Mysterious and Intriguing Notice of Chancery Sale of Pelham Lands on Miniford's Island in 1823

Archive of the Historic Pelham Web Site.
Home Page of the Historic Pelham Blog.
Order a Copy of "The Haunted History of Pelham, New York"
Order a Copy of "Thomas Pell and the Legend of the Pell Treaty Oak."

The legal notice that began appearing in issues of the New-York Spectator nearly two centuries ago in early April, 1823 is intriguing.  It reflects notice of a court-ordered public auction of a 24-acre tract on "Miniford's Island" in the Town of Pelham (today's City Island).  Today's Historic Pelham Blog article attempts to unravel some of the mystery of the legal notice and challenges the many experts on City Island history who regularly read the blog to provide any assistance possible further to unravel this fascinating mystery.

An image of the legal notice (and transcription of its text to facilitate search) appear at the end of today's article.  The notice explicitly states that the tract will be sold at public auction "IN pursuance of a decretal order of the Court of Chancery."

The New York Court of Chancery, first established in 1701 during British colonial rule, was the highest court in the State of New York from 1701 until 1847.  After U.S. independence, the New York State Constitution of 1777 continued the court as a court with jurisdiction on cases of equity (rather than legal damages).  During the period 1777 to 1847 the court also served, generally speaking, as a court of appeals to consider appeals from certain matters decided by the New York Supreme Court.

A Chancery Court "decretal order" such as that referenced in the legal notice was an order entered by the Court of Chancery upon a motion or petition in the nature of a decree finally determining some right of a party to a proceeding in equity (rather than one seeking merely legal damages).  

According to the notice, pursuant to such a decretal order, a 24-acre tract on City Island was to be sold at a public auction at 12:00 Noon on April 28, 1823.  The auction was to be held at a public Inn managed by innkeeper David Smith in Eastchester.  (Pelham seems to have had no such inn or other such "public" place.  The notice failed to identify the owner of the land scheduled to be auctioned; hence, the mystery as to what prompted this decretal order.

The 1820 U.S. Census, taken in Pelham on January 5, 1820, reflects that there were only 41 households in all of the Town of Pelham (with a total of 285 residents including "Free White Males," "Free White Females," "Slaves," and "Free Colored Persons" ). Among the 41 heads of households reflected in that census were Nicholas Haight, Joshua Huested, and George Horton.  See 1820 United States Census - Census Place:  Eastchester, Westchester, New York, Township of Pelham, Page 206 NARA Microfilm Roll M33_75, Images 164-65 (Records of the Bureau of the Census, Record Group 29, National Archives, Washington, D.C.) (Note:  Paid subscription required to access via this link).

As of 1818, much of City Island was owned by Pelham residents Nicholas Haight and Joshua Huested.  On January 1, 1819, however, Nicholas Haight and his wife, Mary, sold to George Washington Horton 42 acres on the lower (southern) portion of City island.  The Horton family continued to hold most of this tract for much of the next sixty years.

Nicholas Haight, on the other hand, apparently was not so fortunate.  By 1820 Haight seems to have been in financial straits and soon found himself subject to a different decretal order by the New York Court of Chancery directing public auction of Haight's 130-acre farm on Rodman's Neck on the mainland adjacent to City Island.  Indeed, I have written before about Haight's travails in this regard.  See:

Tue., May 19, 2015:  Advertisements for Two Nineteenth Century Sales of Large Properties on Rodman's Neck in the Town of Pelham. 

Mon., Dec. 03, 2007:  Notice of Chancery Court Order Directing Auction Sale of Nicholas Haight's Farm in Pelham in 1820.  

Fri., Nov. 30, 2007:  1820 Advertisement for Sale of Nicholas Haight's Farm on Rodman's Neck.  

Legal notices of the public auction of Haight's farm on Rodman's Neck suggest that Haight's financial difficulties were connected to a lawsuit brought against him, his wife, notable Pelham resident John Hunter of Hunter's Island, and Peter Augustus Jay, a successful lawyer, anti-slavery advocate, philanthropist, and eldest son of John and Sarah Livingston Jay.  The lawsuit was referenced in legal notices published in 1820 as "George Faile, vs. Nicholas Haight and Mary his wife, John Hunter and Peter A. Jay."

George Faile, the plaintiff in the action, was a resident of East Chester who owned a fine estate in the southwestern corner of that settlement with a home, seated upon rising ground that overlooked the valley to the southeast, the Hutchinson River and "the distant waters of the Sound."  See Bolton, Jr., Robert, A History of the County of Westchester From Its First Settlement to the Present Time, Vol. I, p. 154 (NY, NY: Alexander S. Gould 1848). 

Research has not yet revealed the nature of the Chancery Court action brought by George Faile of Eastchester against the Haights, John Hunter, and Peter A. Jay.  It seems at least possible, however, that the legal notice issued in early April, 1823 announcing a public sale of a 24-acre tract on City Island was a further decretal order entered in connection with that action involving a tract owned by Haight on City Island (in addition to his Rodman's Neck property).  

The description of land contained in the legal notice includes a reference that seems to support this theory.  In describing one of the boundary lines of the 24-acre tract, it noted that the boundary separated the tract from "other land of Nicholas Haight" on City Island (emphasis added).  Interestingly, and likely significantly, the Master in Chancery named in both the 1820 and 1823 legal notices of public sales at auction was John M. McDonald, a famous Westchester County resident who later conducted and recorded in writing more than four hundred interviews of soldiers and eyewitnesses involved in the Revolutionary War in Westchester County.  These interviews and other papers were collected into the famed "McDonald Papers" in the 1920s by the Westchester County Historical Society.  See The McDonald Papers (visited Sep. 24, 2018).

The tract of land is described in a version of the legal notice published on April 8, 1823 as follows:

"all that certain tract, piece or parcel of land, situate, lying and being on Miniford's Island, otherwise called City Island, in the town of Pelham, county of West Chester, and state of new York, and is bounded as follows, to wit:  Beginning at a stone marked and set in the ground on the west side of said island, running thence north seventy-nine degrees east, by Thomas Pell's land, thirteen chains and twenty-two links, to a stone marked E. by the shore; thence south forty-six and three-fourths east, along by high water mark at common tides, seven chains and twenty-one links -- thence south twenty and an half east, by the said high water mark two chains -- thence south nine and a quarter east to take and give by high water, three chains ninety-six links, to a stone marked F. thence south twenty-seven west, by other land of Nicholas Haight, thirteen chains nineteen links, to a stone wall by land of Cornelius Myers -- thence south eighty-one west, by said Myer's land, seven chains nineteen links -- thence south seventy six west, by said Myer's land, three chains fifty-five links, to a ditch -- thence north one east, by said ditch and shore to take and give seven chains thirty-four links -- thence north eighteen east. by the water, one chain eighty links -- thence north fifty-seven east, by said water, three chains sixteen links -- thence north ten and three fourths east, two chains thirty-seven links, by said high water mark, to the stone or place of beginning, exclusive of a road two rods wide running through said land.  Containing twenty-four acres of land, be the same more or less."

To try to understand this description we first must understand the units of measurement of chains and links.  A "chain" is a unit of length equal to 66 feet   A link is 1/100 of a chain (about 7.92 inches).  The description translates to a rather labyrinthine plot of land wedged between a host of boundaries including Long Island Sound, a stone wall, a ditch, and -- of course -- surrounding properties.  

Clearly an interesting element of this entire "mystery" is the possibility that the land at issue was owned by Nicholas Haight.  If so, his financial difficulties extended well beyond 1820 and seem to have extended at least into 1823.

1823 Legal Notice for Auction of City Island Property

by Decretal Order of the Court of Chancery of New York.

Source:  IN CHANCERY [Legal Notice], New-York Spectator,

Apr. 8, 1823, Vol. XXVI, p. 3, col. 6 (text transcribed immediately

below).  NOTE:  Click on Image to Enlarge.

*          *          *          *          *

"IN CHANCERY.
State of New-York, ss.

IN pursuance of a decretal order of the Court of Chancery, will be sold at public auction at the house of David Smith, innkeeper, in the town of East Chester, in the county of West Chester, and state of New-York, on Monday, the twenty-eighth day of April instant, at 12 o'clock at noon of that day, under the direction of the subscriber, one of the masters of this court, all that certain tract, piece or parcel of land, situate, lying and being on Miniford's Island, otherwise called City Island, in the town of Pelham, county of West Chester, and state of new York, and is bounded as follows, to wit:  Beginning at a stone marked and set in the ground on the west side of said island, running thence north seventy-nine degrees east, by Thomas Pell's land, thirteen chains and twenty-two links, to a stone marked E. by the shore; thence south forty-six and three-fourths east, along by high water mark at common tides, seven chains and twenty-one links -- thence south twenty and an half east, by the said high water mark two chains -- thence south nine and a quarter east to take and give by high water, three chains ninety-six links, to a stone marked F. thence south twenty-seven west, by other land of Nicholas Haight, thirteen chains nineteen links, to a stone wall by land of Cornelius Myers -- thence south eighty-one west, by said Myer's land, seven chains nineteen links -- thence south seventy six west, by said Myer's land, three chains fifty-five links, to a ditch -- thence north one east, by said ditch and shore to take and give seven chains thirty-four links -- thence north eighteen east. by the water, one chain eighty links -- thence north fifty-seven east, by said water, three chains sixteen links -- thence north ten and three fourths east, two chains thirty-seven links, by said high water mark, to the stone or place of beginning, exclusive of a road two rods wide running through said land.  Containing twenty-four acres of land, be the same more or less -- together with the hereditaments and appurtenances to the same belonging.

Dated New-York, April 1st, 1823.

JOHN M. MACDONALD,
Master in Chancery.

april 5 C&S2awtds"

Source:  IN CHANCERY [Legal Notice], New-York Spectator, Apr. 8, 1823, Vol. XXVI, p. 3, col. 6.

1868 Map Depicting City Island.  Source: F. W. Beers, "City Island,

Pelham Township, Westchester Co., N.Y. (with) Town of Pelham,

Westchester Co., N. Y." in Atlas of New York and Vicinity, p. 35 

(NY, NY: Beers, Ellis & Soule, 1868). NOTE: Click on Image to Enlarge.

Archive of the Historic Pelham Web Site.
Home Page of the Historic Pelham Blog.
Order a Copy of "The Haunted History of Pelham, New York"
Order a Copy of "Thomas Pell and the Legend of the Pell Treaty Oak."

The Fate of the First Three-Masted Schooner Ever Built in a Pelham Shipyard

Archive of the Historic Pelham Web Site.
Home Page of the Historic Pelham Blog.
Order a Copy of "The Haunted History of Pelham, New York"
Order a Copy of "Thomas Pell and the Legend of the Pell Treaty Oak."

On February 29, 1884, a local newspaper made a brief reference to the "first three masted schooner ever built on City Island" in the Town of Pelham.  Although the reference indicates that the schooner, christened the John K. Shaw, was built at Carll's shipyard in about 1869, it actually was built at the shipyard and delivered to its initial owner, A. S. Hatch, in 1872.  

I have written extensively about David Carll and Carll's Shipyard before.  See, e.g., Mon., Nov. 16, 2015:  David Carll's Shipyard in the Town of Pelham on City Island; Fri., Jun. 16, 2017:  Origins of Ship Repair and Shipbuilding on City Island in the Town of Pelham; Thu., Dec. 31, 2009:  Obituary of David Carll, Master Shipbuilder on City Island in the Town of Pelham.

Schooners are a class of sailing vessels that have fore-and-aft sails on two or more masts. The most common type has two masts, the foremast being shorter than the main.  Although other schooners had been built at Carll's Shipyard prior to construction of the John K. Shaw in 1872, it would appear that the earlier ones were the more common two-masted version of the vessel, if the brief newspaper reference published in 1884 is to be believed.  

The newspaper reference is fascinating because it revealed the fate of the three-masted schooner John K. Shaw.  It stated:

"About fifteen years ago, the first three masted schooner ever built on City Island, the John K. Shaw, was built at Carll's shipyard. During these fifteen years, the vessel never met with any serious mishaps until Friday last, when she was wrecked off Woodlands on the New Jersey Coast."

Source:  PELHAM AND CITY ISLAND, The Chronicle [Mount Vernon, NY], Feb. 29, 1884, Vol. XV, No. 754, p. 3, col. 4.  

The tragic wreck of the John K. Shaw off the Woodlands on the New Jersey coast with the loss of its entire crew of Manasquan, New Jersey men on about Friday, February 22, 1884 captured national attention.  Many believe the schooner was involved in a rare instance of a maritime "hit and run" and was sunk by a vessel that fled the scene after a terrible collision. 

The 158-foot, 379 ton schooner John K. Shaw left Newport News between 12:00 noon and 1:00 p.m. on Thursday, February 21.  The vessel carried nearly nineteen tons of iron ingots on its deck as well as Captain Lucien Osborn and his crew of six men from the borough of Manasquan in Monmouth County, New Jersey.  Three days later on the afternoon of February 24, observers near Deal Beach, New Jersey spotted the spars of a wreck in the waters off the beach.  The pilot of a local tugboat named the Maggie Moran traveled out to the wreck.  He found the afterpart of the deck afloat, and took off a bell having the name "John K. Shaw" on it.  For a time thereafter, other parts of the wreck washed ashore (or were brought ashore) and were identified as belonging to the John K. Shaw.  

There was no certain proof as to how the schooner was lost.  However, the appearance of the remnants of the wreck suggested that a terrible collision had occurred.  The broken planks on one side of the deck suggested that a collision sank the vessel.  No other vessel (or remnants of any vessel) were on the scene.

Within a short time, the owners of the John K. Shaw began an investigation.  Soon they learned that a steamship named the Newport was bound from New York to Havana on the evening of Saturday, February 23, 1884 and that, while off Deal Beach, had a collision with an unidentified three-masted schooner.  The owners of the John K. Shaw filed a maritime action in libel against the owners of the Newport in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York.   The libelants (i.e., plaintiffs) alleged that the steamship Newport collided with and sank their vessel and sought $21,062 in damages (about $735,000 in today's dollars).

The owners of the Newport admitted that their steamship collided with an unknown three-masted schooner off the coast of Deal Beach.  They alleged, however, that the schooner was not the John K. Shaw and the collision was a "slight one, her starboard bow grazing the schooner's starboard quarter without injury to either vessel."  

The Court dismissed the action, holding that the libelants had failed to establish that the steamship Newport had collided with the John K. Shaw.  That did not, however, end the matter.  The owners appealed, but were unsuccessful.  See The Newport, 36 F. 910 (2d Cir. 1888).  Instead, the owners of the John K. Shaw and the insurer of the ship's cargo subsequently filed a lawsuit against the Master of the steamship Newport at the time of the collision.  That case made it to the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit where the Court ruled that because the owners of the Newport were parties to the first lawsuit, they could not re-litigate the question of whether the Master of the steamship Newport was responsible.  The insurer that was not a party to the earlier lawsuit, however, was permitted to proceed.  See Bailey v. Sundberg, 1 F. 101 (2nd Cir. 1892).  

The location of the remnants of the John K. Shaw is well known.  Indeed, the vessel seems to have been run down and virtually split in half with the two halves settling near each other in two adjacent locations off the New Jersey shore.  The two locations of the wreckage of the vessel have become popular with recreational divers in the last few years.    

Though proceedings continued in the related litigations involving the owners and the insurer of the John K. Shaw for years, the mystery remained.  Indeed, the mystery of what happened to the John K. Shaw more than 134 years ago remains unsolved to this day.  The mystery of who sank the first three-masted schooner ever built in the little Town of Pelham likely will never be solved.

"View of City Island" by Frederick Rondel, 1872. Oil on Canvas

Painting, 20.25 inches x 30 inches. This Painting Depicts the Marine

Railway at David Carll's Shipyard in 1872, the Year the John K.

Shaw was Built at the Shipyard.  NOTE: Click on Image to Enlarge.

*          *          *          *          *

"PELHAM AND CITY ISLAND. 

Mr. George O. Hawes is erecting a neat cottage at Bartow, for a gentleman of New York City. 

A pound party was held at Grace Church parsonage on Monday evening last. It was a very social and pleasant affair. 

Mr. Dudley R. Horton will occupy the handsome dwelling adjoining the M. E. Church, owned by Mr. Horton Sr., this spring. 

The pigeon match at Secord's Bartow, on Washingtons Birthday, between Will. Pell and Ben. May, for $25 a side, was won by Pell killing eight straight birds. 

Mr. Hawes the carpenter and builder, is at work rebuilding the summer residence of Mr. Wm. Belden. We understand the alterations are to be very extensive. 

Through the persistancy [sic] of the Board of Town Officers, City Island bridge has been temporarily repaired, so that it is at least safe. Cannot something be done to put the road between City Island and Bartow in a passable condition? 

The talk about that scheme to build a horse railroad from City Island to Bartow is all gas. Such an enterprise would doubtless be a grand thing for City Island but a good macadamized road between the two points would be quite as advantageous as a horse railroad. 

Mr. J. F. Horton, representing the Hell Gate pilots, before the Committee on Commerce and Navigation of the Assembly, on Tuesday of last week, made such forcible arguments against the bill to further reduce the fees of pilots, that the committee reported unanimously adverse to the bill. 

About fifteen years ago, the first three masted schooner ever built on City Island, the John K. Shaw, was built at Carll's shipyard. During these fifteen years, the vessel never met with any serious mishaps until Friday last, when she was wrecked off Woodlands on the New Jersey Coast. 

On Wednesday morning last, about seven o'clock, Andrew Anderson, a sailor on board the schooner J. H. Leeds, fell from the masthead to the deck when the vessel was nearing [illegible] and was instantly killed. The schooner put in at City Island and Coroner Tice held an inquest, when a verdict of accidental death was rendered. Anderson was a Swede, about 32 years old, and was unmarried. 

On Saturday last, John Cochran and Hugh Ryan went out in the bay to get some drift wood. After they had gotten their wood and towed it where they wanted it, they rowed around the Island to the cove, and just before landing, their skiff was capsized. Cochran swam ashore, but before Ryan could be rescued he came very near drowning. He was carried to his home in an insensible condition and it was nearly an hour before he was recusitated [sic]. 

The last will of Samuel P. Billar, an oysterman of this place, was a short time ago, admitted to probate by the Surrogate without opposition. It provided that his estate, about $30,000, should be enjoyed by his two children and widow as long as she remained single. In case of her re-marriage, the estate should be divided into thirds and each given their share. Application was recently made to the Surrogat to decide whether she was entitled to the personal estate, the executor having some doubts on the legal construction of the will. The Surrogate has decided that she is so entitled."

Source:  PELHAM AND CITY ISLAND, The Chronicle [Mount Vernon, NY], Feb. 29, 1884, Vol. XV, No. 754, p. 3, col. 4.  

"NO TIDINGS OF THE CREW.

The tug Maggie Moran, the schooner C. Hawsahan, and the revenue steamer Grant, all reported yesterday having passed a wreck off Woodlands, N. J.  The wreck provides to have been the three-masted schooner John K. Shaw, which left Newport News for New-Haven on Feb. 20.  Two of her spars and a portion of her stern were sticking above water.  The Moran's crew wrenched off a small brass bell, which bore the name of the schooner, and which established her identity.  Nothing whatever has been heard of her crew.  they were six men, under the command of Capt. Lucien Osborn.  The vessel was valued at about $12,000, and is said to have been uninsured.

A. S. Hatch & Co., of the Chesapeake and Ohio Railway, were part owners of the lost vessel, and Capt. Osborn owned a share of her.  Mr. H. P. Havens, of No. 107 South-street, the agent of the vessel, received a letter on Saturday from the wife of Capt. Osborn asking if he had yet arrived in port.  She resides at Manasquan, N.J.  It is feared that the whole crew have perished, for if they had been rescued so near this port some tidings of the fact would have reached the agent.  The cargo consisted of about 350 tons of coal and 150 tons of pig-iron.  The vessel was built at City Island in 1872 and measured 379 tons.  Her agent thinks that perhaps she was run down by some steamer."

Source:  NO TIDINGS OF THE CREW, N.Y. Times, Feb. 26, 1884.  

"Wreckage on the Jersey Coast.

LONG BRANCH, March 3. -- The search continues for the bodies of the crew of the schooner John K. Shaw, which was sunk off Woodsland several days ago.  The sunken vessel now lies bottom up, and is supposed to be intact.  Parts of another vessel were washed ashore yesterday at Asbury Park.  The body which washed ashore near Bear island yesterday was buried to-day alongside of the other victims of the British bark Elmina.  The life saving crews will keep up the watch for bodies of the Shaw's crew.  The wife of Captain Osborn has offered a reward for the recovery of her husband's body."

Source:  Wreckage on the Jersey Coast, The Evening Bulletin [Maysville, KY], Mar. 3, 1884, p. 4, col. 1 (Note:  Subscription required to access via this link).

"The Newport.1 
[Footnote 1 reads:  "1 Reported by Edward G. Benedict, Esq., of the New York bar."]

Hatch and others v. The Newport. 

(District Court, S. D. New York. September 17, 1886.) 

Collision — Steamer And Schooner — Identity Of Colliding Vessel — Circumstantial Evidence—Witnesses Discredited—Costs Not Given. Libelants' three-masted schooner the S., which sailed on the twenty-first of February, 1884, from Newport News for New Haven, was sunk off the New Jersey coast, and all on board perished. The appearance of the wreck, discovered on the 24th, indicated collision as the cause of the loss. The steamer Newport, on the evening of the 23d, was in collision in the same neighborhood with a three-masted schooner. Libelants, claiming that the vessel struck by the Newport was the schooner S., and that she was sunk by the steamer's fault, brought this suit against the steam-ship for their loss. Held, on the evidence, some of the libelants' witnesses being discredited, that libelants had not established the identity of the Newport with the vessel that had sunk the S., and that the libel should be dismissed; but, considering the libelants' misfortune and probable case, without costs. 

In Admiralty. 
L. E. Chittenden and Geo. A. Black, for libelants. 
Goodrich, Deady & Goodrich, and R. D. Benedict, for claimants. 

Brown, J. In February, 1884, the libelants' three-masted schooner John K. Shaw, while on a voyage from Newport News to New Haven, and when some four or five miles off the Jersey coast, and about opposite Deal beach, was sunk, and all on board perished. She left Newport News between 12 and 1 o'clock P.M. of Thursday the 21st. In the afternoon of the 24th the spars of a wreck were seen projecting above water off Deal beach. The pilot of the tug-boat Maggie Moran, upon going near, found the afterpart of the deck afloat, and [Page 658 / Page 659] took off a bell having the name John K. Shaw upon it. Other parts of the wreck which came ashore, or were brought ashore afterwards, were identified as belonging to the John K. Shaw. 

There is no certain proof how the schooner was lost. She was deeply loaded, and had 19 tons of iron on deck. The wind on the night of the 23d was high from N.W., blowing about 50 miles per hour, with a considerable lumpy sea; and the weather during the afternoon previous was snowy. But the schooner is proved to have been staunch and sound, and her captain an experienced and capable officer, well acquainted with the coast; and the appearance of the wreck, from the breaking of the planks on the sides of the deck, indicated collision as the cause of the loss. 

The steamer Newport, bound from New York to Havana, when about opposite Deal beach, and at about 7 P.M. on the evening of the 23d, had a collision with a three-masted schooner. The libel charged that this schooner was the John K. Shaw, and that she was sunk by the steamer's fault, and claims $21,062 damages. The answer avers that the schooner with which the steamer collided was not the John K. Shaw, but some other schooner unknown to the claimants; and that the steamer's collision was a slight one, her starboard bow grazing the schooner's starboard quarter without injury to either vessel. 

Assuming that the John K. Shaw was sunk by a collision, the principal question in the case is whether the identity of these collisions has been satisfactorily established; in other words, whether, during the 24 hours preceding the afternoon of the 24th, when the wreck of the Shaw was first discovered, there were two collisions in that vicinity, or but one. 

As there is no direct proof identifying the John K. Shaw as the schooner with which the steamer collided, the evidence on the libelants' part is necessarily circumstantial only. The chief circumstances relied on to show that the schooners were one and the same are the following: (1) Both were three-masted schooners bound up the coast; (2) the John K. Shaw, from the time she left Newport News, might easily have been off Deal beach at the time of the Newport's collision, since only an average speed of four and one-half miles would have been requisite to bring her there at 7 P.M. of the 23d; (3) the site of the wreck when discovered in the afternoon of the 24th, was not far—certainly not over two or three miles—from the admitted place of the Newport's collision, and the latter place is but approximately fixed by estimates only; (4) one witness, the mess-boy of the Newport, testifies that he saw the schooner list and sink a few minutes after the collision, and when from a quarter to a half mile distant; and two others of her seamen, who watched the schooner from the steamer's port side, though they do not swear to seeing the schooner sink or capsize, think she must have sunk, because she vanished or disappeared suddenly when a half mile or thereabouts distant; (5) [Page 660 / Page 661] there was no other known wreck of a schooner at that time and place; (6) if the two schooners were not the same, then there were two collisions at about the same time and place, and hence two other colliding vessels to be accounted for; but there is no evidence of any other collision,—no other was reported, and no other vessel colliding with the Newport is proved. The Newport has not shown what other vessel it was, if any other, that collided with her or with the John K. Shaw. 

These circumstances present a pretty strong prima facie presumption and probability that it was the John K. Shaw with which the Newport collided. But the most important circumstance of all, if true, is that the schooner that collided with the Newport sank shortly after. If that could be deemed proved, it would have great weight in discrediting the opposing testimony; for, if another three-masted schooner had been sunk and lost there on the 23d, that fact would in all probability have become known and reported; although this, even, would not be certain, since it might be a schooner returning from a long voyage, and her wreck might have wholly disappeared. But one of the weakest parts of the libelants' testimony is the alleged sinking of the schooner with which the Newport collided. If, on the other hand, that schooner did not sink at the time, or is not known to have sunk; and, still more, if the direction and the kind of the colliding blow were not such as were likely to cause a schooner to sink; and if the schooner, after passing the steamer, showed no signs of sinking, and gave no signal for assistance, though means of doing so were at hand,—then the other circumstances relied on by the libelants are obviously wholly inconclusive. 

Careful consideration of the particulars, as regards each of the circumstances relied on by the libelants, has satisfied me not only that they are insufficient to establish their case by a preponderance of proof; but that, notwithstanding my first impressions to the contrary, the probabilities, upon the facts and circumstances proved by the claimants, are that, however the John K. Shaw may have been sunk, it was not through the Newport, but that the schooner colliding with the latter was another vessel. I shall state some of the chief reasons only for this conclusion, without going into all the details of the testimony. 

(1) There is no satisfactory proof that the schooner that collided with the Newport was substantially injured. The weight of direct proof, and the probabilities of the case, are to the contrary. The mess-boy is not supported by Murphy, who stood by him watching the schooner. The latter says she sailed away into the darkness, as usual, apparently uninjured. The testimony of the other two seamen for the libelants, that they thought she sank, is based upon her disappearing suddenly some five or ten minutes after the collision, and a half mile or so distant, whereas they thought she should have been seen longer; but their credibility and good judgment are cer- [Page 660 / 661] tainly not sustained by their further testimony that a schooner on that night could be seen, as the one says, seven miles, the other twenty miles, off. Four other witnesses who were watching the schooner from a better post of observation say that she gradually disappeared, sailing away, as usual, into the darkness, without apparent injury. The night was dark, being still clouded and thick to the south and east from the previous snow, but clearing to the westward. 

(2) Most of the witnesses say that the schooner, before the collision, was sailing close-hauled, and therefore heading about N. by E.; that her sails at the collision were shaking from an apparent luff to avoid the Newport; and all say that after raking past the steamer she sailed away, or filled away, upon her previous course, until she disappeared from sight. This would not be natural or probable if she had been seriously injured as to sink within 10 or 15 minutes after the collision. 

(3) The schooner gave no call for help, nor signal of any kind indicating disaster or need of assistance. As she passed the steamer, several of the witnesses heard something said from the quarter deck. Two witnesses say it was in substance, 'Where in h—l are you going;' an exclamation certainly not indicative of serious injury or impending disaster. After she had passed, a light like that of a lantern was seen on board; but it was not swung, nor was any other signal for help displayed. It is scarcely credible that the vessel should have filled away on her course, and exhibited no signal for help, if so damaged as to sink shortly after. 

(4) The libel alleges that the colliding blow was given on the schooner's starboard bow, forward of the foremast,—the lookout of the steamer so testifies; and, if this had been true, doubtless the schooner would have been cut in two or capsized. But all of the other witnesses of the collision disprove the lookout's account in this respect. The blow was clearly a glancing blow upon the schooner's starboard quarter, given when the schooner, having luffed somewhat, was heading either N. or a little W. of N., while the steamer was heading about S. 1-2 W.; and the schooner's quarter raked along the steamer's side, as shown by the mark on the latter, for some 50 or 60 feet, beginning about 25 feet from the steamer's stem. Such a blow was not one that would necessarily do much damage to either vessel. It did none to the steamer, and the subsequent conduct of the schooner would indicate that none was done to her. If so, that furnishes all the explanation called for to account for the absence of proof of the name of the schooner collided with. The collision, in this view, was not one that required reporting, and accordingly was not reported; and hence the schooner was unknown. The steamer, for the same reason, made no official report of her collision, as she would have done had it been accompanied by damage. 

(5) There is no certain proof that the Shaw was sunk by collision. [Page 661 / Page 662] The breaking of the sides of her deck might have occurred in foundering, and from the great weight of iron on deck. So far as the appearances indicate a collision, however, they would indicate a different kind of collision from that with the Newport, viz., a collision on the port side, instead of one on the starboard side; and in the waist, cutting her in two, instead of a glancing blow along the starboard quarter. The wreck of the Shaw showed the taffrail mainly in place, and the rail and stanchions for a considerable distance still standing on the starboard quarter much further than along the port quarter. A sideling blow from the Newport on the schooner's starboard quarter could only have caused her to sink from crushing in that part of her; and it is hardly conceivable that a blow sufficient to crush in her quarter could have left her rail and stanchions standing; and the Shaw's wreck indicated a blow, if any, upon the opposite side. 

(6) A moment or two before the collision, the steamer's wheel was hard a-starboard, and her engines were stopped for five minutes. Her previous speed, aided by the wind, was about 15 knots. Under her starboard wheel she swung to port till she headed due north, when she went ahead under one bell at 'half speed,' being about nine knots. In swinging round to due north she would have gone due east from the meridian of the collision at least a third of a mile. She continued going north about 10 or 15 minutes, without seeing any signs of the schooner, and then swung around again to the southward, and continued on her course. As the schooner was probably going at the rate of six to seven knots, if she continued on her course without injury she would not have been overtaken by the steamer, on this return of about two miles to the northward, after the five-minutes stop of her engines. But, if the schooner had been seriously damaged, she would not have been likely to continue under full sail to the northward; and she would probably have been seen, or at least some boats or signals for help would probably have come into view, since there was clearly ample time, while the schooner was in sight, and before the steamer had got headed to the northward, to have launched her small boats. 

(7) The weight of testimony leaves no doubt that on board the Newport there was not, at the time, any belief or thought that the schooner had been sunk or materially injured; and such is the entry in her log. All the circumstances point to this belief on their part; and the testimony of one or two of the discharged seamen to the contrary is not sustained. Every probability is otherwise. 

(8) It is not wholly insignificant that out of the seven witnesses that looked down upon the deck of the schooner as she passed the steamer, illuminated to some extent by the steamer's lights, not one noticed any deck cargo; while the Shaw's large deck-load of iron must have been easily distinguishable. 

(9) The evidence all tends to show that the place of the Newport's collision was some two or three miles from the place where the wreck [Page 662 / Page 663] of the Shaw was found the next afternoon. This conclusion depends, to some extent, on estimates; but by no means wholly so. The place of the wreck is fixed, by its bearings from the stations Nos. 5 and 6, as less than five miles off Deal beach. The officer at station No. 5 testified at the trial that it bore from his station S. E. He afterwards made affidavit that he should have said E. S. E.; and as it bore E. by N. from station No. 6, the former would make the wreck less than three miles from shore; the latter, four and a half miles. 

All the witnesses from the Newport, however, as well as three for the libelant, estimate the place of the collision as from seven to eight miles off shore. The master went out further than usual to avoid the many coasters that had gathered near shore during the thick and snowy weather previous. It is scarcely probable that all on board should have misjudged the distance from shore in the same way, by making it one-third greater than it was. 

The distance and course run by the steamer after passing Sandy Hook and Scotland lightship, and the bearing of the Highland lights, after the Newport had got headed north, confirm the estimates given by the witnesses of their distance from shore at nearly seven miles. Upon heading north, the Highland lights, as the pilot testifies, bore 'about N. N. W.;' the two lights being in range and showing as one. The master says that the Scotland lightship at the same time bore N. by W. westerly. By passing from half a mile to a mile to the eastward of the latter at 5:50 and running 40 minutes S. by E., and then 10 minutes S. 1/2 W., as the master testifies she did run, the steamer would have reached, at 6:40 P.M., when the engine was stopped, about 12£ miles from the Scotland light-ship, and would be bearing, when headed to the northward, within half a point of S. S. E. from the Highland lights, which the pilot says bore 'about N. N. W.;' and this would also bring the Scotland light-ship N. by W. westerly, as the master testifies. This would make the steamer about seven miles from shore. The mate's statement that the Highland lights bore N. N. W. from the steamer after she got headed south again, I consider a mistake, as it is not reconcilable with anything else in the case, nor with the libelants' theory. 

The witnesses upon whom the libelants rely for proof that the schooner struck by the Newport was seen to sink, not only testify under somewhat suspicious influences, but the force of their testimony is greatly weakened by the manifest mistakes and improbabilities that attend it. One of the witnesses, Anderson, who says the schooner disappeared suddenly when about half a mile distant, also says 'it was a clear night at the time;' that the steamer was 'under full speed;' that it was moonlight; and that without moonlight the schooner could not be seen a half mile off, but thinks it could have been seen a quarter of a mile. Now, the proof is certain that the steamer was not then under full speed, but that her engines were either stopped or going slow; that it was not then a clear night; and, [Page 663 / Page 664] as the moon fulled on the evening of February 11th, there was no moon above the horizon at 7 P.M. of the 23d. From this it is manifest that not only can no value be attached to the witness' inference that the schooner sank when half a mile off because she suddenly disappeared, but the false circumstances stated discredit him altogether. There are other circumstances that compel me to withhold confidence from the statements of the other witnesses that testify that they saw the schooner sink. 

These circumstances altogether are sufficient, as it seems to me, to explain and to outweigh the apparent probabilities against the Newport at first presented. Her narrative is not attended, so far as I can perceive, by any serious inconsistencies, or by any difficulties or improbabilities. I cannot regard the case of the libelants, therefore, as established by any such preponderance of proof as to warrant a decree against the Newport, and the libel must be dismissed. The Grace Girdler, 7 Wall. 196; The Albert Mason, 2 Fed. Rep. 821; S. C. 8 Fed. Rep. 768; The City of Chester, 18 Fed. Rep. 603. But, considering the misfortune of the libelants, and their apparent probable case, the dismissal may be without costs."

Source:  The Newport, 28 F. 658 (S.D.N.Y., 1886) (Federal Reporter).

Archive of the Historic Pelham Web Site.
Home Page of the Historic Pelham Blog.
Order a Copy of "The Haunted History of Pelham, New York"
Order a Copy of "Thomas Pell and the Legend of the Pell Treaty Oak."

Commuting Between New York City and Pelham in 1843 Before the Railroad Was Extended to Pelham

Archive of the Historic Pelham Web Site.
Home Page of the Historic Pelham Blog.
Order a Copy of "The Haunted History of Pelham, New York"
Order a Copy of "Thomas Pell and the Legend of the Pell Treaty Oak."

Pelham residents today think nothing of a quick jaunt into New York City.  The inexpensive commute on Metro North takes 29 minutes from Pelham Station to Grand Central Terminal on modern and comfortable electric trains that are heated during cold weather and air conditioned when hot.  Thus, it is hard to imagine a time in the earliest years of the railroad industry in the New York region when the line of the New York and Harlem Rail Road extended from City Hall through 27th Street, Harlem, Fordham, and terminated at Williams' Bridge using steam locomotives and passenger cars with virtually no modern conveniences.  

It is harder, still, to imagine wood or coal-fired steam engines with no enclosure for the single engineer / fireman who simply stood on an unenclosed platform shoving fuel into a rudimentary firebox to maintain the steam.  Such "trains" into and out of New York sometimes were principally freight trains with a single "second class" passenger car.  Other times they were principally passenger trains with two passenger cars and a freight / baggage car.  The image immediately below depicts such a steam locomotive. 

Depiction of 1842 William Norris Steam Engine Locomotive

Similar to Locomotives Used at the Time on the Line of the

New York and Harlem Rail Road.  Source:  McElroy's Philadelphia

Directory for 1842, Advertisement Pg. 22 (Following Directory Pg.

348) (Philadelphia, PA:  Orrin Rogers, 1842).  NOTE:  Click on

Image to Enlarge.

The New York and Harlem Railroad was incorporated on April 25, 1831.  The first section of the new railroad ran from Prince Street north to 14th Street on November 26, 1832.  Slowly, thereafter, the railroad opened additional sections until it first reached Williamsbridge on September 3, 1842.  

No railroad line reached the little Town of Pelham until the New York and New Haven Railroad opened through Pelham in late December, 1848.  See Thu., Sep. 11, 2014:  Cattle Were Frightened; Animals Careened Round the Fields - The First Run of the New Haven Line Through Pelham in 1848.  There was a time, then, during the 1840s, when Pelhamites were capable of "commuting" by train to and from New York City -- as long as they could get to and from Williams Bridge.  Today's Historic Pelham Blog article details precisely how it was possible for Pelham residents to commute to and from New York City using the New York and Harlem Railroad for a portion of the trip.

It is possible to understand much about what such a commute was like for Pelhamites in 1843, only months after the New York and Harlem Railroad line was extended to Williams Bridge, from a commuter fare and timetable advertisement that appeared countless times in The Evening Post of New York City that year.  Moreover, the advertisement purports to depict a period image of such a train that permits additional analysis.  The image of the train taken from the advertisement appears below, first, with discussion of what can be learned from the image.

Click on Image to Enlarge.

The tiny image of the advertisement (that appears in full below with a transcription, a citation and a link to its source) appears immediately above.  The steam engine locomotive can be seen in the lead with a single man standing at the crude firebox behind the smokestack (to keep the smoke from obscuring the operator's view).  There appear to be two passenger rail cars behind the locomotive with passengers visible through the windows.  In the rear is what appears to be a freight or baggage car that is loaded.  Although there is no evidence that this image depicts an actual New York and Harlem Railroad train in 1843, its inclusion in an schedule and fare advertisement placed by the railroad suggests that the depiction is not wildly inaccurate.

The advertisement makes clear that to commute on the railroad to lower Manhattan and back, Pelhamites could take a scheduled stage coach from Pelham Bridge to Williams Bridge and then a New York and Harlem Railroad train as far as the City Hall region of Manhattan and reverse the process for the return trip.

There is no indication in the advertisement regarding the stagecoach fare.  The fare between what then was the end of the line at Williams Bridge and City Hall in lower Manhattan was twenty-five cents (about $13.00 in today's dollars).  For regular commuters, certainly rare from Pelham in that day, there was a commutation pass available, although it was sold only as an annual pass.  It cost $50.00 (about $2,600.00 in today's dollars).   

Regular trains departed from City Hall in lower Manhattan for Williamsbridge daily at 6:00 a.m., 7:10 a.m., 8:10 a.m., 9:10 a.m., 11:30 a.m., 2:10 p.m., 3:15 p.m., 4:10 p.m., and 6:10 p.m. with each train returning from Williams Bridge with any passengers traveling to New York City.  Additionally, beginning May 10, 1843, the railroad began running what later became known as the "milk run" departing Williams Bridge for City Hall at 3:00 a.m. with a return trip to Williams Bridge leaving City Hall at 5:30 a.m.

Horse-drawn stagecoaches to carry passengers, freight, and baggage to Pelham Bridge did not meet every train's arrival at Williams Bridge.  Rather, such stagecoaches only met two trains a day:  those that departed from City Hall at 8:10 A.M. and at 4:10 P.M.  Both stagecoaches could carry passengers, freight, and baggage on their return trips from Pelham Bridge back to the end of the train line at Williams Bridge. 

Clearly regular travel between the little Town of Pelham and lower Manhattan was difficult and expensive in 1843.  Yet, one can perceive the origins of today's massive Metro North commuter railroad that now carries more than 84 million passengers a year along some of the same railroad track rights-of-way used by Pelhamites when traveling on the New York and Harlem railroad 175 years ago in 1843.

*          *          *          *         *

Fare and Schedule Advertisement for the New York and

Harlem Railroad Published in The Evening Post of New

York City Throughout 1843.  Source:  NEW YORK AND HARLEM

RAIL ROAD - ROAD COMPANY --SPRING ARRANGEMENT

[Advertisement], The Evening Post [NY, NY], May 8, 1843,

p. 1, col. 3 (NOTE:  Paid subscription required to access via

this link).  NOTE:  Click on Image to Enlarge.

*          *          *          *          *

"NEW YORK AND HARLEM RAIL ROAD - ROAD COMPANY.
SPRING ARRANGEMENT.

GREAT REDUCTION OF FARE as follows, viz:

Between City Hall and Harlem . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12-1/2 cents
From City Hall to Fordham . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20 cents
From City Hall to Williams' Bridge. . . . . . . . . . . . 25 cents

On and after Monday, 24th of April instant, the cars will run daily as follows, viz:

Leave City Hall for Williams' Bridge, at 6, 7:10, 8:10, 9:10, 11:30, 2:10, 3:15, 4:10, 6:10.

On and after Wednesday, the 10th of May next, an extra freight train, with second class cars attached, for the accommodation of passengers, will leave Williams' Bridge, at 3 o'clock in the morning, and returning, leave City Hall, at 5:30, and 27th street, at 6 A.M.

Fare in this Train, between 27th street, and Harlem, 6-1/4 cents; between 27th street and Williams' Bridge, 12-1/2 cents.

The City Hall and 27th street Line will run daily as follows:  from 7 A. M. every ten minutes throughout the day till 8 o'clock, P. M.  Fare 6-1/4 cents.

An extra night line will run from City Hall to 27th st., as follows:

Leave City Hall for 27th st.   |   Leave 27th st. for City Hall,
8:30 P.M.,                             |   8 P.M.
9:30   "                                  |   9   "
10:30 "                                  |   10 "
11:30 " will run to 42d st.      |   11 "

Stages for Westchester, Throgg's Neck and Pelham Bridge, will leave Williams' Bridge daily, on the arrival of the Trains, which leave City Hall at 8:10 A.M., and 4:10 P.M.

Stages for Eastchester, New Rochelle and Mamaroneck, will leave Williams' Bridge daily, on the arrival of the Trains which leaves [sic] City Hall at 7:10 A.M. and 3:15 P.M.

Stages for Rye and Portchester will leave Williams' Bridge daily, on the arrival of tthe Trains which leave City Hall 3:15 P.M.

Stages for Marble Hall and White Plains will leave Williams' Bridge daily, (Sundays excepted,) on the arrival of the Train which leaves City Hall at 3:15 P.M.; also, leave Williams' Bridge every Tuesday, Thursday and Saturday, on the arrival of the Train which leaves City hall at 8:10 A.M.

Stages for Robbins' Mills, Milesquare, NewCastle, North Castle and Bedford, will leave Williams' Bridge every Tuesday, Thursday and Saturday, on the arrival of the Train which leaves City hall at 8:10 A.M.

Stages for Mamaroneck, Portchester, Greenwich and Stamford, will leave Williams' Bridge daily, on the arrival of the Train which leaves City Hall at 2 o'clock, P. M.

The company are now ready to commute with persons residing on the line of their road by the year, as follows:  

Between City Hall and 27th street, in
     27th street line exclusively. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $25
do          Yorkville, in trains     do     do . . . . . . . . . . . . .   35
do          Harlem,                    do     do . . . . . . . . . . . . .   40
do          Fordham,                 do     do . . . . . . . . . . . . .   45
do          Williams' Bridge,      do     do . . . . . . . . . . . . .   50

For further particulars in relation to commuting, apply at the office of the Company at City Hall, corner of Bowery and Broome street, and at 27th street, and will be forwarded by the 11:30 A.M., and 4 o'clock P.M. trains from the City Hall.

-- Freight must be paid in advance at the office of the company at City Hall, before the same will be forwarded."

Source:  NEW YORK AND HARLEM RAIL ROAD - ROAD COMPANY --SPRING ARRANGEMENT [Advertisement], The Evening Post [NY, NY], May 8, 1843, p. 1, col. 3 (NOTE:  Paid subscription required to access via this link).

Archive of the Historic Pelham Web Site.
Home Page of the Historic Pelham Blog.
Order a Copy of "The Haunted History of Pelham, New York"
Order a Copy of "Thomas Pell and the Legend of the Pell Treaty Oak."