700
FEDERAL REPORTER,
vol. 48.
hu,med:execntion of orders under such circuf.Ilstances, anq the difficulty of: the 'work, :tend naturally to such accidents as this. The tug is answerable for the unnecessary and unjustifiable method adopted by her captain ,in; pandling the boats, and she must therefore be held liable as contribnting to the accident. PM Frank and Willie, 45 Fed. Rep. 494. ThEifeis strong evidence, however" that the libelant was not giving his undivided ,attention to the lines, but was in part looking at the parade of the numerous vessels in the bay at- that time in attendance upon the funemlof Ericsson. The libelant' emphatically denies this. But as he has' .no one to confirm his own testimony on this point, 'and the story of the opposing witnesses is so natural under such, circumstances, I do not feel. warranted in awarding the libelant full damages on .his own testimony :alone, when thus contradicted, upon the theory that he was wholly free from fault. The libelant is not, however, for that reason, wholly cut :off from relief in a court of admiralty. The accident was severe; he is a cripple for life; and, though the evidence does :not justify a full decree, yet, upon the principles approved in the case of The Maz Morris. 137 U. S. 1, 11 Sup. Ct. Rep. 29,24 Fed. Rep. 860, I allow him the sum of &700jforwhich a decree may be entered, with costs.
I"
THE ELSIE FAY. PIllLA.G 'II. THE ELSIE FAY. , '(Distr£ct Cowrt. S. D. New York-January 6, 1899.) n. \'
PlixsONAL OUS
iil which the accident happened not
for damages for personal injuries to,his kUI3e-pal)., and the mode satisfactorily explained, and amid numercontrlld1ctI6ns, 'MUl, that the claim was not e8tablisliedl)ya fair,preponderance of proof, dismissed without prejudice,
Th", lib!¥lij1t
:TO' SIIRVANT....NEGLJGENCE-INSUFFICIIINaY· OJ' pitQ01l'.,
'",In: LibelbyJohn A. Pihlag against the schooner Elsie injuries. Fny to recover for Ale:xander for Wing, $4ov,dy Putnam, for claimants. BROWN, J. "The libelant was a seaman on the schooner Elsie Fa.y. He testified that"on the morning of the 27th of January, 1890, before light, as he was placing the pump handle in the small boat which was lashed ondeok athwartships a little aft of the mainmast, the lashing of the boat broke"because ofits unfitness and rottenness; ,and that the libelant, in catching,holdofthe tnain boom to save himself from being hurt by the boat, had his knee thrown by the boat up and against the boom, so as to injure permanently the knee-pan, Bnd disable hirh from further duties as a: , 1'he testimony is full of contradictions of a distress-
THE KAATERSKILL.
701
ing character. My impressions of the libelant personally, from his appearance on the atand, were favorable to his integrity and honest testimony. But thecontl'll.dicticmsof the libelant as to various circumstances are so many; the libel has so little support from other witnesses; the manner in which the accident is said to have happened, I find to be so difficult to appreciate; and, the libelant being found in the boat, thereis such likelihood:tllat the injury to the knee-pan may have happened from his fall into the boat, if he did fall intQit, as he alleges,-that I find it impossible to hold that the libelant has:-made otlthis case by a fair preponderance of proof. The break of the boat is proved; but that break is not one likely to have been made in the way the libelant describes, .but agrees rather with the defendants' theory. On the other hand, there are circumstances which it would seem that the defendants might have explained l but which they have not explained, especially how the break in the planks of the small boat actually occurred; and, if it occun'ed through any seas: shipped, how any such seas sufficient to break tbe boat. ,;auld hM'eescaped notice at thetitne. Under all the circumstances of the case, I cannot.render any satisfactory judgment; and I must there{ore dismiss the libel, without costs, and without prejudice to the libelant·
THE KAATERSKILL· . HAMILTON
et al.
'lJ. THE KAATERSKILL.
(Dtstrict Court, S. D. NeW York. January 1; 1892,) S.u.vAG_FmE ON .DOCK-TOWAGE':"'MASTER'S SELF-SACRIFICE.
Aib'e·breaking ont abQut noon in a hay and straw store-house, within.5O the at Coxs\Lckie, in the North river, where the large passenger stearnel' Kaat.et'l!lrlli. was lylngiWitnout steam up, tbe ferry-boat Coxsackie, from' joining:S}ip"oumoVingout. fm her own safety,was back to tow the step.mer away, .anli ,thereupon, withip.' two or three mirlUtes, got along-side and towed the steamilr,to'a,plaoeof safety.' 'On contradictory testimony, neW, that the steamer at the the COxsackie took hold of her, wae not. out of the way of ger, and but for b,er help would probably have been greatlr damaged or W):UlUy destroyedj' and the steamer being worth from $100,000 to $140,000; and $8,000 1tew.;$;3,500, a reasonable salvage awardj and it appearing that, wh!m·the ferry-boat',s master went tQ the help of the. Kaaterskill, his own hotel, verynear the burn'ingwat'ehouse, was threatened by the fire, and was afterwards consumed, he/,d, that his t10nduct 'in gqing to the relief of the E:aaterskill, instead of· attending to liis own pJ;opel'ty, belonged to the, Class of heroic and self-sacril'iciD/1,' aetions,and deserved recognition as such;' aud $1,200 of the award was allowed tG him, tp,eferry-boat not having incurred il.ny damage or danger in the service.
In Admiralty. Libel by David M! Hamilton and others against the Kaaterskill to recover salvage. & Benedict, for Wing, Shandy & Putnam, Jor claimant. BRpWN" J. The above libel was filed in behalf of the ownel'S of the and all others.ipterested, to recover salvage for.res-