Bailey v. Steamer New World

This was an appeal from the Superior Court of the City of San Francisco.

The plaintiff complains of the Steamer New World, being a vessel navigating the waters of this State, For that plaintiff on the 25th October, 1850, being owner, &e., of the barque “Jane Dayton,” then and there riding at anchor, &c., well secured, &c.; and the said steamer, by the carelessness and negligence, &c., of her master and crew, ran against and upon the said barque Jane Dayton with such violence as to carry away her bowsprit, &c., and do other great injuries, &c., to the said barque to the damage of $2,447.50, &c.

The cause was submitted to a jury who found for the plaintiff $1,641, upon which judgment was entered, and from which defendant appealed.

The only error assigned in this Court, together with the facts in connection with it, are set forth in the bill of exceptions— which states, “that on the trial of the cause, Stockbridge was sworn as a witness on behalf of the plaintiffs. It had been previously shown, that on the night of the 25th October last, the above named steamboat had come into collision with the ship Jane Dayton, the property of the said plaintiff, in the harbour of San Francisco; and that at the time of such collision, and for some days thereafter, one Edward Wakeman was master of the said steamboat. The counsel for the plaintiff then asked the witness Stockbridge, if he had a conversation with said Wake-man on the morning of the 26th October last, in relation to the collision? Whereupon the counsel for defendant objected that the declarations of the said Wakeman were not competent evidence.

The counsel for the plaintiff then offered to show, that on the morning succeeding the collision, the said Wakeman had declared that the collision was caused by the neglect of the pilot of the said steamer New World. The counsel objected to the reception of this evidence; but the Court overruled the objection and admitted it, and defendant’s counsel excepted, &c.

The witness Stockbridge then testified, that on the morning next after the said collision, he had a conversation with said Wakeman, who then declared, that such collision was caused by the neglect of the pilot to port his helm when he was ordered— and he should have done so.