Higgins v. The Gypsum Prince

57 F. 859, 1893 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 131
CourtDistrict Court, S.D. New York
DecidedJuly 15, 1893
StatusPublished

This text of 57 F. 859 (Higgins v. The Gypsum Prince) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, S.D. New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Higgins v. The Gypsum Prince, 57 F. 859, 1893 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 131 (S.D.N.Y. 1893).

Opinion

BROWN, District Judge.

The above libel was died to recover the damages arising from the loss of the libelants’ three-masted-schooner George S. Tarbell, through collision with the foux*-masted schooner Gypsum Prince, between 10 and half past 10 on the evening of November 12, 1892, about five miles westerly of Vineyard Haven light. The wind was from N. W. to N. N. W. The Tarbell, deeply loaded with jilas ter, and drawing about 16 feed of water, was bound from Windsor, N. S., via Gloucester, to New York. She [860]*860had been sailing by the wind, close hauled, on her starboard tack; and from 8 to 10 P. M. she was heading from W. \ H. to W. The Gypsum Prince was bound from New York’ to Windsor.- She was light, having only about 15 tons of ballast, and was drawing only 8 feet of water. She was 163 feet long by 36 feet beam. The Tarbell was 150 feet long by 32-J feet beam. The Gypsum Prince was upon her port tack, with the wind aft of her betún, and was heading E. \ H. It was her duty to keep out of the way of the Tarbell. The night was clear, but overcast, and excellent for seeing lights. The weather was good.

According to the testimony of the witnesses on board each vessel, each first made the green light of the other; and each soon after-wards saw also the red light of the other for a brief period, after which the red light of each was shut in, leaving the green light clearly visible. The mate was in charge of the navigation of the Gypsum Prince. At first, seeing green light to green light, no change of course was thought by him to be needful; but when the red light was seen for a few moments, and then shut in, he star-boarded his wheel and hauled either half a point or a point more to the northward, thereby changing his course from E. H. to E. by H., or to E. by H. ■§■ H., supposing that to be sufficient to pass safely-to windward of the Tarbell. When a few lengths distant, the Tarbell again showed her red light, still on the starboard bow of the Gypsum Prince; whereupon the mate of the latter ordered his wheel hard a-starboard. Her master then hurried on deck from below, and seeing the Tarbell’s red light one or two lengths away on his starboard bow, ordered his helm hard a-port; but the stem of the Gypsum Prince struck the port side of the Tarbell near the fore rigging, at an angle of from four to seven points, and the Tarbell sank soon after.

The witnesses for the Tarbell say that they had the green light of the Gypsum Prince on their port bow, and hence showed her always their own red light; that she made no change of course until within two or three lengths of the Gypsum Prince, when, collision being unavoidable, she luffed in order to ease the blow, not changing her heading over one point. Each estimated the distance of the other, when first seen, to be from 1 to 1-| miles; and the time between that and the collision, to be from 10 to 15 minutes. The Gypsum Prince was sailing at the rate of about seven knots; the Tarbell, about five. A mile would, therefore, be traversed by them in 5 minutes; and a mile and a half, in minutes.

The contention of the claimants is that the maneuver of the Gypsum Prince was sufficient to avoid the Tarbell; and that that maneuver was thwarted solely by the fault of the Tarbell in porting her wheel, not when in extremis, but when at a considerable distance, whereby she' changed her course about four points to starboard, when the Gypsum Prince was already on her starboard hand, thus running up across the bows of the Gypsum [861]*861Prince, and rendering collision unavoidable. The Tarbell, on the other hand, insists that the Gypsum Prince was approaching her always on the TarbelFs port side, and that it was for that reason only that the Tarbell ported her helm to ease the blow.

Í have found extreme difficulty in this case; not so much in the endeavor to ascertain the truth whether it was probably the TarbelFs green light, or her red light, that was chiefly exhibited to the Gypsum Prince, as to find any satisfactory and certain explanation of how and why the collision occurred. For careful consideration of the testimony satisfies me that the master of the Tarbell is mistaken in supposing that the green light of the Gypsum Prince was a point or a point and a half on his port bow, as he constantly asserts. Patterson, who was walking on the deck forward, says that the green light when first reported was “ahead, or a little on the port how.” He also testifies that the lookout reported it “right ahead.” And the master in his first answer says that he reported it “ahead, or on his port bow.” The master also watched it from his position aft, standing within a foot of the port rail; and after considerable hesitation in his testimony, he finally states that he saw the green light of the Gypsum Prince from that position ranging between the fore rigging and the fore staysail, which was well hauled in; and that in order to see the green light ranging outside of ihe fore rigging, he would have been ob’igod to lean over the port rail. The distance from the port rail to the foremast was at least 15 feet, and the rigging sloped inward; and the master probably stood from 80 to 100 feet aft of the fore rigging; hence if the green light ranged inside the port rigging, and only one-third of the distance to the foremast, that would make the Gypsum Prince bear nearly a quarter of a point on tbe TarbelFs starboard bow, sufficient to shut in the TarbelFs red light, and at the distance of a mile, to locate the Gypsum Prince nearly 300 feet to the northward of the line of the TarbelFs heading. A very slight change of the TarbelFs heading to northward by yawing, or by unsteadiness in steering, would be sufficient to sbow her red light. This agrees precisely with what the lookout and mate of the Gypsum Prince testify that they saw; and this concurrence in the testimony is conclusive to my mind that the green light of the Gypsum Prince did not in fact bear on the TarbelFs port bow, but was on her starboard bow; and that it was the Tarhell’s green light that the lookout and mate of the Gypsum Prince mostly saw, as they testify. The master of the Tarbell did not go to the starboard side of his vessel to see how the light ranged from that side; and there is no evidence that any one on that vessel took the range from the starboard side.

The positive testimony of the lookout and mate of the Gypsum Prince, that it was the TarbelFs green light and not her red light that, they saw continuously, would he entitled, even under contradiction, to great weight; because the circumstances detailed by them show that they were observant and alert in watching the [862]*862TarbeE’s lights, and in noting' the changes; and that they acted upon. these observations. Having seen and noted both lights, it is not reasonably possible that the green light could have been mistaken for the red, or that they did make any such mistake. Their testimony as to what they saw and did is, therefore, either tree, or a pure fabrication. I must accept it as true, both because no reason to discredit those witnesses appears, and because the testimony of the master of the TarbeE in fact confirms them. He testifies in effect to his supposition only of the bearing. ' His fatal error was that he did not go to the starboard side of the Tar-beE to verify his supposition. Had he done so, I have no doubt he would have seen the Gypsum Prince plainly to starboard. The Pomona, 35 Fed. Rep. 921.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
57 F. 859, 1893 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 131, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/higgins-v-the-gypsum-prince-nysd-1893.