Poor v. The Geneva
Poor v. The Geneva
Opinion of the Court
This is a suit against the steam-boat Geneva, to recover penalties imposed by section 4465 of the Devised Statutes,— and made a lien by section 4469, — alleged to have been incurred by reason of carrying upon the steam-boat a greater number of passengers than is stated in her certificate of inspection and tho special permit for excursions issued to her under section 4466. The libel charges “that on the eighteenth day of October, 1885, while the said steam-boat was plying as a passenger boat on the Ohio river and its tributaries, to-wit, between Pittsburgh and Davis Island dam, the said boat received and carried passengers to an amount in excess of the numbers allowed, of two thousand or more.” The testimony is very voluminous. To recite it at any length or analyze it I shall not attem.pt. This would expand the opinion of the court unreasonably. I must coniine myself to a bare statement of the facts, (for the most part,) with tho conclusions I have reached after a patient investigation of the whole case.
The respondent Lewis N. Clark, the master of the Geneva, and one of her owners, had planned a Sunday excursion on the aforesaid
“ The position [he says] in which the Geneva was lying — head on — when I went down the second time, was such that you could form but a very poor idea of the number on board, as 150 people on all three decks, crowded to the front, would make her appear very full.”
It is shown that there were less than a dozen of persons in the cabin. Almost every body was on deck, sight-seeing, and most of the people were on the hurricane deck. It is indeed shown that the
About the time the gang-plank of the Geneva was taken in, Capt. Clark, then on his way down to the other excursion boats, stopped at the Parkeraburgh wharf-boat, and requested Peter Walter, the man there in charge, not to permit any person to pass over the wharf-boat to the Geneva; and it is abundantly shown that Peter and his assistants did put' forth every possible effort to prevent the people from going over the wharf-boat, but in vain. They pressed on and over it to the Geneva in spite of all opposition. The situation is thus described by Peter: “Had I had twro cannon with grape and canister I could have kept the people off, but not otherwise.” Finally, to stop the crowd, the staging of the wharf-boat was thrown into the river. Doubtless many of the people who got on the Geneva by way of the wharf-boat and over the coal-flat had tickets for the excursion; but I am satisfied they bought them at points lower down the wharf, and for the excursion barges Alice and Edna. John Armstrong, the engineer of the Geneva, testifies that he saw other persons, besides those already mentioned, coming from the Alice, along the outside guard of the wharf-boat, and getting on the Geneva. His estimate is that 200 persons got on the Geneva by way of the wharf-boat, and at least 50 out of skiffs. His position on the lower deck gave him excellent opportunities for seeing. His testimony as to persons getting on the steam-boat by these irregular methods is well sustained by much other evidence. Thus, Richard Jones, the keeper of a boat store at No. Ill Water street, who himself got on the Geneva by way of the wharf-boat without paying, testifies that he thinks he saw 200 persons do the same thing.
The libelant contends that he has shown that the persons who came aboard the Geneva by way of the wharf-boat and by skiffs did so by permission of the officers of the Geneva, and that tickets or faros were collected from them by authorized parties. No doubt the libelant’s witnesses who testify to this effect are honest enough, but I am entirely satisfied that they are mistaken. The clear weight of the evidence here is with the defense. At this particular time Capt. Clark was out on shore, and Thomas Boland, the mate of the Geneva, was the officer in command. He strikes me as a very candid and truthful witness. According to his statement, — and lie is fully corrobo
That it may not be thought that I have overlooked the fact, it is proper just here to state that there is evidence that a few passengers (estimated by libelant’s witness Louis Garber at from 15 to 20) were already scattered about the Geneva when Brenneman went out to the foot of the gang-plank to sell tickets; but, as an offset'to this, it appears that some two dozen persons who there bought tickets from Brenneman did not at the time go aboard the Geneva, and it does not appear they went, on her at all. Moreover, a few persons left the boat about that time.
When Capt. Clark was informed that the people were forcing themselves on the Geneva, he at once returned to the boat and took command. At this juncture, the steamer James G. Blaine came to the wharf, landing immediately above the Geneva. The crowd on the wharf at once made a rush for the Blaine, and many boarded her, some of whom jumped from her to the Geneva. There was an immense mass of people on the wharf in front of the Geneva, and there was danger of their forcing their way upon her, Capt. Clark therefore backed his boat out into the river, — grazing the Blaine as he did so, — and took the Geneva a few hundred yards — the space of about two squares — down the wharf, landing at or near the mouth of Ferry street. There Boyton gave his exhibition. Many people, by persuasion of the officers of the boat or because of their, own apprehensions, here left the Geneva. After Boyton’s exhibition was over the Geneva made her excursion to Davis Island dam and back, but her passengers on the trip, it is shown by actual count, numbered less than 200.
Mr. Neeld, when asked what, in his judgment, was the proper course for Capt. Clark to pursue under the circumstances just detailed, when the Geneva lay at the foot of Wood street, answered: “To do just as he did do, — back out from the crowd. That’s what I would have done had I been captain of the boat.” I have no doubt that this judgment is sound. If Capt. Clark had remained there, it would have been at the risk of sinking, or capsizing his boat, to the great loss of, human life. It was impossible for him to disembark his passengers at that time and place;, nor had he the force to expel intruders. Indeed, had he attempted such a thing it must have brought on a serious riot. There were many rough character's in that crowd, both on • and off the Geneva. Gapt. Clark, therefore, was in the strict line of.
The libel, therefore, must be dismissed,, but without any costs to the respondent. Moreover, besides paying the commissioner’s fees for his own testimony, the respondent must be adjudged to pay the expenses of the watchman employed by the marshal to -take charge of the boat. Several reasons justify such order. There was apparently good ground for instituting this suit. Indeed, judicial investigation seemed to be demanded. Besides, had the respondent’s answer been more explicit, and set forth the real ground of defense, the time occupied by this investigation might have been shortened very much. Let a decree be drawn in accordance with the foregoing opinion.
Reference
- Full Case Name
- The Geneva. Poor v. The Geneva
- Cited By
- 1 case
- Status
- Published