lOB "
;
i
'..'
McCORMAck
v;
t9:E 'WENSJ.EYDALE.
(DtstrIct Oourl,EdJ.!NeID,' 'YO'I'ki March 10,1890.) TO FURNISH PHYBIOJA.N. , ' ',Th,e failure Of" afreigh,ting "ess"el 'to',v'rom,,d, e,' a, PhYSiCian, or nurse fa, r a, sick sailor is no neglect qf <twed to the seaman by the ship-owner. ,(turing a
to seaman by negligenceofShip:
In.
::,,'r'
'ihjuries alleged to have been caused
'
GO{)dric/l., ,J)eady& s't#lrnan, &:
BENEDIC1r,J:rrhelibelant' waSf.\ on board the ship Wensleydale, during a vciyage fr,omEQstOnto'<:;oloo, Central America; thence to Progresso; tlierice to New.Yot.lt,,"While?n the voyage Progresso, Chagres feVer ou;t 011 'vessel, and the libelant became sick. On arrival in NewY'ork, he 'to Swirib'um Island Hospital. His libel master and ',officers of the charges that 'owing to vessel, and want of and conveniences, his sickness and sufferings were, greMltiiggravated, and by r,eason thereof l1eces,sary while in to nirie of. his toes, to hIS damage of$5,OOQ.TM p,pofshows that durmg the voyage from leaving the mate the sole navi.. Progresso to New -York gator of her, and he ina That 14 ofthecrew were taken sick, and 8 were sick in New York. The evidenc& also shows the vessel to have, with medicines and with food, but that, the, libelant's sickness: wlis .so·se'vere as to make him unwilling to take food, a,lldt4at York he ,was solow that it was doubtful",bether he would:;!l\1rvive the removal from the ship to the hospital. flnfeebled of the libelant at the time of his IU'rival in NewYork appears a great,measure oWing to want of nourishment wbilesickpnboa:rd¥be ship. This'want of nourishment, however, waS not &tusedbY,a failllrejoprovidetpe vessel with proper food, but fr0In the unwillingness "Q(,the'libelant to 'take food, and thethltt food tempt his appetite was prepared, rioi'did any oneehdeavor toc0tripet-'him "to take These filets have fotce\:l tbelibelaIl:t to right to reoover upon the proposip-on that tbefailtire ofthe,'ship aphysiciap or a nurse, COJDto the appetite of the sick apdable to compel huD. to, take was neglect of th,e duty: oWing by the lihip-owner '()f his ship., ," '· This proposition cannot benp'h'eld':" Whatever may be the drity when the ship is a passenger ship, it has never been, to my knowledge, held that seamen on freighting ships are entitled to be furnished with thelReporU'd by EdwardG. Benedict, Esq., of the New York bar.
services of a physician or nurse during the voyage. ,On8uoh vessels, from time immemorial, it is the master of the ship who is expected to act as physician and nurse, according to his ability, in case of sickness ,or accident; and his care and attention are all tha,Uhe crew have aright to,<lernf\od, under the contract of hiring. Thia is an action upon contract, and,1\'hile there was lack of attention to the condition of the libel.. ant whil!l sick on board, the ship, the low condition reached by the libelant cannot he held to have arisen from a breach of the mariner's contract. ,It was attributable to :the misfortune which :befell the ship and its crew ,when the master died, and the mate and crew became enfeebled by the fever that broke out on board. The libel coiltains another cause of action, namely, that certain personitleffects which Wl;'re left on board the vessel when the libelant was taken on shore sick. in New York, have not been returned. The evidence shows that the libelant.1eft on board the ship,when he was taken to the clothes and some other personal effeats. Some of his clothes wereb-u,rried, because infected, some have been retul.'ned, but others have not been returned or accounted for. The answers to the interrogatories proponpded to the libela.nt by the claimant show the value of the articles notaceounted for to be $187.84. For this sum he may have a decree, unless the claimant elect to have a reference to ascertain the value of the artic1,eEl not accounted for, in which case a referenOElwill be directed to ascertain the value.
THE BALTIc. 1 ,THB
W.
H.BEA.MAN.
AI,»RICH
v.
THE BA.LTIC AND THE
W. H. ' ,
BEAMAN.
,(Dl.Btrf.ct
Oourt, S. D. New York. January 24, 1890.)
OoLLnnON-Fl!IRRy-BoAT AND Tow-MUTUAL FAULT.
The tug W. H. Beaman, with libelant's canal-boat in tow. came around the Battery from the North to the East river, about 300 feet from the line of the piers. At thesa,me !time the ferry-boat Baltic W8.'l crossing the East river from the foot of Hamilton, avenue, Brooklyn, to, her slip near pier ,2, East river. The vessels were visible to each other from the time the Baltic left her slip. When about 1,000 feet distant, tbeBaltic,leaving the Beaman ahead oronher starboard bow, blew one whistle. Getting no answer, she blew again, and ported tp roundInto her slip. Tben,lI6!ling the Beaman starboard, theSaltic was stopped and backed. The Beaman's Witnesses testified that they firllt saw the Baltic when she was about olf the end of Governor's island, and expected that she would go astern of them. The, Baltic ({olUded with libelant's canal-boat, and sank her. He14, tl1.at the Beaman was in fault (1) for inattentiOll to the signals of the Baltio; (2)ID, navigating too near the shore in violation of the statute of the state; (8) in not, .keepillg out of the way of the Baltio, which was' on her starboard hand. Tbat the Baltic was alRo ill fault for not giving..sufficient attention to the Beaman. and for' failing to stop and back when risk ol'c;ml1isIQn. was the attempt to oross ber bows,
In
Actioll for damage by collision.
'ReporteilbjEd""ard G. Benedi6t, Esq., of the New York ,bar.