Page:Federal Reporter, 1st Series, Volume 2.djvu/250

GEREITÏ V. BARK KATB CANN. 243 �and its fall at about 5 p, m. of the same day. The fall was without warning or any apparent cause other than the exces- sive weights pressing upon the braces. After the accident one of the braces was found to bave broken, but it cannot be told whether the braces broke first, or whether the fasten- ings of the braces lirst gave way. From these facts the fair inference is that the placing of the heavy plank in this rack overweighed the braces and rendered the mass insecure. �From the moment of the addition of the plank the mass in its then position was a dangerous structure, erected in a place where men were required to be, and caleulated at any moment to inflict great bodily harm. �Whether upon these facts the libellant is entitled to the relief be seeks by this proceeding is the question now to be determined. The jurisdiction of a court of admiralty to con- demn a ship to pay damages arising from the neglect of the owner or master of a ship to discharge a maritime duty aris- ing upon navigable waters cannot be deemed open to ques- tion. There are many adjudged cases in which it bas been said, in respect to torts, that the jurisdiction arises from the locality alone. �"The jurisdiction of courts of admiralty, in matters of con- tract, depends upon the nature and character of the contract, but in torts it depends entirely upon locality. If the wrongs be committed on the high seas, or within the ebb and flow of the tide, it bas never been disputed that tbey corne within the jurisdiction of that court." Phila., W. e B. R. Co. v. PhUa. e Havre de Grace S. Tow-boat Co. 23 How. 215 ; S. B. Co. V. Chase, 16 Wall. 63. �It is almost a daily occurrence in these courts, not only to entertain jurisdiction, but to charge the ship with damages suf- fered by other ships because of neglect on the part of the crew properly to navigate the offending ship. So, also, it is not an infrequent occurrence to charge an offending ship with Personal injuries resulting from her improper navigation, and this when theperson injured is in no way conneoted with the offending ship. TH Washington v. 2'he Gregory, 9 Wall. 613. ����