Thurlow v. Wrangel

225 F. 7, 140 C.C.A. 467, 1915 U.S. App. LEXIS 2089
CourtCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit
DecidedJune 25, 1915
DocketNo. 253
StatusPublished
Cited by9 cases

This text of 225 F. 7 (Thurlow v. Wrangel) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Thurlow v. Wrangel, 225 F. 7, 140 C.C.A. 467, 1915 U.S. App. LEXIS 2089 (2d Cir. 1915).

Opinion

WARD, Circuit Judge.

November 19, 1912, at about 2 a. m., the Norwegian steamer Frain on a voyage from England to Mobile, while in charge of the second officer, came into collision with the American schooner James Pierce on a voyage from, Philadelphia to Porto Rico. The schooner was laden with a cargo of soft coal, was on her port tack, and was cut down below the water line on her port side forward. She was then about 500 miles from the nearest land. The steamer stood by until the following morning, when at 7:30 the master and crew [8]*8of the schooner came aboard. The master said that she was making water so fast that the pumps cotild not control the leak, that the injuries below the water line were such that she could not be towed to port, and he had therefore determined to abandon her. The master of the steamer, doubting this to be the real condition, continued to stand by, and at 10:30 sent over his second officer and one of his men with the mate of the schooner and one of her men to see whether anything could be done. The second officer and first máte went aboard the schooner, the two seamen remaining in the boat, and while the officers were aboard, the schooner was set on fire forward and aft and abandoned. The owners of the schooner and of her cargo filed libels against the steamer to recover for a total loss, charging her with negligent navigation. The owners of the steamer answered, waiving any contest as to their liability, but asking that the. libels be dismissed on the ground that the schooner had been unnecessarily burned by her first mate pursuant to secret orders given him by her master, whereby they were deprived of any opportunity to save her. The niate of the schooner testified that before he left for the schooner the master of the steamer told him to put a hole in her or to do something because he could not afford to hang around waiting for her to sink. On the other hand, the master of the steamer testified that after the schooner was seen to be burning her master admitted that he had instructed his mate to set her afire. The commissioner in a very careful report came to the conclusion that the schooner could not have been saved, and that therefore it made no difference who set her afire. This relieved him from the necessity of determining whether her witnesses or the witnesses from the steamer were guilty of perjury. The witnesses from the schooner testified in his presence, and he said of them:

“Nothing in the appearance or demeanor of Capt. Vail and the members of his crew who testified before me indicated that they were not testifying with sincerity.”

The witnesses for the steamer on the other hand testified by deposition. Judge Hough confirmed the report, saying in addition that the second officer who was responsible for the collision should not have been sent to inspect the schooner because he was interested to minimize her injuries. This, however, we think is just why he would have been the last person in the world to set her on fire, or to allow the mate of the schooner to do so, unless either he had received such orders, or the matter had been left to his own discretion and he thought she could not be saved. Counsel for the steamer insist that we should determine which party is telling the truth about this matter, and we shall do so.. The weight to be given to the testimony depends largely upon the reasonable probabilities of the situation. The mate of the schooner testified :

“By the Commissioner: Q. When yon left the steamer with the steamer’s mate to board the schooner, did you intend to set fire to the schooner? A. Did I intend to? Q. Yes. A. Yes; I did. Q. Before you left the steamer? A. Yes; befóle I left the steamer. Q. Did you communicate that to anybody aboard the steamer? A. Did I? Q. Yes. A. No. Q. You didn’t talk with anybody at all? A. No, sir. Q. Did you talk with the mate about it on the way over to the schooner? A. I won’t be sure whether we did on the way [9]*9over or not. Q. I understood you saturated some things with oil in the how and stern before you, applied the match? A. Yes. Q. What was it, kerosene oil ? A. Yes, sir. Q. Did you say anything to the mate of the steamer before you did that? A. We were together; I thought he understood just what we were doing. Q. Was anything said? A. There was not anything said. Q. Where did you get the oil? A. It was in ilie engine room, right on the work bench. Q. Did he go with you to the engine room? A. He was with me all 1 He time. Q. Did you tell him what you were going to the engine room for? A. He seemed to know what I was going for. Q. Wliat did you say to him? A. I said, T am after the oil can.’ Q. Did he make any comment on that? A. No. sir. Q. Was he with you when you brought the oil and the different things? A. Yes. Q. Did he make any comment why you were doing that? A. He only thought I didn’t have enough in the can; I had a little can of oil; ho looked at it and said, ‘That is not enough for anything.’ Q. That is when you got the can from the engine room? A. Yes. Q. When you got aboard ihe slciH.icr again could you see that the schooner was afire? A. Yes. Q. Smoke coming out? A. Yes. Q. Did you see the captain when you got on deck, the captain of the steamer? A. Yes. Q. Did he say anything? A. No, sir. Q. Did he look towards the schooner, or don’t you know? A. I don’t know whether he did or nor: he took charge of taking the boat up. Q. Do you know the captain saw the fire? A. He seen she was afire long before we got back. Q. You had no conversation with him when you got back on the steamer about her being afire? A. No. Q. Did you hear him make any remark of any kind about it? A. No, sir. * * * Q. You were asked certain questions by the commissioner about talking with the second mate, and you said he was with you when you got the oil can, etc.; did you ask him for the match which you said ho gave you, to set fire in the after cabin? A. He gave it to me; I said, T have no dry matches,’ and he said, T have some,’ and he gave me a match. Q. You said you intended to set her fire when you left the steamer; what had caused you to have that intention? A. I thought he wanted the houses destroyed, and I can’t say whether he told me to set her afire or not, but that is what 1 supposed he was wanting. Q. Who told you that? A. The captain of the steamer; that is what 1 supposed we were going for, to set her afire; he said the houses were just as bad as the vessel itself.”

The master of the schooner testified: •

“Q. Did he [the master of the steamer] say anything after you first got on board about going back to the vessel? A. Not until after; some time after. X}. Do you know what time it was? A. No, sir. Q. What led up to the boat going back? A. Nothing more than to satisfy himself; in the first place ha said the wreck should be destroyed. Q. When did he say that? A. After I had been on board a few minutes; I told him she would sink; he said her houses would blow off, and it would be almost as much of a menace as the hull, and he said it is the proper thing to do to destroy the wreck. XJ. Did you say anything to him as to whether he was at liberty to do anything he wanted with the wreck? A. Yes. Q. What did you say? A. I told him we were through. Q. What did he say? A. He didn’t say anything; I don’t know that he gave me any answer. Q. Did he ask you at any time for the right to put anybody on board and man her and tow her in? A. No, sir. Q. • Did you ever refuse him such a right? A. No, sir; he had nobody to put on board to tow her. Xj. What did the captain of the steamin’ say to you in reference to having some one go over? A. lie said he would like to have a look at her. * * * Q.

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

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
225 F. 7, 140 C.C.A. 467, 1915 U.S. App. LEXIS 2089, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/thurlow-v-wrangel-ca2-1915.