonged, was lost at sea by collision. The exceptions to the libel