TJ;f.E ADA
JCENNEDY.
623
TlIE ADA: A.
KENNEDY.
THE JESSE MURDOCK.
(District (Jourt, D. Mas8achu8ettB. January 111', 1888.)
1.
COLLJSJ.ON-ApPROACHING VESSELS-PORT TACK-STARBOARD TAC,X.
Where two vessels are approaching each other, the one close-hauled on the port tack, and the other close-hauled on the starboard tack, it is the duty of the former to keep clear away, aDd .a failure so to do renders her lia'. ble should a collision result. A vessel hove to, and making both headway and leeway, is a vessel elOB'hauled, within the meaninKof the rul.es of navigation.
'In Admiralty. for damages. . ,. ,Crollls-1ibllls for a collision between the three-ma.sted schooners AdaA-. esse Mu,rdoc.k.' : " ,. . podge, for The AdlJ.1\.:. Kennedy. . (J. T. RUiliiell, Jr. '> fQr The J Murdock.
.e. ·.
collisipillhappe[}ed off Cape Cod , between lightalldthEl Pollock just before daybreak on the ,ing November, 1885. The weather at the time was clear, the.w41clwesterly blowing.an eight-knot breeze, and the sea snlooth. The,Kenne4y, was heavily Ipaded with ice; the Murdock was in ballast. Both were the and for some hours before the oollisien,·had been beating back and forth off the cape, waiting .light to ,pass overNllntucket shoals.. As, they neared each other, the KennedY-was close-hauleq. (j)n the port taqk heading N. by W., and ;going at the:rate·ofsix <>rseven knots. ',['he Murdock was partly Doye, to on the, starboard tack; tbat,isi'she was under spanker, foresail, .and :ma.insail close-hauh!d 9n the starboard tack, and a full jib over to windward, andherirwheel was bard down, butnot lashed. 'She wa$',headhlg from S. W. W. by S., keeping a steady course,and making froIU one to two knots, part!;)f to leeward, The Murdockfirst ,made the, Kennedy and her green light from three to fou r points' on the port or 'lee· bow, a mile or more distant. Later, the Kennedy saw the Murdock half or three-fourths of a mile away, opening her red light from thr:eeanda half tofouq)oints on the starboard or lee bow. lIer course then .lilY aCI:Ossthe b0Wsof t.i;le Murdock. · The Murdock kept courEle untiljustbefpre the collision, wben her wheel was,put hard up,and being light she fell off two or three points. The Kennedy, the Murdock to be sailing close-hauled on the starboard tack and to have the right of way, first ported to pass to leeward, and then as the red light still continued to show on the lee bow put her wheel hard a-port and cast off the spanker sheet. The effect of all this was that she fell off three points only, and this was not enough to go clear. The vessels came together nearly end on, the starboard bow of the Kennedy
'" ,liKUlON" J.
624 striking the starboard bow of the Murdock. Both sustained severe injury in their forward rigging and spars and abou t the bows. The international regulations of 1885, (articles 14, 22,) which were in force at the time of this collision, provide that when two sailing ships are approaching one another so as to involve risk of collision, a ship which is close-hauled on the port tack shall keep out oftbe way of a ship which is close-hauled on the starboard tack, and the latter shall keep her ·cou,rse. One question in the case is whether the Murdqck was closehauled on the starboard tack within the rule. The Kennedy insists she was 'not, because, though her spanker, foresail, and mainsail were closehauled on that tack, yet her jib was to windward and she was making leeway as ,well as headway. But the point seems to be completely settled by authority in this district. It was held by Judge LOWELL in The Ontario, 2 Low. Dec. 40, that a ship hove to, and making both headway and lre",ay,!as a ship close-haul!=,d,within the rules .ofnavigation, and this walhtgreed to by Judge SHEPLEY on appeal. Swift v. Br'owneU, Holmes, 467. The situation therefore the case withiilthe rule above referred to. The Murdock had tlie tights -a:'nd obligations of it vessel clOse-' hauled on the starboard tack. She had the right of way, and her duty ,The duty of the Kennedy, being close-hauled oh''the' port taek, was to keep out of the way of the Murdock. As she -fulle(l'to:do this and has shown no excuse fbr her failure, shamust he held solclyresponsible for the collision. No blame can be attributed to the'Murdock for stiuboarding. It was done when the collision Was im·minent' and inevitable, ahd wak justifiable. !twas in point of fact the very thing she ooght to have doue. It saved her from receiving the blow , on the port side. Such a blow would without doubt have sunk her. Another point made by the Kennedy is that she was misled by the leeward drift of the Murdock. But the answer to this is that the latter was · sailing 'on a course which was indicated by her red light, and that was ·all that was required of her to give her the right of way. But it is quite from the evidence that this is not what caused the collision. It'arosefromth'emistake onhe master ofthe Kennedy in supposing the Murdock to be moving' faster than she in fact was. He says in his tes'timohy: ·"1 Judged the Murdock to be going about the same as we were, .' '7'-siX: Under this error he did not port sufficiently in the first in'stance; atldwhen he threw off the spankei.'sheet and put the wheel hard ;up 'it 1tjo lltte. '· . IiItr the ownerS of the Murdock against the Kennedy a decree is 'to be entered for the libelants; the libel of the owners of the Ken'nedyitgaihst the Murdock is to be diSmissed, with costa. Orderooaccordinglli .
GAYER'll. UNITIW STATES.
625
GAYER "'. UNITED STATES.
(Distriot Court, E. D. South Oarolina. January 12,1888.) 1. COURTS-FEDERAL JURISDICTION PENSATION. ELECTION SUPERVISOR-AcTION FOR COM
The district court has jurisdiction of an action against the United States for services and expenses of a chief supervisor of elections. upon a claim for less than $1,000 in value, which had been refused by the accounting officer of the treasury department.
2.
S; 'SAME.
A supervisor of electionS is not entitled to fees for preparing and pre, senting applications for supervisors for the approval of a judge. Buth,e, is entitled to fees for filing and indexing s,uch applications. under ReiV. St.· § 2081, allowing for filing and caring for every return, * * * document, or other paper. 10 cents, and for entering and indexing the records of hi's 'office 15 cents per folio. ' He is also entitled to compensation for indexing and filing letters and papers. '
,ELEOTIONS-CHIEF SUPERVISOR-COMPENSATION.
4.
SAME.
5.
He is also entitled to a per diem of five dollars for 26 days' service, notwith· standing the attorney general, with the sanction of the president, limited the number of days' service of supervisors to five, as he is not properly a supervisW:· , lIe ill .not entitled to fees for filing and indexing appointments of supervisofa, but is en-titled to fees for recording the same. lle is ent,itled to fees for,administering oaths to supervisors, and for certifi· cates, seals, etc., appertaining thereto. He is entitled to fees for preparing and forwarding instructions to super· visors: He is 'entitled to the value of blanks furnished by him and used in his office, but not to the value of ordinary stationery so used. " , , ' "" ' , ,"
6.
'1.
a.SAME.
9.
10.
lIe is not entitled to an amount paid for assistance on account of his poor health.
Action by a chief supervisOl for fees and expenses incurred in performing the duties of that office. J. P. K; Bryan, for L. p'. YoUmans, Dist. Atty., and H. A. De SaU88Ure, Asst. Dist. Atty., for the 'United States. SmONToN, J. This is a suit against the United States brought in this court'up6na claim for services rendered pursuant to the provisions oract of congress, a.pproved third March, 1887. PLEADINGS.
The 'complaint alleges that plaintiff was chief supervisor ofelections for the state of South Carolina, and acted as such between first July, 1886,abdfirst December' ofthesame year; that he perfol'med services in his said office for the government, and duly presented to the accountv.33F.no.11-40
