c24
FEDERAL REPORTER,
vol. 88.
SPRECKLES
et ale v.
THE BRUSSEUI.
(DUltrict Oourt, N. D. OalifO'l'nia. February 28, 1889.) SALVAGE-COMPENSATION.
On an alarm of distress being !fiver. by the bark B., which proved to be on tire, tbe tug A. proceeded immedIately to the assistance of the bark, and duro ing a period of'about a balf an bour. and until the city tire'boat came up,fought the flames; and. while not succeeding in sUbduing them, apparently pre· vented the tire from spreading to a quantity of oil constituting a part of the, cargo. Aftervo:ards, when it was foundimpossibleto extinguish the fire with· out flooding the bark with such a quantity of water as would expose her to the danger of sinking, the A. towed the bark to certain flats, where it was haUled upon the mud and the tire was' extinguished. The vessel was valued inher dam,ag-ed condition at $15.000. the cargo at $55,312.56. Held, that the sum of $1,500 would be allowed the tug. . '., I
.
. " In "¥ilton Andro8"for libelants. claimant. ' evidence inthis case, in some pal'ticulars,is con,l;>ut,it)s not difficult, I thi,nk, to arrive at 8, the facts. 11 9f.the night an alarm was given along the city front, indicating that some vessel in the harbor was ,either QIJ. fire or in need of assistanCE!' The steam-tug Alert; which ,was. then engagfld in" carrying mails to, the steam-ship...Alameda" instantly got under way, ,and went in search of the vessel in distress. She was directed to thElharl,( Brussels, then lying in the stream, which proved tQ J?e on fire, kindled, as was afterwards ascertained, by incendiaries. nense volumes of sI,Doke were issl,ling from her indicating ihat the fire. was' raging with great violence. She instantly attached herhqse, and QOrnmenced playing two streams into the hatch,-one of them through '.4\ hose known as the" Regulation,Hose," and the other ihrougha hOlile o{smaller dimensi<.>ps.. She succeeded in so far subdu.. ih(lfire Joprevent the flames from rising through The however, still continued very dense, anl;l the fumes, probably ,of were of a peculiarly acrid and ter. The heat was also so intense that themenhanqIing the ,hose; had: to be relieved at short intervals. After a time, 'variously estimated at from 20 to 40 minutes, the city fire-boat arrived. She at once passed on board four lines of hose, and commenced playing down the hatch. It soon evident, however, that the water could not reach the seat of the fire, and that the latter could not be extinguished except by flooding the vessel with a quantity of water, which would expose her to the imminent danger of sinking at her moorings. It was then suggested-. I think by Capt. Douglas-that she should be taken to the Mission flats, and hauled up on the mud. This was done, the Alert performing the effective part of the towage service. Capt. Douglas states that before the fire-boat came up he had the fire under control. In this,
,SPRECKLES V. THE BRUSSELS.
525
I think, he is mistaken. That he had succeeded in checking its progress, and preventing the flames extending to the mustard seed and oil with which she was stowed, may, I think, be fairly inferred. The condition of the mustard seed and the oil showed afterwards that a very short time would have been required to have involved those articles in the conflagration, and, had they become thoroughly ignited, it would probably have been impossible to save the ship; but that the fire was not under control is obvious from subsequent events. The ship had been on the mud for a considerable time before it appears to have occurred to any one to obtain access to the fire by cutting holes thrQugh her 'decks. "The condition of the boiling pitch and the great heat of the planks clearly indicated where the seat of the fire was, and a couple of holes Were cut in the deck, which exposed the fire, and enabled the hose to play directly upon it. After a comparatively short time the fire was totally extinguished, and sails and burning cables were hauled on deck. The Alert then returned to the wharf, .and resumed her work of carrying mails ,to the Alameda. Sp.e came back later, however, but there was then po need of her service, there being no signs of fire about the. ship., ,1The service in which she was actually engaged a few houfs. She" incurred no risk either to herself or to the of her crew in handling the hose, but her service was important. It was rendered with complendable, alacrity and promptitude, and, it may be that, had [not ,proceeded instantly to scene of.tpe conflagratioJ:!., the, fire reached the mustard seed and the oil, and rendered the of the ship inevitable. Her towage service was undoubtedly ,lJ, ice, and, I think, indispensable..., Had the ship been obliged to wait fdr a tug to perform, that service, it is possible that the fire might have ,qbtained such headway as to rencier its extinguishment extremely difficlllt, or causl'ld far greater damage to the cargo than it actually sustained. These I believe to be an outlipeof the facts. In estimating the nence of the peril, I am naturally driven more or less to conjecture. How long the tug had been at work before the fire-boat came up cannot certainly be known. It was probably about a half hour. Wheth,ef,during that interval the fire would have reached the ,mustard seed and the whale oil, and so far ignited them as to put it beyond the power of the fire-boat to extingu.ish,' or even check, the is also ,a matter of His certainly possible, aulli think probable. that the services oqhe tug in this respect were valuable; and, though she saved the ship from destruction, !She contributed to it very possibly in an important degree. The value ofthe vessel in ,her damaged. agreed to be $15,000. The agreed value oithe cfl.rgo is I shall allow the sum of $1,500. ' ,',
,
nJ:>ERAL· RElPORTER,.' vol. ·38.
::: ."
VANAMAN VANAMAN
THE
ALGmRS.
v.
SAME.,
(District Oourt, B. D. Nf/UJ York. March lB" 1889.) . . OOLLISIOi!r--StG:NAJ:,S. ,.
. . ..' . .
. . j
Bflix't1Qle' 2 of the international regulations for preventing collisions at sea, a. iaillng:vessel is forbidden to display a flare-up light to an approaching ves. when. she is being by such vessel, as provided in arti, ceil.: '::', ' i
,....
. .Inkdmirltlty· .TM 'first ,a:boye' named action' was" brought against the Algiers to reo eover for the'.ldss of the schooner'Nelly S. 'Jerrill and her cargo by col1i$ion. ' ,'.[1}i'e second action was brought by a seaman on the schooner to re¢overfor persQmU' injuries to bImarising out of the collision; Biddie & 'Ward, HenryD. Edmunds, and CtirtW Tilton, for libelants. Oharld H. TWeed and R. D. Benedict, for the steam-ship. , 'I. ' . .
,These actions, which have been, tried together, arise out ofa collision between the l.'lchoorrer Nelly S. Jerrill and the stellmer AlgierS,'whibh 'occurred on December 8,1:887. The schooner, while tbeMast Of New Jersey, closehauled on her port tack, and heading N.E.<by N., at about 10 o'clock at riightoff Barnegat, met the steamer AIgiilfl3 'coming down the CORst, steering S. by W. t W. The sehooner 'held her 'course. ' The steamer did the same until near the schooner; when, seeing a flare-up light on her starboard bow, sbestar'boarded hard, :but'by the time slie hlul swung two and a half points she struck the schooner' pn the port quarter, about 10 feet from'the taffrail, cn,ttin'g off'the stern, and with it the libelant John D. Vanaman, who asleep in:: his j bUnk, and was u wakened by finding himselfin the I water: ','The' scihbOIler claims that' she was carrying proper side-lights, 'flare-up light,nnd that the collision was by the want'of a 'proper on The the schooner, lDVlOlatlOl1 of the law, dIsplayed a she 'misled tbe steamer. . . ' . H,t{ The ,question .first to be corisideted is whether the' exhibition of a '1!ar(tirp'VSh(b,ythe schooner'was'a 'violation ofthe rules for pre\1enting 'collisions lit'gen.;as revised' by ibestatute of March '3, 1885. 23 St. at Large, 438. The contention on the part of the schooner is that :the rules do not forbid the showing of a flare-up under such circumstances, and the decision in the case of The Merchant Prince, L. R. 10 Prob. Div. 139, is cited in support of this contention. By the decision referred to, the language of the British statute, which is identical with the language used IReported by Edward G. Benedict, Esq., of the New York bar.