694
T¡ie Green Bag.
volving four dollars, for all anxiety he shows. In a quiet fashion vthe questions be gin. Sometimes he stands at the witness's side; oftener he leans over a near-by jury man's chair. He consults notes but rarely. Yet it is always evident that he has carefully blocked out his plan, despite all the infor mality. When he leads up to the crucial question and the witness balks, he may drop that line temporarily. But sooner or later the ques tion must be answered, or there comes vir tual self-condemnation through declining- to answer, on the plea that the witness will in criminate himself. Never did our jury see one or the other result fail of accomplishjnent on anything essential. Mr. Folk has no set plan and conducts no two examinations in the same way. But in this respect he never varies; under no cir cumstances was he ever seen to lose his tem per, raise his voice, or in any way show ex citement. And we saw many occasions when the majority of men certainly would have lost control of themselves. It is the same way when he is trying his cases. The one thing which most impresses the witness is Mr. Folk's quiet strength. When the witness gave way to nerves and fear and anger, and there was an explosion Mr. Folk would calmly stroll around the room, relight his cigar, and then go up to the witness and say something like this: "Xow, I'm not go ing to argue with you. You go on record, cither way." "LIABILITY for 'The General Slocum' Holo caust" is discussed in Case and Comment for August : , Preliminary to the question of the limited liability law is the question of liability to an action for the death of a person. No such right of action exists by general maritime law, nor is it given by any act of Congress, unless it may be one of these mentioned below. It must, therefore, exist, if at all, by reason of State legislation. . . . But under the laws of New York there is such a right of action when death is caused by
wrongful act, and this right, given by a State law, may be enforced either in the State courts, or in a court of admiralty. . . . It is therefore clear that, as this disaster occurred in the State of New York, the law of that State, creating a right of action for death, may be enforced, unless, or except so far as, it is defeated or modified by the limited liability law of Congress. A limitation of liability to the value of the owner's interest is provided by L". S. Rev. Stat.. Sec. 4283 (U. S. Сотр. Stat. 1901. p. 2943), where the loss occurs without his "privity or knowledge," and this applies to all liabilities of the owner, even such as are created by State laws. Butler?•. Boston & S. S. S. Co., 130 U. S. 527 32 L. ed. 1017, 9 Sup. Ct. Rep. 612; Craig r. Continental Ins. Co., 147 I* S. 638, 35 L. ed. 886, 12 Sup. Ct. Rep. 97. The cases just cited also decide that this limitation of liability ex tends to liabilities for personal injury and death, as well as to all other kinds of loss or injury. The meaning of the words "privity of knowledge" is held in the case of Lord г. Goodall, N. & P. S. S. Co. 4 Sawy. 292, Fed. Cas. No. 8,506. to be a personal participation of the owner in some fault or act of negligence causing or contributing to the loss, or some personal knowledge or means of knowledge of which he is bound to avail himself, of a contemplated loss, or of a condition of things likely to produce or contribute to the loss, without adopting means to prevent it. There must be some personal participation or concurrence of the owner himself in some fault or negligence to constitute such privity as will exclude him from the benefit of the statute: but he is bound to exercise the utmost care to provide the vessel with a competent master and crew, and to see that the ship when she sails is in all respects seaworthy, and if, by reason of any fault or neglect in these par ticulars, a loss occurs, it is with his privity within the meaning of the act But it is held in Quintan v. Pew. 5 C. C. A. 438, 5 .U- S. App. 382. 56 Fed. in, that, if he em ploys a suitable agent to look after the in
