Maryland case law › Wild v. State

Wild v. State

201 Md. 73 (2001) · Maryland Court of Appeals
Maryland Court of AppealsDisposition: AffirmedHenderson✓ Good law
HoldingThe appellant, First Assistant Engineer aboard the Steamship Thomas T.

Henderson, J., delivered the opinion of the Court. The appellant was convicted by Judge Tucker, sitting without a jury, in the Criminal Court of Baltimore, on charges of allowing or permitting the discharge of fuel oil into the waters of Baltimore harbor, in violation of State law and a city ordinance; and fined $200. He was the First Assistant Engineer on the Steamship Thomas T. Leathers, an American Liberty ship owned by the United States and operated by the Eastern Steamship Lines for the United States. The Master, Chief Mate and Chief Engineer, who were indicted and tried along with the appellant were acquitted.

The sole question argued on appeal is whether a motion for a verdict of “not guilty” at the close of the State’s case should have been granted. 75 On December 28, 1951 the Leathers was moored to the west side of Recreation Pier, having no cargo aboard. At 2:30 P. M. a barge of the Harbor Towing Company, M. P. 23, loaded with 4000 barrels of fuel oil, “bunker, sea,” came alongside and made fast. The barge captain testified that he passed up his hose, by means of a derrick, and that two colored men on the ship took it and hooked it on to a valve after he had passed up to them two bolts and a wrench. These men then told him to go ahead and he started pumping at about 3:20.

There was a white man in an officer’s cap on deck at the time. After pumping for some time he learned that the valve on his pump was not working, so that no oil was being delivered. Apparently this fact was discovered by the Superintendent of the Harbor Towing Company, who went aboard the Leathers at 4:20 P. M., talked to the barge captain, and returned in a tug boat with the port engineer. They went aboard the barge and the latter repaired the valve.

The barge captain, the superintendent and the port engineer all testified that a man in an officer’s cap on the ship told them to resume pumping, and they did so at about 5:20 P. M. This man asked how long it would be before they were ready to pump. They said they were ready. He said: “Get the oil on. I don’t want to be here all night.” They were unable to identify the man who gave the order, as it was rather dark.

Pumping continued until 7:30 P. M. When the valve on the ship was cut off after it was discovered that some 1000 barrels of oil delivered in this period had gone overboard. It was shown by sample analysis that the oil in the water was the same type as that in the barge. The superintendent testified he was called to the ship about 8:45 P. M. and talked to the Chief Engineer and the appellant. They told him they had been pumping water (ballast) out of the tank to which the oil hose had been connected, so that the oil was pumped or siphoned out on the opposite side of the ship as fast as it came in.

They both told him they didn’t give the order to pump oil and didn’t know the oil was coming aboard. 76 The relief, or night, mate testified he came aboard at 5 P. M. He saw the barge alongside, the scuppers plugged, the hose connected and a red flag flying on the ship. He said he saw an oilslick alongside about twenty minutes after he came aboard and reported it to the Chief Mate, who said he would go down and tell the First Assistant. He. saw the Chief Mate talking to the First Assistant Engineer, but did not hear what was said. He also testified that he talked to some people on the barge and they told him their pump was broken down.

He thought pumping was not resumed until about 11 P. M. The master was not on the vessel during the whole time the barge was alongside, nor were the second and third mates. The Chief Mate was aboard until he went to supper some time after he was relieved by the relief mate. The Chief Engineer was aboard but went ashore to get his dinner sometime before the relief mate came aboard. The witness also testified that it was the duty of the First Assistant Engineer to make hose

This is a preview of Wild v. State. About 50% of the opinion remains. Read the complete opinion in RecordCite.