The following text may have been generated by Optical Character Recognition, with varying degrees of accuracy. Reader beware!

Late Decisions in Maritime Law Legal Tips for Shipowners and Officers Specially Compiled for Marine Review By Harry Bowne Skillman Attorney at Law AILURE to comply with the terms of inspectors’ certificate regarding the crew of a tug would subject those responsible for the irregularity to penalties, it was held in the case of Hartford & New York Transportation Co. v. Rogers & Hubbard Co., 47 F. (2d) 189, but would not necessarily render the vessel unseaworthy. Sea- worthiness in respect to the crew, it was said, depends on whether the per- sonnel is competent to perform mari- time services and not on certificates. A shortage of one man in the tug’s crew comprised of ten men was held not to render the tug and barges in tow un- seaworthy. * * UOTING from the case of KErE- KOSKEE, 47 F. (2d) 235: “The purpose of salvage is compensatory, to inspire the saving of property and in- spire the assumption of risk perhaps beyond the duty of life; and this serv- ice must be voluntary, and the reward must be sufficiently large to inspire sal- vors to take the required risks.” The award -in the case to participating members of the crew (the captain was absent) was in equal portions. The court said: “The risk was to life or serious injury, and this was equal, and the recovery should not be in propor- tion to the wages received.” % * * ONGRESS has exclusive authority to legislate in matters of admiralty and maritime jurisdiction.—Great Lakes Dredge & Dock Co. v. Brown, 47 BF. (2d). 265. * * AID the court in the case of SHOW- BOAT, 47 F’. (2d) 286: “Here we have a 5-masted schooner, which, if the sails which are now on board were bent on, the booms being arranged to swing over the house, could go to sea; or she could be towed as she now is anywhere that a barge can be taken. She has a crew consisting of a licensed master or mate and two or three seamen. Her mooring lines and chains can be read- ily cast off; and the electric wires are so fitted as to be easily detachable. While the owners had not, at the time, when the libel was filed, any present intention to use her for transporta- tion purposes, * * * she was still a “vessel” * * * within admiralty juris- diction.” The schooner, it appeared, was tied to a wharf and was used for restaurant and dancing. It was held that fixtures and furnishing which be- came an integral part of the vessel, and portable fire extinguishers sold conditionally for use on the vessel, were subject to maritime liens as part of the vessel, but that furnishings used merely in the vessel’s restaurant and dance hall were not such part of the 64 . vessel to postpone conditional vendor’s title to maritime liens. * oe HE owner of an arrested vessel is not compelled to bond her or file a stipulation fer value. He may let her lie until the final decree, and, if she is held liable, let her be sold. But usually an arrested vessel is released on a stipulation for value covering the amount named in the libel, with inter- est. A stipulation for value is an agreement with the court by the claim- ant involving the substitution by the claimant of a choice in action against himself as the res to take the place of the vessel sued in rem. A vessel re- leased on a stipulation for value can- not be rearrested for the cause of ac- tion.therein stated. Such a stipulation is like any other contract. It is based on a consideration, the release of an arrested vessel, or the undertaking not to arrest a vessel against which a claim in rem is pending. It means to the shipowner the freedom of his ship and to the libelant a new security of un- fluctuating value in the place of the vessel. It cannot, therefore, be lightly set aside. A unilateral mistake, such as a statement of the libelant’s claim at too small a figure, is not a reason for so doing.—J. K. Welding Co. v. Gotham Marine Corp., 47 F. (2d) 332. * * * CONFESSION by the captain that his vessel was a rumrunner justified her seizure and made a search unnecessary just as a plea of guilty justifies a sentence and makes a trial unnecessary. ‘The reason for this,” said the court in the case of SEBASTO- PoL, 47 F. (2d) 336, “is of course, that, by his confession, the suspect * * * definitely elects not to stand on his constitutional rights, and so expressly waives them. Surely after such a con- fession aS was here made the most en- thusiastic champion of the bill of rights would not seriously contend that a government officer engaged in law enforcement should at once withdraw on constitutional grounds and seek a search warrant from the nearest United States commissioner. As Judge Coleman aptly remarked in another connection where a claim of illegal search had been put forward, ‘Common sense is not barred by the fourth and fifth amendments.’ ” HE case of PonTIN BROTHERS, 47 F. (2d) 595, presented facts showing that a deck hand on a lighter had been negligently injured to such an extent that amputation of one of his legs be- tween the ankle and knee was necessi- tated. He was 28 years old, his expectan- cy according to the American experience table of mortality was 36.73, and he MARINE REVIEW—November, 1931 was earning $80 a month and his board. He suffered severe pain, and, due to the impinging of nerves in the scar tissue formed when the leg was amputated, the stump was painful and would be painful until release of the nerves; another operation was perhaps necessary. He was a young man whose ability to earn money was dependent upon his physical ability to do manual labor. “All this, with the earnings he -has lost and the suffering he has en- dured in the past,” said the court, ‘leads us to the conclusion that the award ($11,000) was too low,” and the court increased Woe alee 9 to $16,000. * ORFEITURH, under the tariff act, of a vessel importing liquor, does not bar a prosecution of the captain and mate under the national prohibition act.—Awalt v. United States, 477 F. (2d) 47. * % * N THE case of North & East River Steamboat Co. v. Jay Street Ter- minal, 47 F. (2d) 474, it appeared that a steamer was going up the East River on a strong ebb tide. Two tugs with their respective tows were coming down the river on the inside of the steamer, indicating an apparent star- board to starboard passing. However, the steamer blew one blast of her whistle, thereby indicating a port to port passing. Shortly after an exchange of whistles, the steamer made a wide sheer to her starboard in order to go into a pier, thereby bringing the steam- er directly across the bows of the two tugs, a careless thing to do. The court held that the steamer was negligent and liable for damages caused. * * * HE question before the court in the case of O’Boyle v. United States, 47 F. (2d) 585, was whether under the terms of the charter party the charterer had shown any excuse for failing to return a barge “in the same condition as received.” The barge was old, yet apparently seaworthy, at the time she was chartered. More than two months afterward she leaked and sank while in posession and under the control of the charterer. “In such circumstances,” said the court, “the latter had the duty of offering evidence to show that the barge was properly cared for while in its hands, or met with some strain, not due to its neglect, which caused her to leak.” The court held that not only was the failure to turn over the barge “in the same condition as re- ceived,” according to agreement, not excused by any proof of unseaworthi- ness when chartered, but that the pre- sumption of negligence, arising from the foundering of an initially sea- worthy vessel, was not met.