by a cleat at the :bottom, which, ,.by:the negligent act of the ma:ster; had' been removed. fu descending the ladder, it slipped, and libel·'
thrown upl1ln the wharf, and injured. The learned ,judge used.the following language: '
in my opinion that a court of admiralty haS no jui'isdiction of thi$ CRse.i:iIthas never been doubted"since the case of The Plymouth, 3 us to take of'a maritime tort, the iJ;1jury must consummated, an(l damage received. upon the water. 'I'he that the wrongful act. was doneuIJQn the ship is Insufficient. Subsequentatljudicatlons have in no wise tehded to limit or qualify thig rule." ,
OnatlPeaJ to the circuit couI1 the case was affirmed by Mr. Justice Brewer;!'.' . '. The fac,t that in, the present case the 'libelant was a seaman, employed6Il,th,e Mary Garrett, clUl, it Seemsto me, make no difference in the ap:1;>!ication of the principle illvolved, because the test of the court as a court of admiralty is not whether the or was not a seaJ;lifln employed on a particular vessel the cause 9finjufY is alleged to have emanated, but and the only one, is as: to the locality of the damage or injury; . however, thl}t particular case the court has jUrisa:ictionover the tort,. for the ,reason that :the libelant is not for but, f?r of is.to connectIOn thaf tile action IS brought prImarIly be for suffered from the injury set out in the, amendthe claim. for is made not as ed growlD,gobt' of the eXIstmg between the but damages alleged to have resulted ,ftoulthe personal The libelant is tlierefore, in myopiIiion, in no better 'It follows that theexlleptions to the ''ttrisdiction of this court· shdrtld .be sustained, and the libel dismissed' .' ,
THE MEl)EA. THE IDLEWILD. WILLIAMS v. THE'MEDEA et al HANDRAN v.SAME.
,(t>ist1"lct Oourt, S. D. New ,York. October 22, 1894.)
SHIPPJNG-PJ;#/f AND TOWc-CQLLISION""':PIIP!:l.S AND SLIPS-OBSTRUCTION-USAGE.
,The tug,M., no()nof July, ;Lst, ijed up, a fleet of canal boats, of several.4ers of three. ql,'" f0l,lr boats in a tier, at the end of the Line pier,. in the el;lb tide, for the purposes of to their v.arl!>us destinat,ions, in accordance with the usage of many years; and no city .ordinance forbade this practice. That pier is about 108 feet longer than the piers below it. ,T4eil1lLY was lJ,lit"/s,nd tb,e westerl1 wind set the end of the tow still .fllIiher away ,tllepiers below." ,Tbes1;eamtug IdlewlluB,OQp afterwards, in' remoyillg ,another vessel frow the end of one of the, piers 'below the Red Starpier,collided with and damaged two boats in the end tOw. ' Held, that thus tying up at. We pier above under cil'cUInstanCe8 ,'" '
'tIrE HATTIE PALMER.
and for the purposes stated was not an unlawful obstruction of the slips below; and the Medea was acquitted of fault. and the Idlewild held for lack of sufficient care.
Libels were filed in this case by James N. Williams and Annie M. Handran, respectively, against the steamtugs Medea and Idlewild. The libelants were the owners of two canal boats, which had been -damaged by collision. Hyland & Zabriskie, for libelants. Robinson, Biddle & Ward and Mr. Hough, for the Medea. Wing, Shoudy & Putnam and Mr. Burlingham, for the Idlewild. BROWN, District Judge. Considering the usage of many years, and that no existing regulation is shown to have been violated, I think the Medea was not in fault for tying the top of the tow at the Red Star Line pier, for the distribution of the various boats as usual; and that the difference in length between the Red Star pier and the piers below, viz., about 108 feet, left, in mild and with a west wind, a reasonable provision for the exit of b0ltts between the tow and the slips below. The passage by the Medea without difficulty, though more heavily incumbered than the wild, while the Idlewild and C<>xsackie were still at the end of the wharf, seems to me a very conclusive corroboration of the above; and shows that the collision, though slight, is due only to the lack of necessary care by the Idlewild, or perhaps the lack of necessary xperience on the part of the young man who alone in the w was managing the wheel and the signals. I must, therefore, hold the Idlewild, and exempt the Medea. The damages are so small that they ought to be agreed upon, with,out the expense of two references.
THE HATTIE PALMER. HAWKINS v. THE HATTIE PALMER. (District Court, S. D. New York. October 22, 1894.)
:SUIPPING-NONDELIVERY OF FREIGHT-CONVERSION,
The steamer H. P., making daily trips between New York and New Rochelle, took some barrels of freight for delivery at City Island.. On touching there, no person being in readiness to receive the barrels as usual, or to pay freight. the steamer retained the goods on board, and sent word to the consignee, whose place of business was about 200 yards from the landing, to come for them the next day, which notice was received by the consignee. The next day, no one appearing, the goods were still retained on board, and on the follOWing day the steamer was arrested on this libel for conversion. The Wharf was not a safe place to leave the goods unattended, and the vessel was always ready to deliver the goods on payment of freight. Held, no conversion, and the libel dismissed, with costs.
This was a libel for the alleged conversion of goods which had been shipped upon the steamer Hattie Palmer.