- 7;6 rEDBRAL REPORTER.
�of sald Pertins, and that pursuant thereto he duly qualified as such administrator and received letters of administration upon said estate, duly issued by the clerk of said court; that on said November 16th the defendant, as owner of said ferry- boat, was engaged in carrying passengers, for hire, across said Wallamet river, between East Portland and the foot of F street, in Portland, the same at said point being a public navigable river of the United States, and within the ebb and flow of the tide ; that at 7 p. m. of said day said Perkins took passage on said boat at East Portland, and by reason of the defective condition thereof, and the negligent and unskilful manner in which the west landing was made, the darkness of the night, the want of lights and guards, said Perkins was there "precipitated" into the river and drowned. �The defendant bas taken 62 exceptions to the libel. for "surplusage, irrelevance, and impertinence," which appear to include the whole of it; and also an exception, for the same causes and for repetitions therein, to the libel as a whole. According to rule 36 of the admiralty rules, "exceptions may be taken to any libel, allegation, or answer for surplusage, irrëlevancy, impertinence, or scandai ; and if, upon reference to a master, the exception shall be reported to be so objec- tionable, and allowed by the court, the matter shall be ex- punged at the cost and expense of the party in whose libel or answer the same is found." On the argument no specifie portion of the libel was pointed out as impertinent, except a brief allegation concerning the danger incurred by other pas- sengers on the same occasion, but it was insisted generally that the case of the libellant was stated with unneoessary particularity and repetition. �In admiralty, particularity in pleading is not generally considered a fault, but the reverse. The rule is that the pleader must state ail the essential particulars of the alleged tort or misconduot with the circumstances of time and place. Ben. Ad. 486-7; 2 Pars on Ship. & Ad. 381; Ad. Eule 23; The Clement, 2 Curt. 366; Mocomher v. Thompson, 1 Sum. 385; The Quickstep, 9 Wall. 670; The Syracuse, 12 Wall. 173. I do not think this libel is objectionable for impertinence, ����
