, FEDERAL" REPORTER,
volo 59. ' ,
THE'SACHEM. ' mLL v. ,THE SACHEM.
(DIstrict Court, S. D. New York.
February 15, 1894.)
SEAJilEN'sWAGlllS.-DIBoHARGm ABROAD-IRREGULAR HE,A.RING BEFORE CONSUL.
question Qf, tile competency of a seaman, there has been before a oonsul,an4 a proper record Preserved of his decision a and judgment, It, Is ordinarily ,entitled to full credence; but, where there has no hearing, no judgment, and no record, a forced discharge abroad Is lllegl/.l, and it Is no defense that it was abetted by irregular action of the consular office.
In Admiralty. Libel for seamen's wages. Decree for libelant. R. J. Mose", for libelant. Wing, Shondy & Putnam and Mr. Burlingham, for respondents. BROWN, District Judge. The evidence of incompetency of the libelant as COOk, is not, to my mind, satisfactory. It is certain that after thearrl;val of the ship at Hong Kong, the captain was determined to of the libelant as cook; and it is equally certain that the consul, before whom both went, endeavored to favor the captain's wishes, while heat the same time refused to afford the libelant, to prove his ca:pacity. or. fitness for th.e place. The cl1ptam' made no charges agamst hIm m the log until after the seaman had been sent ashore. The alternative was forced upon hjm, either to go back on board the ship and be disrated, or else'to be discharged at Hong Kong; and that, without any hearing on the merits. This was an injustice to the libelant, and apparently an abuse by the consul of his position and influence. has on the merits, on the demand (If Where a the master, 6'r!fhe seaman, ,and a proper record preserved of the consul's decision and judgment, discharging the seaman, it if! ordinarily entitled to full credence, notwithstanding the contradictions made! by the seaman afterwards, such as I have not unfrequently had in preVious cases. In' the present case, there was no , hearing, nojlidgment, and no record, so far as the testimony shows. The libelant' was paid $200, his wages up to the xp.oment of discharge, which he received under protest. Such a forGed discharge, With no hearing on the merits, at a distant place, and with no Day beyond the' day of discharge, is inhumane and opposed to the policy and the statutelil ,of this country, (Rev. St. § 4580;) and it is no de,fense that it was abetted, so far as appears, by the irregular action of theconsuIar office. The libelant was unable to obtain employlI1ent to return from Hong Kong, and took passage for San Franciso at an e:x;pense ,of $196, and thence to New York, at an expense of $91.50. , To, this I add one month's wages, $40, all of which, with interest, llmounts to '347.15, for which a decree may be entered, . with costs.
THE CHAUNCEY M. DEPEW.
THE CHAUNCEY M. DEPEW. THE GEORGE W. PRATT. THE LILA M. HARDY. THE ALFRED. CHAPMAN DERRICK & WRECKING CO. v. THREE TUGS. CORNELL STEAMBOAT CO. v. THE ALFRED.' (DistrIct Court, S. D. New York. January 23, 1894.)
It Is obllgatory on their owners to raise, when practicable, vessels sunk in collision. Hence, a derrick anchored in the channel of the East river under a permit from the secretary of the treasury, occupied in raising a sunken vessel, and, though a partial obstruction to navigation, not such a complete obstruction as to constitute a nuisance, was heU not unlawfully anchored, though olr the regular anchorage grounds, and not in fault for damage suffered by a vessel whIch collided with her. 2. SAME-DREDGE ANCHORED m NARROW CHANNEL W AY- LIABILITY OF COL·
COLLISION-VESSELS AT ANCHOR-CROWDED CHANNEL-DREDGE LAWFULLY MOORED. _
A derrick anchored in the crowded channel way of the East river, engaged in raising a sunken vessel, although not unlawfully in such position, was held not entitled to all the immunities of vessels anchored on anchorage In'ounds; and certain tugs, which collided with her In spite of skill and "(liligence exercIsed by their pIlots, were held not responsible for the damage to the derrIck.
SAME-ANCHORAGE GROUNDS - AOT AUTHORIZING SECRETARY OF TREASURY TO ESTABLISH-ApPLICATION TO VESSELS ENGAGED IN RAISING WRECKS.
Whether the anchoring of a derrick for the purpose of raising a wreck falls- withIn the purview of the act of May 16, 1888, or the authority of the secretary of tqe treasury thereunder "to define and establish an anchorage ground," etc., quaere.
In Admiralty. Libels and cross libels for collision. Dismissed. Wing, Shoudy & Putnam and Mr. Burlingham, for Chapman, etc., Co. and the Alfred. Carpenter & Mosher, for the Chauncey M. Depew. Benedict & Benedict, for the George W. Pratt and the Lila M. Hardy. BROWN, District Judge. The first three libels above named were filed by the owners of the derrick Alfred to recover damages sustained by the derrick from three separate collisions with the steam tugs above named, all happening in the _ course of about two hours, between half past 7 and half past 9 A. M., on May 17, 1893, while the derrick was at anchor a little way above the Brooklyn bridge, and off pier 40, in the East river, over the sunken wreck Emma, which it was there engaged in raising. The width of the East river in that locality is about 1,350 feet from pier to pier. It is the narrowest part of the river. At times the concourse of vessels there is large, and in passing in opposite directions, great care and skill are needed at such times to avoid collisions, even when there are no fixed obstructions. The derrick was anchored about 500 feet off from the New York pier, and was
Reported by E. G. Benedict, Esq., ot the New York bar.