9 F. Cas. 690 | E.D.N.Y | 1873
I have examined the mass of testimony with which this case has been loaded, and from out of its contradictions and bold statements think that the following conclusions of fact can be properly drawn. And first I conceive that the evidence fails to prove that the sinking of the libellant’s boat was caused by his own carelessness, in leaving his cabin windows open, so that the waves coming in through the windows caused her to sink. I have not overlooked the positive evidence of claimant’s witness Marsh upon this point; but neither the matter nor the manner of his testimony are, to my mind, convincing. On the contrary, I conclude that the immediate cause of the boat’s sinking was injuries sustained by her from pounding against the other boats in the tow, when the tow was thrown out of shape, and all placed in peril in the trough of the sea, by reason of the breaking of the port hawser. The sea was heavy and the motion of the boats in the trough of the sea abundant to account for the sinking of the two boats which were lost, of which the libel-lant’s boat was one. I cannot doubt, upon the evidence, that, if the hawser had not parted, all the boats would have reached New Haven in safety, and that the parting of the hawser was the cause of the disaster. This
It has been strongly argued that the tow remained in shape and intact, until after the King had cast off the tow and the Gamecock had taken hold, and that the subsequent sinking of the Crosby cannot, therefore, be charged upon the Francis King. In point of fact, when the Crosby sank, she was in tow of the Francis King, for the King again took hold of her after she had broken away from the tow. But the truth of the case is that injury sustained by the boat, while the boats were disarranged and pounding in the trough of the sea, was the cause of her sinking, and that arose from the breaking of the Francis King's hawser. After an examination of all the evidence, and in spite of the inaccuracy of some of the libellant’s statements of fact, and of the extraordinary circumstances under which the evidence of the witness Pierce was given in his favor, I am forced to the conclusion that it was not through any fault of the libellant, nor by reason of any unforeseen and inevitable peril of the seas, that his boat was sunk, but because the tug-boat .undertook to conduct the tow with a hawser insufficient for the purpose to which it was applied.
The decree must, therefore, be for the li-bellant, with a reference to compute the amount of his loss.