Copyright
California. Legislature.

Appendix to the Journals of the Senate and Assembly of the ... session of the Legislature of the State of California (Volume 1885v.1) online

. (page 81 of 83)
Online LibraryCalifornia. LegislatureAppendix to the Journals of the Senate and Assembly of the ... session of the Legislature of the State of California (Volume 1885v.1) → online text (page 81 of 83)
Font size
QR-code for this ebook


Court, is of great importance. It settles the long disputed question
as to the jurisdiction of your honorable Board over Channel Street.

The actions brought by me to recover for the defalcations of the
late Wharfingers, Quirk, Haynie, Cohn, and Fairfield, during the
term of your immediate predecessors, will be at issue soon, and will
be pushed to a speedy trial.

STATEMENT OF THE CONDITION AND DISPOSITION OF ALL ACTIONS
PENDING AT THE DATE OF LAST REPORT.

The People of the State of California v. Henry F. Williams. No. 5174,
late Nineteenth District Court. Supreme Court.

This was an agreed case to determine the right of the Board to col-
lect dockage, wharfage, and tolls, in Channel Street, on south side of
Block Number Seventeen (17).

It was brought August 7, 1877, in the late Nineteenth District Court,
where judgment was rendered for defendant. An appeal was taken
January 23, 1880, to the Supreme Court, and was there pending, when
on May 12, 1883, I was substituted as attorney for plaintiff, after
which the following proceedings were had.

1883, September 3, action restored to calendar. October 3, submit-
ted on briefs. October 16, defendant's brief filed. October 27, plain-
tiffs' brief filed. 1884, January 29, judgment reversed and action
remanded. Remittitur from Supreme Court filed in Superior Court,
and action assigned to Department No. 4. March 28, judgment
entered in Superior Court in favor of plaintiffs.



The People of the State of California v. C. L. Dingley. No. 28960, in

Justices Court.

Action to recover for tolls on Channel Street.

1877, February 15, complaint filed. February 21, demurrer filed.
1884, February 25, dismissed by order of the Board, as under deci-
sions of the Supreme Court the claim was not collectible.



42

The Pacific Transfer Company v. William Blanding et al. No. 23360,
late Fourth District Court. Superior Court, Department No. 6.

Action to recover money paid under protest by plaintiffs to defend-
ants for wharfage.

1879, October 24, complaint filed. 1880, December 23, answers of
William Blanding and A. M. Burns filed. 1881, January 10, answer
of Bruce Lee filed. Ready for trial on behalf of defendants.



The People of the State of California v. Turner, Kennedy & Shaw. No.
28969, in Justices Court.

Action to recover tolls and wharfage on Channel Street.

1877, February 15, complaint filed and issue joined. February 24,
1877, defendants moved that cause be transferred to the late Twelfth
District Court. Motion granted, but defendants have not paid costs,
and papers have not been filed in said District Court, or in its suc-
cessor, the Superior Court.



The People of the State of California v. Turner, Kennedy & Shaw. No.
30557, in Justices Court.

Action to recover tolls and wharfage on Channel Street.

1877, May 18, complaint filed and issue joined. June 9, 1877, defend-
ants moved that cause be transferred to the late Twelfth District
Court. Motion granted, but defendants have not paid costs, and
papers have never been filed in the said District Court, or in its suc-
cessor, the Superior Court.



Ihe People of the State of California v. F. S. Malone and L. Quint.
No. 36984, in Justices Court.

Action to recover for deficiency in accounts of Nat. Boyce as
Wharfinger.

1878, June 3, complaint filed. June 6, demurrer filed. 1883, June
4, substitution of T. C. Coogan filed. July 30, demurrer overruled.
December 24, answer received. 1884, March 10, judgment for plain-
tiffs for $110. Money collected and turned over to Secretary of Board,



The People of the State of California, v. Silas Caulking et al. No. 22220,
late Fourth District Court.

. Action to recover deficiency in accounts of Caulkins as Wharfinger.
1878, May 6, complaint filed. October 11, judgment for plaintiffs.
1883, March 1, $1,900 received by my predecessor in satisfaction of the
judgment in full, and paid over by him to the Board, Case closed.



William Blanding et al. v. Tlie Barkentine Victor. No. 2345. In United

States District Court.

A libel for dockage in China Basin. Pending and awaiting hearing.



43

Samuel Soule et at. v. Benjamin Holliday, Jr. No. 2631, late Nineteenth
District Court. Superior Court, Department No. 4-

Action to recover $395 87 for dockage and tolls. Pending ever since
1874.

1874, May 8, complaint filed. 1877, May 11, demurrer filed. 1883,
May 21, T. C. Coogan substituted as attorney for plaintiffs. May 25,
demurrer overruled. November 17, answer received. November 23,
motion to strike out answer and for judgment served, and filed. 1884,
January 4, motion argued and submitted. January 16, motion granted,
and judgment for plaintiffs for $395 87, with interest thereon from
April 11, 1874, and costs, $11 50. January 25, notice of decision served.
This judgment is unsatisfied.



The People of the State of California v. Thomas R. Huson et al. No.
22221, late Fourth District Court. No. 7207, Supreme Court.

Action to recover the sum of $1,045 10 for deficiency in accounts of
Huson, as Wharfinger.

1878, May 6, complaint filed. August 15, answer filed. September
24, judgment for defendants. November 10, plaintiffs moved for a new
trial, which was on May 5, 1880, denied, and on May 21, 1880, plaintiffs
appealed to the Supreme Court, where cause is still pending.



William Blanding et al. v. Smith & Smith et al. No. 2254-5, late Fourth
District Court. Superior Court, Department No. 4-

Action to recover $1 ,000 for breach of a bond guaranteeing the per-
formance of an asphaltum contract.

1878, September 28, complaint filed. 1879, July 12, answer filed.
January 23, 1880, cause assigned to Department No. 7 of the Superior
Court, and reassigned to Department No. 4 of said Court. Ready for
trial.



C. A. Hooper et al. v. F. P. Sivett. No. 6618, late Nineteenth District
Court. Superior Court, Department No. 4-

Action to restrain defendant from building a wharf in Channel
Street, under a contract with the Board.

1878, December 28, complaint filed. 1879, January 14, intervention
of Board filed. 1880, August 9, tried and submitted. September
24, decision for defendant. 1882, October 6, motion for a new trial.
May 19, motion for a new trial denied. July 18, appeal taken to
the Supreme Court. No findings of fact and conclusions of law
were ever made in this case, nor were they waived, and in con-
sequence thereof no judgment was ever entered. The term of office
of the Judge before whom the case was tried expired in 1881. The
case for this reason will have to be retried. It is now on the calen-
dar, marked ready, and will be tried soon.



44

People of the State of California v. Potrero and Bay View Railroad Com-
jpany. No. , Superior Court, Department No. 3.

Action to declare certain piles and a bridge built by the defendant
in and over Islais Creek a nuisance, and to have the same abated.

Action commenced January 14, 1880, and issue joined November
16, 1881. Action tried on December 6, 7, 8, 12, and 13, and submitted.
January 20, 1882, decided in favor of plaintiffs. February 15, 1882,
decree filed and entered. March 23, 1883, motion for a new trial sub-
mitted. April 9, 1883, motion for a new trial denied. April 10, 1883,
defendant appealed to the Supreme Court, where the said cause is
now pending, but has not yet been reached on the calendar.



The People of the State of California v. Nicholas Liming et al. No.
2S64, Superior Court, Department No. 8.

Action to condemn for seawall and thoroughfare purposes a por-
tion of Block No. 13.

1880, November 30, complaint filed. Issue was joined on December
13, 1881. 1883, May 7, T. C. Coogan substituted as attorney for plain-
tiffs. July 30, Cope & Boyd substituted as attorneys for defendants.
1884, January 31, case partially tried, special issues being submitted
to the jury. February 4, verdict for plaintiffs, the jury assessing
damages at $58,500. February 12, judgment for plaintiffs entered.
March 3, final decree of condemnation filed and entered. March 5,
certified copy of decree recorded in office of the County Recorder of
the City and County of San Francisco. The judgment has been paid
and satisfied, and the case is ended.



The People ex rel. John Hackett v. William Blanding et al. No. 4087,
Superior Court, Department No. 7.

Action to restrain the Board of State Harbor Commissioners from
carrying on certain dredging operations.

1881, April 23, complaint filed and restraining order granted. May
21, defendants answered. June 10, defendants moved to dissolve
restraining order. June 15, motion granted. July 12, plaintiffs
appealed to the Supreme Court. Ready on part of defendants.



The People of the State of California v. Robert G. Byxbee et al. No. 6251,
Sux>erior Court, Department No. 8.

Action to recover 8460 78 for deficiency in accounts of West Evans
as Wharfinger.

1882, February 10, complaint filed. March 18, issue joined as to
certain defendants. 1883, May 12, T. C. Coogan substituted as attorney
for plaintiffs. July 27, service made on defendant A. F. Collins.
Ready for trial.



45

STATEMENT OF CONDITION AND DISPOSITION OF ALL ACTIONS COM-
MENCED SINCE THE DATE OF LAST REPORT.

John McMidlen and David Finley, composing the firm of McMidlen &
Finley, v. William, Irivin, John H. Wise, and A. C. Pa>dsell, com-
posi^ig the Board of State Harbor Commissioners. No. 96S2, Superior
Court, Department No. 8.

Mandamus to compel the Board to pay a claim of $603, for work
done hy the plaintiffs during the term of your predecessors, and which,
as appeared by entries in the books of John S. Gray, the former Sec-
retary of the Board, had been paid.

1883, June 1, writ of mandamus issued. June 11, motion to quash
writ and demurrer filed. August 17, motion to quash writ denied, and
demurrer overruled. Answer served. November 22, Court found that
claim had not been paid. Judgment for plaintiffs was entered for $603,
without damages, with costs, $33 50. Judgment has been paid, and
action is ended.



The People ex. rel. Board of State Harbor Commissioners v. Thomas F.
Quirk, J. C. Green, and Donald McLennan. No. 10191, Superior
Court, Department No. 3.

Action to recover from Thomas F. Quirk $14,149 81, for deficiency
in his accounts as Wharfinger, and $5,000 each from J. C. Green and
Donald McLennan, sureties on his official bond.

1883, August 22, complaint filed and summons served upon Green
and McLennan.

Proceedings as to J. G. Green. — 1883, October 5, demurrer received.
October 12, demurrer overruled. October 30, answer received. Nov-
ember 1, demurrer of plaintiffs to answer served. November 2,
demurrer to answer submitted. November 22, demurrer overruled.

Proceedings as to Donald McLennan. — 1883, October 6, answer of
defendant, Donald McLennan, received. October 16, notice of motion
to strike out parts of answer and demurrer to same served and filed.
October 26, argued motion to strike out and demurrer to McLennan's
answer. November 22, demurrer overruled; motion to strike out
granted. 1884, stipulation waiving jury filed March 4. Summons
served on Quirk by the Sheriff.



The People ex rel. Board of State Harbor Com,missi oners v. Louis Cohn,
M. Esberg, Joseph Napthaly, William Bryan, and G. Raisch. No.
10860, Svjperior Court, Department No. Jf..

Action to recover upon the official bond of Louis Cohn for defi-
ciency in his accounts as Wharfinger to the amount of $4,344 75.

1883, October 10, complaint filed. Summons served upon all the
defendants.

Proceedings as to defendant Raisch. — 1883, November 14, demurrer
and notice to elect between counts received. December 21, demurrer
and motion to elect submitted. 1884, March 10, demurrer overruled,
and motion to elect denied. April 15, answer received.

Proceedings as to defendant Bryan. — 1883, November 19, demand



46

for bill of items received. November 21, bill of items served, notice
for further bill of items received. 1884, January 25, motion for fur-
ther bill of items submitted. March 10, motion for further bill of
items denied. March 24, demurrer and notice of motion to elect
between counts received. March 28, demurrer overruled and motion
to elect between counts denied. April 28, answer received. May 7,
demurrer to and notice of motion to strike out part of answer served
and tiled.

Proceedings as to defendants Napthaly and Esberg. — 1883, Decem-
ber 13, demurrer received. December 28, demurrer submitted. 1884,
March 10, demurrer overruled. April 10, demand for bill of items
received. April 12, bill of items served. April 21, answer received.

Proceedings as to defendant Cohn. — 1883, December 17, demurrer
received. 1884, March 10, demurrer overruled. May 7, answer
received.



The People ex rel. Board of State Harbor Commissioners v. Josiah F.
Fairfield, Charles J. Hendry, and W. S. Ray. No. 10938, Superior
Court, Department No. 2.

Action to recover from Josiah F. Fairfield $12,672 25 for deficiency
in his accounts as Wharfinger, and 15,000 each from C. J. Hendry and
W. S. Ray, sureties on his official bond.

1883, October 19, complaint filed, summons served upon all
defendants. October 29, appearance of all defendants received. De-
cember 17, demurrer received. 1884, January 4, demurrer submitted.
January 28, demurrer overruled. May 15, answer of Hendry and
Ray received. May 21, demurrer to and notice of motion to strike
out parts of answer served and filed.



Ihe People ex rel. Board of State Harbor Commissioners v. H. M. La Rue
andA.S. Greenlaw. No. 10996, Superior Court, Department No. 4.

Action to recover $5,000 each from La Rue and Greenlaw, sureties
upon bond of one William Haynie for deficiency in his accounts as
Wharfinger.

1883, October 26, complaint filed. November 10, summons served.
December 6, appearance of defendants received. 1884, January 5,
demurrer, affidavit of merits, demand, and notice of motion for
change of venue to Sacramento County received. January 25, motion
for change of venue denied and demurrer overruled. February 1,
notice of appeal to the Supreme Court from order denying motion
for change of venue received. February 15, order overruling demur-
rer set aside, and demurrer restored to calendar. March 14, demur-
rer again overruled. April 8, transcript on appeal from order denying
motion for change of venue received. Answer received. April 15,
notice of motion to strike out parts of answer served and filed. April
16, demurrer to answer served and "filed. May 16, demurrer and
motion to strike out submitted. May 21, demurrer sustained and
motion to strike out granted.



47

John S. Wilkiiis v. John H. Wise, A. C. Paulsell, and William Irwin,
as a Board of State Harbor Commissioners. No. 23935, Justices
Court. Superior Court, Department No. 8.

Action to recover damages to plaintiff's horse, alleged to have been
injured by falling through wharf on water-front in November, 1881.

1883, November 12, complaint filed. November 19, demurrer served
and filed. December 4, demurrer overruled. December 13, answer
served and filed. December 28, tried and submitted. 1884, Jan-
uary 15, judgment for defendants. February 13, appeal taken by
plaintifip to Superior Court. May 7, notice of substitution of attor-
ney received. Ready for trial.



The People ex rel. Board of State Harbor Commissioners y. J. A. Sinclair.

No. 25663, Justices Court.

Action to recover $28 68 for tolls and wharfage upon Harrison
Street Wharf.

1884, April 10, complaint filed. April 14, summons served. April
19, flemand in full and costs paid, and action dismissed. April 23,
money paid over to Board.



Thomas Curtin v. William Irwin, John H. Wise, and A. C. Paulsell, con-
stituting the Board of State Harbor Commissioners. No. 25246, Jus-
tices Court. Department No. 7, Superior Court.

Action to recover damages for injuries to plaintiff's horse received
by falling through a wharf on the water-front. This case presented
the question whether the Board was liable for injuries caused by
defects in the wharves under its jurisdiction.

1884, March 10, complaint filed. Answer filed. March 16, judg-
ment for plaintiff. Appeal taken by defendants to the Superior
Court, and assigned to Department No. 7, over which the Honorable
Judge Rearden presides. The action was submitted and briefs filed,
and on June 20, 1884, Judge Rearden reversed the judgment of the
lower Court, and in an exhaustive opinion held that the Board was
not liable for such injuries.



RECAPITULATION.

Number of cases pending in ■which the Board is plaintiff 18

Number of cases pending in which the Board is defendant 6

Total number of cases pending 24

Respectfully submitted.

T. C. COOGAN,
Attorney for the Board of State Harbor Commissioners of the State
of California.



APPENDIX.



APPENDIX.



For the purpose of procuring definite and reliable information
concerning the charges on vessels and goods, other than the charges
imposed by the laws of Congress, in the Harbors of Boston, New York,
and Baltimore, the President of this Board addressed the respective
Boards in charge of those harbors on that subject, under date of June
23, 1884.

It was known to us that some of the wharves and piers in those
harbors were held in private ownership, hence the form of the follow-
ing questions which were embraced in the communications to the
respective Boards in control of those harbors :

1. By what authority are the rates of dockage chargeable to vessels lying at the public wharves
and piers prescribed — by the Legislature, your Board, or some other public authority?

2. Are the rates of dockage chargeable to vessels lying at private wharves and piers pre-
scribed by some public authority, or fixed by the owners of such wharves and piers? If bj'
public authority, is it the same which prescribes rates for vessels at the public wharves and
piers ?

3. What are the rates of dockage charges to vessels at the present time at the public wharves
and piers? What at the private wharves and piers?

4. Is there any wharfage or tolls on goods, merchandise, etc., discharged from vessels on, or
loaded on vessels from, wharves and piers?

5. If the answer to the preceding question be in the affirmative, is the rate or amount of such
wharfage or tolls in the case of private wharves prescribed by some public authority, or fixed
by agreement among the owners of the private and the lessees of the public wharves and piers?

6. And again, if question 4 be answered in the affirmative, what is the rate, at the present
time, of such wharfage or tolls?

To the communications containing these interrogatories, the fol-
lowing answers were received :

Commonwealth op Massachusetts, ~)

Harbor and Land Commissioners' Office, Commonwealth Building, 65 Bowdoin Street, ^

Boston, July 14, 1884. J
Board of State Harbor Commissioners, No. 10 California Street, San Francisco, Cal. :

Gentlemen : In the absence of the Chairman of this Board, I have the honor to forward to
you by to-day's mail, "Rates of Wharfage and Dockage, and General Regulations of the
Wharves in Boston."
Neither the State nor the city own any wharves or docks, except for their own use.

Very respectfully, for the Board,

D. KOPPMANN, Engr.

City of Baltimore, ">

The Harbor Board of Baltimore, I

City Hall, Baltimore, July 30, 1884. J

Mr. Win. Irwin, President State Harbor Commission, No. 10 California St., San Francisco, Cal. :

Dear Sir: In answer to your letter of June twenty-third, I would say:

1. The authority to fix rates of dockage and wharfage at public wharves rests with the Mayor
and City Council by statute law.

2. Rates of dockage and wharfage at private wharves are regulated by owners entirely.



52

3. Rates of dockage are about the same at public and private wharves, and are generally $1
per day under 100 tons, and 1 cent per ton per day for all over 100 tons, with an addition of
about 10 per cent for' steamers over 300 tons.

4. Charges are made for wharfage on goods stored on, and passing over, any wharves, and are
regulated as stated for dockage, i. e., by owners, city or individual.

5. Present rates are about as follows, as per extract from City Code.®

No charges are made at grain elevators, either for dockage or loading grain.
Wharf and dock rates are not published, except in City Code, a copy of which, I have no
doubt, will be found in the Municipal Library of San Francisco.
By order of the Harbor Board.

N. H. HUTTON, Engineer S. C.

City of New York, Department of Docks, |
New York, August 6, 1884. J

To the Board of Harbor Commissioners of the State of California, San Francisco:

Gentlemen' : By direction of the Board governing this department I beg leave to acknowledge
the receipt of your favor of June twenty-third ultimo, requesting information respecting the
following:

1. The dockage charges against vessels for lying at wharves and piers in the harbor of New
York.

2. The wharfage or tolls on goods, etc., discharged from vessels on the wharves and piers, or
loaded on vessels from the wharves and piers.

In response to the first of these inquiries, I have to state that the legal rate of wharfage at the
piers and bulkheads is fixed by the laws of the State; and in respect to the second, that this
Board have the authority conferred on it by law to establish rules and regulations for the gov-
ernment and care of the wharf property in the City of New York, and by the rules adopted
and published provide for penalties for the non-removal of goods from the piers, after notice to
remove the same. There is a law also permitting the charge of five cents per ton for articles
remaining on the wharf after twenty-four hours.

I send you copies of the rules and regulations adopted by this Board, containing, also, the
legal rates of wharfage, which are applicable to all wharf property, whether public or belonging
to private pai'ties; and also a copy of the Consolidation Act (Chapter 410, laws of 1882), which
contains all the information and laws relating to the use and control of the dock property in the
City and County of New York, especially embraced in the sections from 711 to 811: together
with copies of the annual reports of this department, for the last three years, for your informa-
tion. As the answers to your first two inquiries, and the laws mentioned and referred to, prac-
tically answer and cover the six additional questions you subsequently ask, I have not replied
to them categorically-

Yours, very respectfully,

JOHN T. CUMMING, Secretary.

RATES OP DOCKAGE AND WHARFAGE IN THE HARBOR OF BOSTON,

As will be observed from the letter of Mr. Hoffman, neither the
State of Massachusetts nor the City of Boston owns any wharves or
docks in Boston Harbor, except for its own uses.

All the wharves and docks in Boston Harbor, maintained for the
accommodation of commerce, are held in private ownership, and the
rules and regulations for the transaction of business at the said
wharves, and the rates of dockage and wharfage for their use, are
established by the owners.

The rates of dockage are as follows; For steamers and steam tugs,
per ton register or measurement, 1 cent per day; for vessels under
200 tons measurement or register, 75 cents per day; for vessels over
200 tons measurement or register, one half cent per day per ton.

These rates, it will be observed, are considerably lower than those
charged in either New York, Baltimore, or San Francisco Harbor.
But low as they are, they are charged only for the days a vessel may
be at the whaii in excess of the lay day she is allowed for landing or
discharging. Paragraph 15 of the rules and regulations is as follows:



■ Extract from City Code given in Sec. 57, et seq., page 55.



53

Vessels to load will be allowed lay days as follows free from charge of dockage:

Under 150 tons 12 days

150 tons to 200 tons 15 days

200 tons to 500 tons : 20 days

500 tons to 800 tons 25 days

800 tons to 1,100 tons .35 days

1,100 tons to 1,500 tons 40 days

Over 1,500 tons 45



Vessels to discharge will be allowed lay days as follows free from charge of dockage :

Under 150 tons 5 days

150 tons to 200 tons 6 days

200 tons to 500 tons 7 days

500 tons to 800 tons 10 days

800 tons to 1,100 tons 15 days

1,100 tons to 1,500 tons 20 days

Over 1,500 tons 25 days

At the expiration of the specified number of lay days allowed to load or discharge cargo,
dockage will, in all cases, be charged at the established rate in addition to wharfage rates on
cargo. Calendar time will be computed in all cases of lay days and dockage.

AVe presume there will occur but few cases in which vessels will



Online LibraryCalifornia. LegislatureAppendix to the Journals of the Senate and Assembly of the ... session of the Legislature of the State of California (Volume 1885v.1) → online text (page 81 of 83)