Page images
PDF
EPUB

The Steamboat America and The Steamboat New Haven.

a

a

port boat, on the port side of the America, struck the port side of the Contest about amidships, tearing off her chine plank, and cutting through her timbers, and causing her to leak badly, and injuring her cargo. The libel charged negligence on the part of both the America and the New Haven,

The answer of the America set up, that when the lights of the New Haven were seen from the America, at the distance of from a mile to a mile and a half, the America, with her tows, hauled close in to the westward, and near to a stone dike which forms the western bank of the river for a considerable distance; that the New Haven, still coming on pretty well in to the westward, the America was slowed ; that the New Haven then sheered out to the eastward, far enough to herself clear the most easterly boat on the port side of the America, and, in so doing, disclosed to the view of the America the boats towed astern of the New Haven; that the engine of the America was then stopped, and was shortly after backed, as soon as there appeared to be danger of a collision, and was backing, when a boat or boats astern of the New Haven, on the port side, were dragged across the bow of the extreme boat on the port side of the America, by the New Haven, which, after sheering out to the eastward, straightened up the river so close to the extreme boat on the port side of the America, as herself to pass within ten to fifteen feet, or nearer, off the port side of said boat; that, at the time of the collision, the extreme boat on the starboard side of the America was within about twenty feet of the dike on the west side of the river, and as far to the westward as it was safe for her to be, and the America had backed so that the boats towed astern of her were close upon her; that there was abundant time and room for the New Haven, with her tow, to have passed to the eastward of the America and her tow, and she ought to have passed so far to the eastward with her tow as to avoid all danger of a collision ;

The Steamboat America and The Steamboat New Haven.

that she did not do this, nor did she slow or stop before the collision; that the tide was flood, but not running strong; and that the collision was not the fault of the America.

The answer of the New Haven contained no statement of the particulars of the collision, or of the grounds assumed by the New Haven in defence. It consisted of a denial of all the material allegations of the libel, and of an averment that the New Haven was carefully navigated, and that the collision took place in consequence of the individual fault, or combined fault, of the Contest and the America, and was the fault of the agents and servants of the libellants, and not of the claimant.

Spencer, Hoes & Metcalf, for the libellants.

C. Van Santvoord, for the America.

Beebe, Dean & Donohue, for the New Haven.

BLATCHFORD, J. There is no evidence showing any fault on the part of the Contest. The testimony is, however, satisfactory to show that the New Haven was in fault. She was violating the statute law of New York (1 R. S., part 1, chap. 20, tit. 10, sec. 1), which required her to keep to the right or easterly side of the channel. Her pilot, Kane, who was at the wheel at the time of the collision, states that he was going along the dike till he got above the dam, and that he then sheered to the eastward, on seeing the America approach, till he got clear of the America's tow, and then straightened up the river. But either he did not soon enough sheer to the eastward, or else he straightened up too soon, after sheering. That the New Haven dragged the Contest into contact with, and across the bow of the boat lashed to the America, is shown by the fact, that the boats in front of the Contest, as well as she herself, and the boat

In the Matter of Ely Hoppock, a Bankrupt.

behind her, struck against the boat lashed to the America, although none of them were injured to the extent that the Contest was. The theory on the part of the New Haven, that the America took a sheer to the eastward when the two steamboats were abreast of each other, is not supported by the evidence. The America came down as near to the dike as it was safe for her to go, and, if any thing, she sheered to the westward rather than the eastward, when she saw the near approach of the New Haven. She had a right to suppose that the New Haven would keep to the right of the channel, and would sheer out to the eastward in season, the lights of the America being plainly visible. Her speed was moderate, and she was slowed and stopped and backed promptly, and her forward motion was stopped at the time of the collision, whereas the New Haven and her tows were under headway at that time. No fault is shown on the part of the America.

The libel must be dismissed as to the America, with costs, and the New Haven must be condemned in damages and costs, with a reference to a commissioner, to ascertain the damages caused to the libellants by the collision.

JUNE, 1868.

IN THE MATTER OF ELY HOPPOCK, A

BANKRUPT.

INVOLUNTARY BANKRUPTCY.—TRIAL.-ORDER OF PROOF.—LEGAL

PROCESS.

Where a petition in involuntary bankruptcy alleged that the bankrupt had con

cealed himself, to avoid the service of legal process, &c., as provided in the

39th section of the bankruptcy Act, and the debtor demanded a trial by jury: Held, That, on such trial, notwithstanding the provisions of the 41st section of the

bankruptcy Act, the creditor was called upon to prove the facts alleged in his petition.

[ocr errors]

Fifty-one Bales of Goats' Hair.

That an order for the examination of the debtor in proceedings supplemental to

execution, under $ 292 of the New York Code, was "legal process,” within the meaning of the thirty-ninth section of the bankruptcy Act.

THIS was a petition in involuntary bankruptcy, presented by Richard S. Brock against Ely Hoppock. The ground of bankruptcy alleged, was that the debtor had concealed himself to avoid the service of legal process in an action for the recovery of a debt or demand, provable under the Act, as provided in the thirty-ninth section of the bankruptcy Act.

The debtor appeared by counsel, and demanded a trial by jury. On such trial the question of the order of proof arose, under the forty-first section of the Act, which provides that “if, upon such hearing or trial, the debtor proves to the satisfaction of the court or of the jury, as the case may be, that the facts set forth in the petition are not true,” the proceedings shall be dismissed.

The court held that the petitioner was called upon to prove the facts alleged in his petition.

In the course of the evidence it appeared, that, judgment having been rendered against the debtor and an execution returned unsatisfied, orders in proceedings supplementary to execution, under $ 292 of the Code of New York, had been issued and attempted to be served.

The court held that such orders were “legal process,' within the thirty-ninth section of the bankruptcy Act.

JUNE, 1868.

FIFTY-ONE BALES OF GOATS' HAIR.

REVENUE ACT OF 1861.–Goats' Hair.

Under the twenty-third section of the tariff Act of March 2d, 1861 (12 U. S. Stat.

at Large, 193, 195), goats' hair, uncleaned and unmanufactured, is exempt from APPLICATION TO Sell COLLATERALS. - PREVIOUS PROOF OF DEBT

In the Matter of Edward Bigelow, and others, Bankrupts.

duty, notwithstanding the provisions of the fourth section of the Act of June 30th, 1864 (13 Id. 206).

This was an application, on the part of the collector of the port of New York, for an order directing the payment, out of the proceeds of the property above-named, which had been sold as perishable, of duties on the goods. The suit was brought to forfeit the goods to the United States, by reason of fraud in the entry, and the duties were claimed under the fourth section of the tariff Act of June 30th, 1864 (13 U. S. Stat. at Large, 206).

BLATCHFORD, J. The prayer of the petition is denied. I think that the twenty-third section of the Act of March 2d, 1861, (12 U. S. Stat. at Large, 193, 195) exempting from duty hair of all kinds, uncleaned and unmanufactured, applies to the goats' hair in question, which is uncleaned and unmanufactured, and that such section is in force, notwithstanding any thing in the Act of June 30th, 1864. The fourth section of that Act is merely a substitute for the twelfth section of the Act of March 2d, 1861, and is not repugnant to any thing in the provision, in regard to hair, in the twenty-third section of the Act of 1861. The hair in question was exempt from duty.

JUNE, 1868.

IN THE MATTER OF EDWARD BIGELOW, DAVID

BIGELOW, AND NATHAN KELLOGG, BANKRUPTS.

NECESSARY.

Where, in bankruptcy proceedings, a creditor, claiming to hold collaterals as se.

curity for an indebtedness of the bankrupts, applied for an order to sell the

« PreviousContinue »