his, its or their property for any penal offense." The party interrogated may object to the interrogatories on the ground of irrelevancy or impertinence, or on any ground for which exceptions to a pleading are permitted. It has been held that it is no ground for exception to an interrogatory annexed to a libel, that a respondent's answer has answered the same.6 The extent of interrogatories rests largely in the discretion of the court of first instance," and great liberality is permitted in their allowance.8 Interrogatories so far as they call for evidence should be confined to testimony in support of the proponent's case on defense. They should not seek evidence which relates solely to the case of the opposite party; but particulars of the matters pleaded may be requested. It is no ground for an exception to interrogatories that they call for detailed information, which will involve the expenditure of considerable time and labor by the respondent, or that incidentally they may solicit information which the interrogator would otherwise not be entitled to call for.10 The defendant to the libel must answer the interrogatories propounded to him at the same time that he files his answer. The time within which the libelant must answer interrogatories 4 Admiralty Rule 30, Pollock v. The Sea Bird, 3 Fed. 573; Pollock v. Bridgeport St. Co., 114 U. S. 411, 29 L. ed. 147; La Bourgogne, 104 Fed. 823. See §§ 339, 348, supra § 602, infra. It is not necessary that a party to a suit in admiralty should be personally before the court in order to avail himself of the privilege given him by Admiralty Rules 31 and 32 to refuse to make answer to interrogatories which will expose him to any prosecution or punishment for crime, or for any penalty or any forfeiture of his property for any penal offense; but he is required to state specifically that his answers would have that effect, and a statement in refusing to make answer that the interrogatories were framed in support of allegations, which, if true, would or might tend to expose him to a penalty or forfeiture, is insufficient as a claim of privilege. Re Knickerbocker Steamboat Co., 139 Fed. 713. 5 Adm. Rule 28. 6 The Teaser, 188 Fed. 721. 7 Erie & Western Transp. Co. v. Great Lakes Towing Co., 184 Fed. 349. 8 Chirurg v. Knickerbocker Steam Towage Co., 177 Fed. 943; Erie & Western Transp. Co. v. Great Lakes Towing Co., 184 Fed. 349. 9 Prince Line, Ltd. v. Mayer & Lage, 264 Fed. 856; The Princess Sophia, 269 Fed. 651. 10 Erie & Western Transp. Co. v. Great Lakes Towing Co., 184 Fed. 349. annexed to an answer is determined by the rules or practice of the several districts.11 Answers to interrogatories are parts of the pleadings and do not stand as evidence for the party answering.12 Exceptions may be filed to insufficient or evasive answers to interrogatories.18 In the Southern District of New York, oral examinations of the parties are allowed.14 "After joinder of issue, and before trial, any party may apply to the court for an order directing any other party, his agent or representative, to make discovery, on oath, of any documents which are, or have been, in his possession or power, relating to any matter or question in issue. And the court may order the production, by any party, his agent or representative, on oath, of such of the documents in his possession or power relating to any matter in question in the cause as the court shall think right, and the court may deal with such documents, when produced, in such manner as shall appear just.1 15 § 581a. Dismissal of libel by the libelant. The libelant has the right to dismiss the libel at any time, before an order or decree giving rights to others, except perhaps in prize cases. If a cross libel has been filed, the court might retain jurisdiction thereof. The dismissal might be conditioned on the payment of costs.4 11 In the New York districts, within four days from the filing of the answer and interrogatories. 12 Cushing v. Laird (Blatchford, J.), 6 Ben. 408; The Serapis, 37 Fed. 436. 13 See Adm. Rule 37, S. D. N. Y. 14 Adm. Rule 38, S. D. N. Y. See The Sisilina, 212 Fed. 1022. 15 Adm. Rule 33. It has been said that letters, reports, statements, telegrams, cablegrams and memoranda containing the sub: stance of communications between the officers or crew of the vessel and the officers and agents of the owners are prima facie privileged. See The Princess Sophia, 269 Fed. 651. Before the adoption of this admiralty rule it was held: that the ap § 581b. Dismissal for failure to prosecute in admiralty. "If, in any admiralty suit, the libelant shall not appear and prosecute his suit, and comply with the orders of the court, he shall be deemed in default and contumacy; and the court may on the application of the respondent or claimant, pronounce the suit to be deserted, and the same may be dismissed with costs."1 § 582. Trial. In many of the districts, as in New Jersey and Pennsylvania, the evidence is taken before the clerk, as in equity and the court merely hears the case summed up. The proofs are taken subject to objections, which are renewed upon the trial and then passed on by the court. In other districts, as in Massachusetts, New York and Connecticut, the witnesses are examined in open court. Except when the statutes require a jury, the judge decides questions of fact as well as of law. In some of the districts experts are at times called by the court to sit with it in order to pass upon questions of navigation like the Trinity masters in the English practice. In the trial of an admiralty cause, where the testimony is taken before the court, all testimony offered, although objected to, should be admitted subject to the objection for the benefit of the appellate court, unless so utterly irrelevant or immaterial that there can be no question of its inadmissibility. The practice is not to permit a motion to dismiss the libel on the libelant's proofs alone, except where the defendant does not intend to introduce any evidence on his own behalf. He is not allowed to move to dismiss the libel on the libelant's proofs, and then, if the motion is denied, proceed with his own proofs. Leave to dismiss a libel without § 581b. 1 Adm. Rule 38; supra, § 362. By Adm. Rule 4, S. D. N. Y., "When various actions are pending, all resting upon the same matter of right or defense, although there be no common interest between the parties, the Court, by order, at its discretion, may compel said actions to be tried together, and will enter a decree in each cause conformably to the evidence applicable thereto.'' 2 Minnesota S. S. Co. v. Lehigh Valley Transportation Co., C. C. A., 129 Fed. 22. prejudice is ordinarily in the discretion of the trial court and will ordinarily be refused after the judge has indicated the nature of his decision. The libelant has no right to a dismissal of his libel, without prejudice, after a hearing and the filing of an opinion against him.5 Upon a motion to reopen a case after a trial, in order to offer further evidence, the applicant should show that competent evidence can be produced by him.6 § 582a. Trial by jury in admiralty. When Congress in the Act of 1845 intended to extend the admiralty jurisdiction over the Great Lakes the statute provided "saving however to the parties the right of trial by jury of all facts put in issue in such suit, where either party shall require it." This saving clause is retained in the following section of the Revised Statutes, "The trial of issues of fact in the District courts, in all causes except cases in equity and cases of admiralty and maritime jurisdiction, and except as otherwise provided in proceeding in bankruptcy, shall be by jury. In causes of admiralty and maritime jurisdiction relating to any matter of contract or tort arising upon or concerning any vessel of twenty tons burden or upward, enrolled and licensed for the coasting trade, and at the time employed in the business of commerce and navigation between places in different States and Territories upon the lakes and navigable waters connecting the lakes, the trial of issues of fact shall be by jury when either party requires it."2 A trial by jury is not necessary upon a libel for a penalty for the failure to report a vessel from a foreign port to the consul and to enter the required manifest. Nor to a libel against a vessel engaged in commerce exclusively between ports of the same State. Nor to one against a vessel engaged in commerce upon the rivers 3 Folger v. Robert G. Shaw Co., 2 W. & M. 531, Fed. Cas. No. 4,899; The Bainbridge, C. C. A., 199 Fed. 404. See § 360, supra. 4 The Bainbridge, C. C. A., Fed. 404. 199 5 The Bainbridge, C. C. A., 199 Fed. 404. Cf. § 360, supra. § 582a. 15 St. at L. 727. See Gillet v. Pierce, 1 Brown Adm. 553; The Erie Bell, 20 Fed. 63. 2 U. S. R. S., § 566, Comp. St. § 1583. 3 The Paolina, 11 Fed. 171. 4 Sanderson v. The City of Toledo, 73 Fed. 220. 6 Ibid. Ohio and Monongahela. It seems that the verdict of the jury is merely advisory. It is reviewable by appeal and not by writ of error. The Act of February 16, 1875,8 which directs the finding of facts by the Circuit courts in admiralty cases, and, upon the consent of the parties, a trial by jury there by not less than five and no more than twelve, has been repealed.9 § 582b. New trials in admiralty. A court of admiralty has jurisdiction to order a new trial at a term which begins subsequently to the entry of the decree. In such a case it is the safer practice to make the application by a bill of review. Courts of admiralty, however, usually follow by analogy the rules of the common law in this respect and deny a new trial unless the application is made at the term at which the decree is entered. Before final decree all orders and interlocutory decrees are open to revision. A new trial may, but rarely is, ordered upon an appeal.5 Upon an application for a new trial because of newly discovered evidence the nature of such evidence should be shown to the court.6 § 583. Evidence in admiralty. In general, evidence in admiralty is taken, admitted, and excluded under the rules that prevail in actions at common law, but in the admission of 5 Bigley v. The Venture, 21 Fed. 880. 6 The Empire, 19 Fed. 558; Sanderson v. The City of Toledo, 73 Fed. 220; The Western States, 151 Fed. 929; supra, §§ 378-381. 7 Boyd v. Clark, 13 Fed. 908. 818 St. at L. 315, 4 Fed. St. Ann. 557. 9 Munson S. S. Line & Miramar S. S. Co., C. C. A., 167 Fed. 960, 93 C. C. A. 360; The Nyack, C. C. A., 199 Fed. 383, 386. § 582b. 1 Jackson v. Munks, 58 Fed. 596; s. c., C. C. A., 69 Fed. 571. 2 Ibid. 3 Mainwaring v. The Carrie Delap, 1 Fed. 880. A new trial in the District Court has been ordered on an appeal. The Comfort, 32 Fed. 327; The Annex, 38 Fed. 669. But see The Madgie, 31 Fed. 926. Supra, §§ 478, 530. 4 The Dredge, A, 217 Fed. 617. 5 U. S. R. S., § 566, Comp. St. § 1583, supra, § 582a; The Glide, C. C. A., 72 Fed. 200. In an extraordinary case a new trial was ordered by the District Court upon a libel of review filed by a surety after the term. 6 The Grand Manan, 217 Fed. 926. § 583. 1 See chapter XXI, supra. Admissions are evidence against the pleader, Ward v. Fashion, Fed. Cas. 17,154; The Santa Clause, Fed. Cas. 12,327; Berry v. The Montezuma, Fed. Cas. 1358a. The admission of the master in answer to an interrogatory is entitled to great weight. The Sagamore, C. C. A., 247 Fed. |