The Zodiac

30 F. Cas. 936, 9 Ben. 171
CourtDistrict Court, S.D. New York
DecidedJune 15, 1877
StatusPublished
Cited by2 cases

This text of 30 F. Cas. 936 (The Zodiac) 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
The Zodiac, 30 F. Cas. 936, 9 Ben. 171 (S.D.N.Y. 1877).

Opinion

BLATCHFORD, District Judge.

The li-bellants, as owners of the schooner William Wallace, bring this libel against the steamship Zodiac, to recover the damages sustain[937]*937•ed by tbem in consequence of the total loss of the schooner through a collision, which took place between her and the steamer, about midnight on the 6th of October, 1872, in the Atlantic Ocean, off Cape May. The schooner was bound from Boston to Philadelphia, in ballast. The steamship was bound from North Carolina to the city of New York. She struck the schooner about amidship, on the port side of the schooner.

The libel alleges that the schooner was heading about southwest by south; that the wind was about southeast; that she had all •sails set except the Jib topsail; that she had her green and red lights properly set, and they were burning brightly, and were seen in due time by those navigating the steamer; that she had a competent lookout properly stationed and faithfully attending to his duties, and kept her course; that the collision was caused solely by the carelessness and improper manner in which the steamer was equipped and navigated; that she was heading in the usual course for such a voyage, which was about northeast; that she had no lookout properly stationed, attending to his duty; and that she had only a bright light at the masthead, and did not carry at the time either a red or green light. The libel gives no intelligent account of how the collision could have happened, or came to happen. It alleges that the schooner headed southwest by south, and the steamer northeast; and yet, that the steamer struck a square blow on the port side of the schooner, and the schooner kept her course. This would require that the steamer should have changed her course nine points, and have come to be heading north-west by west, at the time of the collision.. The libel does not allege how the steamer came to perform so strange a manoeuvre in the presence of the visible lights of the schooner, which lights it alleges were seen in due time by those navigating the steamer.

The answer alleges, that, on the steamer, a red light ahead was reported and seen, the course of the steamer being north-east by north; that soon thereafter a red and green light appeared, and immediately the red light was shut out; that thereupon the order was given to heave the wheel to starboard, "which order was promptly executed, thus presenting the green light of the steamer to the green light of the schooner, which was for a considerable time plainly visible from the starboard of the steamer; that' the steamer was then on a course about north north-east, when, suddenly, the schooner changed her course, shutting in her green light and again opening her red light; that immediately the wheel of the steamer was hove to port and the signal given to stop and back her, but she struck . the port side of the schooner; that the steamer had a competent lookout who faithfully performed his duty, and her bright mast-head light and her green and red side lights were good, clear lights and burning brightly; that the red light of the schooner was seen at a considerable distance, and, after her first change of course, her green light was plainly in view for a considerable time, and the green light of the steamer was, during that time, plainly visible to those upon the schooner; and that the collision was wholly due to the change in the course of the schooner and to the unskilful navigation of those on board of her.

That the schooner had her green and red lights set and properly burning is clear. The only witnesses from the schooner whose testimony has been given, are two in number —Ireland, the master, and Jackson, the mate. There were three other persons on board, part of her crew—-a steward and two seamen. One of the seamen was stationed forward as a lookout and another seaman was at the wheel. Those two seamen, with the master and the mate, were the only persons on deck. The steward was a negro. All reasonable effort seems to have been made by the libellants to secure the testimony of the two seamen who were on deck. It is admitted, that, before this suit was commenced, the counsel for the libellants took down in writing their statements, and that, on such statements, their testimony was of importance for the libellants. Although the absence of their testimony cannot be attributed to any fault on the part of the libel-lants, yet the lack of their testimony is a misfortune for the libellants and for their case. When the question in issue is as to whether a vessel sailing by compass changed her course, the testimony of the man whose hands moved her helm and whose eyes were on her compass, is very necessary, and, generally, indispensable. When the question in issue is as to whether a lookout saw as soon as he ought to have seen them, the lights of an approaching vessel, his testimony on the subject is very desirable.

On the schooner, it was the master's watch on deck. The man aftke wheel and the man forward were in the master's watch. The master’s watch on deck had commenced, and the mate’s watch on deck had terminated, shortly before, but the mate still remained on deck. The master's story is, that he was standing by the after companion-way on the port side, which was the weather side, when the lookout forward reported that he saw some kind of a light on the port bow; that he, the master, then walked forward thirty or forty feet, and when he .reached there saw a very dim white light bearing about south south-west, (his course being southwest by south, and the light thus being about a point on his port bow), and about 300 yards distant; that he saw no other lights on the vessel, and could not at that time see her hull or her sails; and that, when the vessel came nearer he saw her hull and started to go aft, and was knocked down by the collision. He also says, that the wind was about south-east, a good fresh breeze, and [938]*938the schooner was making about seven knots; that, with ber sheets flat, she could sail five points from the wind; that, when his watch began, she was heading south south-west, (which was six points from the wind), and he changed her course to south-west by south, which was one point further away; that she at no time had her sails shaking in the wind; that, in the alarm and just before the vessels collided, the wheel of the schooner was put hard-a-port; and that the steamer struck the schooner just forward of the main rigging of the schooner, glancing a little aft, on the port side of the schooner.

The testimony of the mate of the schooner is to the same effect as that of the master. He says that he saw the white light of the steamer, after it was reported, about a point and a half on the port bow of the schooner, and about 300 yards off; that the light continued to preserve the samé bearing; that, when the steamer was half her length, or a little more, away, the master gave the order to hard up; and that the sails of the schooner did not at any time shake in the wind.

The change of course on the part of the schooner of which the steamer complains is, that after the schooner had changed her light from red to green, and the steamer had star-boarded, the schooner shut in her green light and again opened her red light. It is alleged that the green light of the schooner was in view for a considerable time from the steamer, over her starboard, after the steamer had starboarded, and that after that the schooner changed so as to show her red light When the white light of the steamer was seen a point and a half over the port bow of the schooner, the schooner must have presented her red light to the view of the steamer.

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

Related

The Paoli
92 F. 940 (S.D. New York, 1897)
Gilkey v. The Beta
40 F. 899 (S.D. New York, 1889)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
30 F. Cas. 936, 9 Ben. 171, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/the-zodiac-nysd-1877.