This case has been twice adjudged against the appellant. The question presented by the record is purely one of fact, and it is not only clear that the lower courts have done the appellants no wrong, but that the weight and effect of the evidence does not admit of controversy. In such a state of case we do not feel called upon, in order to vindicate our judgment, to make any extended comment on the testimony, nor would it serve any useful purpose to do so. We shall, therefore, content ourselves with stating the conclusions we have reached concerning the case.
It is proved that the Lane was in the channel, pursuing the usual course of vessels entering the harbor, while the Spray took an unusual course to effect her object. In doing this her master jeoparded his own boat, and through the ground-swell caused by the breakers, the Spray was thrown into the Lane, and produced the injury. But her master had no right, in his eagerness to get ahead of the Lane, to run his boat into breakers, which rendered her unmanageable. It is conceded that the Lane, being in advance, had the prior right to enter the harbor, but it is urged that her conduct in standing off-shore and lowering her mainsail justified the master of the Spray in adopting the conclusion that she did not entertain the purpose of entering the harbor. It may be true, that while the boat was in this condition, a watchful seaman would have been deceived as to her intention, but this cannot be said after she wore round and headed directly for the harbor. This change of course was a notification of the actual purpose of the Lane, and was effected time enough for the master of the Spray, if observant, to have avoided the collision. Instead, however, of going further out into the open sea, as he should have done after this change of course, he continued in the same track he was pursuing, regardless of his own safety or the rights of others. It is a little singular that he should have been in such a hurry to reach the harbor if in good faith he believed the Lane was bound further down the coast. But the theory that he thought the schooner ahead was not going into the Little River is an afterthought. It is clear from the evidence that he supposed this vessel was the Ellen Adelia, and that he knew she was bound for the same port as himself. And it is equally clear that he wanted to get there in advance of her, if he could, so as to obtain the first load. It seems that the principal objects of the boats engaged in the Little River trade is to obtain lumber, and that they are often detained there a considerable length of time for want of proper facilities for loading. Indeed, so limited are these facilities that only one vessel can be loaded at a time, and necessarily the one which arrives first is served first. With knowledge of this condition of things, and for the purpose of securing the prior right, the master of the Spray ventured upon dangerous ground in order to cut across the schooner, and must suffer the consequences of his own recklessness.
JUDGMENT AFFIRMED.
Notes edit
This work is in the public domain in the United States because it is a work of the United States federal government (see 17 U.S.C. 105).
Public domainPublic domainfalsefalse