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

1 Sb Baas 2 = a Die pee Oe 6 the Marine Record. Mean ee tern 5 ie. | . MARITIME LAW. MARITIME LIEN—DIVER AND ENGINEER ON WHECKING TUG—LIEN OF OWNERS OF STEAMER ASSIXTING TUG—ENGINEER ON ANNUAL S8ALARY—REPAIRS BY STOCK- HOLDER—PRIORITY OF LIEN—WHARFaGE— LAKES IN WINTER. District Court, EB. D. Michigan. 1886 A person employed asa diver and engi- neer of a steain pump upon a wrecking tug has a lien upon such tug tor his services. So, if he contract for services upon any sev- eral tugs belonging to the same company to which he may be ordered, and his engage- ment be for a per diem compensation, he is entitled to a lien upon each of such tugs for the time he is actually employed about her. So if the services of a steamer are necessary to assist such tugs in rescuing wrecked ves sels by dredging, pulling, running upon errands, or otherwise, the owner of such steamer has a lien upon the tug. A person employed as chief engineer of a line of ves- sels atan annual salary has no lien upon any vessel of the line for his compensation. Where a stockholder and director of a steam- boat line, who also held the office of treasurer, put repairs upon the several ves- sels of the line, it was held that his lien, if he had any at all, should be postponed to that of the other creditors. ‘There is no lien for wharfage during the winter season upon the laker, In admiralty. The tugs Gladiator, Andrew J. Smith, Balize, Kate Williams, and William A. Moore, belonging to the Detroit Tug & Transit Company, of which Samuel J. Murphy was president, having been sold by the marshal, and the proceeds paid into the registry, it was stipulated that the various questions of liability for doubtful claims should be informally considered by the court upon exceptions to the report of the com- missioner assessing damages. Brown, J. The first claim is that of Harry Clark for services as a diver and steam pump engineer, rendered upon the follow- ing state of facts: In April, 1885, the libelant made a con- tract at Detroit with Mr. Murphy, president of the Detroit Tug & Transit Company, to serve as diver and steam pump engineer, and was to be paid for his services $10 a day and his expenses from the time he left De- troit until his return. In pursuance of this contract, libelant proceeded by rail to the south shore of Lake Superior and reported June 17, for duty to the master of the tug Smith. It was then employed in the work of releasing the steambarge Morley, which was aground at that point. He worked under the orders of the master of the Smith from April 15th May 17th, hauling lines, locating the tug nd her lighter ne the aremouen of the york, diving and running a steam pump gaat When the job was com- ted, he was ordered to go to the schooner ey Bissell, which was ashore near Mar- _ He walked from Marquette to the and was engaged five days in assist- get her afloat. During this time ork was done either upon the Bissell or n the wrecking schooner Johnson in at- ~ tendance upon her. The tug Gladiator, owned by the Tug & Transit company, was ordered to the wreck of the Erin, where the tug Williams, also owned by the claimant, was at work, avd was engaged there until she was raised, and stayed upon her until she was towed to Collingwood, from which p int he went by rail to Detroit, where he arrived June 17th. The testimony shows that at each point where he worked he acted under the immediate orders of the captain of the tug which was engaged upon the wreck, but that it was asingle contract when made, upd that if he was ordered 1o go anywhere else he certainly should have gone, and that he would have expected pay at the rate of $10 and expenses until the return to De- troit. ‘here can be no question in this case that the services rendered by libelant were mari- time in their nature, and that if he had made the contract in each instance with the salved vessel, he would have a lien upon such ves- sel enforceable in this court. I deem it equally clear thit if a tug be fitted out at the open- ing of the season for wrecking purposes, and as a part of her equipment engages the ser- vices ofa diver or steam pump engineer, such diver or engineer would also have alien upon the (ug to which he was attached for the season. ‘he Highlander, 1 Spr. 510. In such case he would not probably be entitled to alien upon the different salved vessels, since his own contract is with the tug. This was the conclusion of my predecessor in the case of the Marquette, 1 Brown, Adm. 364, and I have seen no reason to doubt its cor- rectness. ‘The difficulty in this case arises from the fact that the contract between the libelant and the Tug & Transit company was not for services upon any particular tug, but for services upon any tug owned by the company to which he might be ordered. { doubt if this circumstance varies in any way the principal applicable to this class of cases if his services are paid by the day, and are therefore capahle of apportionment. While the services{may not be actually rend- ered upon the tug, he is for the time being a part of the equipment of such tug, and en- titled to alien upon_her, upon the principal annonneed by this court in the case of the Minna, 11 Fed. Rep. 759, in which I had oc casion to hold that all hands employed upon a vessel, except the master, were entitled to alien of the services were in furtherance of the main object of thea enterprise in which she was engaged. In this case a lien was sustained in favor of persons employed upon a fishing tug, solely for the purpose of catching and preserving fish, notwithstanding the fact they took no part in the navigation of the vessel, and that an incidental portion of their duties was per- formed on shore, To deny the Jibelant a remedy by lien is virtually turning him over to a personal claim against an insolvent corporation. While the case is a somewhat doubtful one, ork at this wreck. From there he was Tam inclined to allow the claim. The claim of Joseph Croze against the Gladiator is not distinguishable in principal from that of Clark, He alleges that, while the Gladiator was engaged ia wrecking ves- sels upon Lake Superior, it became neces- sary for her master to employ his tug to assist the Gladiator, by dredging, pulling, running of errands, and otherwise, and it is conceded that such services were neces- sary to enable the Gladiator to get the strinded vessels off the shore. It is con- tended, however, that libelant has uo lien upon the Gladiator, but his remedy, if he has any, is against the salved vessel. But there is no evidence that he was employed by the master of the salved vessel, or that the master of the Gladiator had any authority to bind her by his employment. His contract was to release the stranded vessel for a certain sum, and to furnish all the necessary appliances for the task. Libel- ant knew that this was in substance tie contract between them, and it is clear that he could have no lien upon the stranded ves- sel. Ofcourse, libelant has no lien upon the Gladiator asasalvor, but I see no reason why, if the services of his tug were valuable to the Gladiator, he should not be entitled to the lien of a material-man. In Amis. v. the Louisa, 9 Mo. 629, it was held by the su- preme court of Missouri that work done up- on barges charged to have been appurte- nances of a steamboat gave rise to a lien against the latter, upon the theory that the barges were considered as necessary appendages to the steamboat in order to enable her to transport freight. So, in Gleim’v. Belmont, 11 Mo. 112, it was held that the hire of a barge to a s'eamboat would be regarded as material furnished for her equipment. This was also the ruling in Iowa, in the Ken'ucky vy. Brooks, 1 G. Greens, 398, See, also, the Dick Keys, I Biss 408. Upon the whole, I think this claim isa meritorious one, and should be allowed. The claim of Thomas. Murpby for his salary aschief engineer of the line, which was composed of five tugs and a schooner, must be disallowed. His sei vices consisted in planning, superintending, and directing the operation, repairs, and improvements upon the several vessels of the line, and keeping them in a sea worthy condition, at a salary of $1,500 per year. But, however meritorious these services may have been, it is inipossible to apportion his compensation among the different veséels of the line. Mari time liens are said to be stricti juris, and, while courts in recent years have been very liberal in sustaining them for maritime ser- vices, the work done for such vessels must be capable of definite ascertainment and apportionment. We have no right to adjust a demand for work done tor the benefit of several vessels, and to charge each with its proportion upon an equitable basis, Murphy’s bills fer repairs put upon these vessels are not open to this criticism, but they are objectionable for another reason. He was not only a stackholder in the Tug & Transit company to the amount of $30,000, as well as a director, but was treasurer of the company, and entitled by law to the custody of its funds. It is true that his acts as treasurer consisted merely in indorsing checks for deposit, and that he did not in fact handle the funds of the corporation; but, if he chose to waive his legal rights in this particular, the other creditors of the company ought not to be prejudiced by rea- son of his neglect. Ido not think the mere fact that he was a director and stock- holder would necessarily prevent his con- tracting with the company, or from ac- quiring a lien upon the property. But his position as the legal custodian of its funds is strong evidence to show that he relied up- on the personal credit of the company, or, rather, upon his ability to pay himself out of its tunds, and his lien should therefore be postponed to that of the other creditors, The St. Joseph, 1 Brown, Adm, 202. The claim of William Miller for wharfage during the winter of 1884 and 1885 must also ns, a N ED be rejected. It has been our practice te limit the application of the state statute giv- ing a lien for wharfage to the season of navi gation, when the use of a wharf is neces sary to the employment of the vessel but not to allow a lien for services rendered the ves- sel while she is laid up during the winter; such as the use ot a slip, the storage of sails and rigging, or the hiring of a watcbman. These are in no sense maritime in their} nature, The E, A. Barnard, 2 Fed. Rep. 712; the Island Ci'y, 1 Law. 875; the Thomas Seat- tergood, 1 Gilp, 1. In cases of this kind the wharfinger would probably have a common law lien dependent upon possession, and he should not relinquish such lien until his claim is satisfied. SINKING OF THE SELAH CHAMBER- LAIN. FIVE MEN PERISH. SHEBOYGAN, W1s., Oct. 14.—The steamer Selah) Chamberlain left Milwankee light at 3:30 yesterday afternoon, bound for Esea- naba. ‘The weather was thick, with the wind blowing a stiff breeze from the south. The steamer was sounding her whistle at regular intervals, At 8:80, when off Sheboygan harbor, and about seven miles out in the lake, they heard another steamer whistle directly ahead and close aboard. ‘he captain of the Cham- berlain sounded one blast from his whistle and put his wheel aport, when, without any other warning, the two steamers came to- gether. The wind and sea immediately separated them. ‘I'he Chamberlain kept sounding her whistle tor assistance, but no assistance coming the crew proceeded to launch their lifeboat. When they got their smallest lifeboat swung over the side, and ready to lower into the water, seven of the crew ran and jumped into the boat, and their combined weight broke the davits, and five of them fell into the water. Two men, the cook, and steward, being under the thwarts of the boat, were not thrown out, but the other five were not seen again. The crew of the Chamberlain then got their largest lifeboat into the water; the REST OF THE MEN GOT INTO HER, picked up the small lifeboat, and transferred part of the crew into her. Just as they got clear of the steamer she sunk to her mast- heads. The smallest of the lifeboats went back and get the eteamer’s stern light, which was above water, put the light into the large lifeboat so that they conld see the compass to steer by, and then in tow of the large boat they pulled for the shore, where they arrived at 1:15 p.m. and came ashore one and one-half miles north of North Point, and walked to this city. The steamer that collided with them, they think, is the John Pridgeon, Jr. Captain Greenley, of the lost steambarge, refuses to be interviewed concerning the disaster, and also has forbidden the surviy- ing members of the crew from talking about it. He says be does not know the names of the men who lost their lives. The unfortunates were the second engineer, a fireinan, and three deckhands. The Cham- berlain was struck on the port bow and was cut down to below the waterline. The Chamberlain hes about three miles east of Sheboygan Point, in forty-two feet of water. The Selah Chamberlain was the property of the Bradley estate of Cleveland, and was valued at about $60.000. The boat was built in Cleveland in 1874 and rebuilt in 1883. She was of 1,207 tons burden, and of A class, second grade of propellers. Her recent re- ‘build made her one of the staunchest, hand- somest boats of the class on the lakes. At the time of the disaster she had the schooner Fayette Brown in tow, and was bound for Escanaba for iron ore. THE PRIDGEON’S STORY, MILWAUKEE, Wis., Oct. 14.—The John Pridgeon, Jr., the vessel that ran down the Selab Chamberlain, arrived in this port this forenoon, The master, Captain D. N. Sher wood, was not on his vessel when a reporter boarded her, but First Mate Hodge and other members of the crew told what they knew of the disaster. ‘The Pridgeon, it ap- pears, was bound from Ogdensburg to Chi- cago and Milwaukee with a load of mer- chandise. After leaving the Foxes the boat encountered very thick weather, and in addition to the fog the wind was blowing a gale and the rain fell in torrents. ‘he mate said that the nignt was one of the worst he ever experienced. The boat’s whistle was regularly blown at intervals of about thirty seconds, and a good lookout was kepton the forward deck. When somewhere near She- boygan, Captain Sherwood and his men SUDDENLY HEARD A HORN off the port quarter. The horn was evi> dently blown from the deck of the Chamber- Jain’s tow, the schooner Fayette Brown, though the Pridgeon’s crew were in ignor- anve of this factatthetime. The Pridgeon’s wheel was quickly thrown to starboard in order to clear the direction from which the sound came, when almost instantly a head- light of a steamer was seen towering above the Pridgeon’s bow. At this juncture the Pridgeon’s stem crushed into the stranger’s | port bow. The Pridgeon’s helm was thrown hard aport, and the two vessels parted in the darkness. This was the last seen of the ill-fated craft, which the Pridgeen’s crew subsequently learned was the Selah Cham- berlain. Her tow sheered around and knocked down the Pridgeon’s bridge, which connects the texas with the main cabin, and other trifling damages were sustained by the shock. After the collision the Pridgeon’s crew heard four qnics, sharp blasts from} the doomed craft’s whistle and then all was silent. ‘Ihe disaster occurred at about 9 o’clock, and intense darkness prevailed. Captain Sherwood remained in the vicinity until 12:30 o’clock, and during the three hours and a half intervening he carefully searched for wreckage, with the hope of rescning thecrew. No trace of the steam- barge or her consort could be found. Then THE SEARCH WAS ABANDONED, and the Pridgeon steamed for this port. Mate Hodge stated that the Pridgeon was running ata low rate of speed and had the wind dead against her, while the steambarge and her tow were running light under a favorable wind. The wind was blowing fresh from the sonth southeast. He was positive that both vessels had their foresails up, and believes that they were going at quite a high rate of speed. The Pridgeon had a large hole stove in the starboard and both sides of her *‘quick- work” but her hull was uninjured. The fact that she is a much heavier and newer boat than the Chamberlain accounts for her escape {rom more serious damage. The Pridgeon’s crew maintain that the accident was unavoidable, and that no blame can be attached to either commander. As the Pridgeon’s cargo was not damaged in the least, Captain Sherwood deemed it unnecessary to file a protest here. ‘Lhe captain called at R. P. Fitzgerald & Co.’s office this afternoon, and related the particu- lars of the collision. His account corrobor- ated in detail the statements made by his crew, The “quickwork’”’ on both bows of the Pridgeon is badly crushed in, but her hul) is uninjured, Members of the Pridgeon’s crew saw the Chan berlain’s consort, the Fayette Brown, drift off in the darkness after the collision, Her jibboom raked the sides of the Prid- geon’s cabin as she drifted by. When the news reached Chicago at noon yesterday it caused no little surprise. Both vessels are well known among those en- gaged in marine interests, both were con- sidered the best in their respective classes. The first announcement of the disaster stated that one of the New York Central line boats had done the running down, and vessel men at once put their heads together and at- tempted, by scanning the port lists, to ascer- tain which of these lake monsters it could have been. Subsequent advices placed the re- sponsibility on the Pridgeon. ‘This pro- peller has a registered tonnage, of 1,212, just five tons more than the vessel she run down. Both boats have the same rating in the Lloyds—A 2—and both are valued at $60,000. The Pridgeon was built in 1875 by Clark, of D-troit, where she was also owned by John Pridgeon, Sr. Her stem was protected by iron nearly four inches in thickness. This would cut a ves- sel nearly in two under a square contract. Vessel owners agree that the reticence of Captain Greenlee and the surviving crew of Chamberlain, on their arrival at Milwaukee, means a big lawsuit against the present owners of the Pridgeon. She was formerly an Anchor line boat, plying between Chi- cago and Buffalo. but lately she came into the hands of the Vermont Central line, and made trips between Chicago and way ports and Ogdensburg. As the owners of the ill- fated propeller were opposed to marine in- surance on principle, she will, of course, prove a total loss, : A GENUINE YANKEE TRICK. In the early days of our commerce with China, after the treaty which allowed Amer- ican clippers to enter the harbor of Hong Kong, one of the largest English three deck- ers was lying in the harbor, and at sunset her yards and topmasts were housed to show the manner in which the ship was manned. |A Yankee captain who was awaiting a freight of new tea, watched the Englishman and decided to try bis hand with him. Two American clipper’s yards and sails. came down and tonmasts housed aome minutes be- fore the man-of-war. Again in the morn- the Englishman was again behind. For sev- eral days the race went on, with the same re- sult, until the American ship received her cargo, and on the day before setting sail the yards came down and were sent to the Eng- lish frigate with the compliments of the Yankee cuptain, with painted (furled) sails.—New London Telegraph. . Scott's New Coast Pilot IS SOLD by = SHIP CHANDLERS AND BY THE PUBLISHER, GEORGE 302) AT 162 LARNED ST., E., DETR M. T. COUCGHL MANUFACTURER OF AND DEALER + Oils & Engineers’ 2upplie TO REMOVE AND PREVENT INCRUSTATION IN” B ILERS, WHICH IT IS GUARANTEED TO | Built for wree pur 17 feet, depth 9 feet, old 81, Engine 22x24. team. Has new main eccentrics, two new tow p one new metallic life boat around for work in ice. ed. Can or three days later, at the sunset gun, the ing, at the signal the yards were sent upand - They were bemboo poles ‘