Take the Money and Run: Pelham Town Supervisor Sherman T. Pell and the Worst Political and Financial Scandal in Pelham History

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."

Small town scandals inevitably set small town tongues wagging.  Pelham tongues were wagging from Pelhamville to City Island during the spring and summer of 1893.  Democrat Sherman T. Pell, who had just completed seven years of service as Town Supervisor but recently had been defeated in his bid for reelection, had disappeared.  So too, it seems, had much of the Town’s money.  Rumors swirled.  Pell was on the run.  Pell was in Pittsburgh.  He was in Florida.  He was in South America. 

This is the sad story of the worst political and financial scandal in Pelham history.  It involved Sherman T. Pell who took the money and ran. 

Background 

Sherman T. Pell was a son of Samuel Pell.  Samuel Pell, in turn, was a descendant of John Pell, so-called Second Lord of the Manor of Pelham (the first of the Pell family to reside, permanently, in the Manor of Pelham).  According to one account, by 1850 Samuel Pell lived on City Island in the Town of Pelham working as an oysterman.  Known as “Captain Pell”, he married Elizabeth Scofield and built a Second Empire style home that still stands at 586 City Island Avenue.  The couple had twelve children including Sherman T. Pell, the oldest son (born in 1853).  

The Samuel Pell House that Still Stands at 586 City Island Avenue,

Built in About 1876.  NOTE:  Click on Image to Enlarge.

It is believed that before his marriage Sherman T. Pell lived for a short time in the Samuel Pell House after it was built in about 1876.[1] Shortly after Samuel Pell built his beautiful home, Sherman T. Pell married Alzina Aurelia Rowland.  The couple had two children.

Detail from a Samuel Pell Family Photograph Showing a Young

Sherman T. Pell Standing Behind His Mother, Elizabeth Scofield

Pell, at About the Age of Fourteen.  This May Be the Only Surviving

Photograph of Sherman T. Pell.  NOTE:  Click on Image to Enlarge.

As a young man, Sherman T. Pell worked as a “provision merchant” in the South Street Seaport.[2]   His firm, Seymour & Pell located at 237 Front Street in New York City, seems to have run into some difficulty in 1883.  In an account entitled “Business Embarrassments”, The New York Times reported: 

“Bradford S. Seymour and Sherman T. Pell, comprising the firm of Seymour & Pell, wholesale provision-dealers at No. 237 Front-street, made an assignment yesterday to Henry C. Henderson, giving a preference to [Sherman Pell’s father] Samuel Pell for $7,807.15.  They succeeded J. W. Norris & Co., in September, 1879”[3] 

According to another account, thereafter Sherman Pell “entered the real estate business.”[4] 

Sherman Pell Enters Pelham Politics 

Sherman Pell reportedly was popular in Pelham.  People remarked that he carried the town “in his pocket.”[5]   In 1885, Pell ran as a Democrat against Republican Robert H. Scott for Town Supervisor of Pelham.  The election was a close one.  Scott beat Pell by ten votes.[6] 

The following year, Sherman Pell ran once again against Republican Robert H. Scott for Town Supervisor.  The election was even closer than the previous one.  On March 30, 1886, Sherman Pell won the election by a single vote, but not without the shadow of scandal. 

Pell’s Republican opponent announced that he intended to contest the election.  He alleged that Democrats had imported non-resident paupers from Hart Island to vote for Pell.  According to one account, Scott said he would contest the election results “on the ground that 25 persons who voted for Mr. Pell were brought over from Hart’s Island, and that two-thirds of them were New-York paupers having no right to vote.”[7] 

Election authorities declared Pell the winner of the 1886 election.  Pell then worked tirelessly to consolidate his political power.

The Postmaster Flap 

Soon Sherman T. Pell became known as “The little Democratic Napoleon of Pelham.”[8]   He called in political favors and had himself appointed as local postmaster by the Democrat Grover Cleveland administration after he worked tirelessly toward Cleveland’s first term victory.[9] 

The ham-handed way Pell gained the postmaster’s position and its $1,600 salary (about $56,000 in today’s dollars) upset most of the Town of Pelham.  At the time, the acting postmaster was a popular City Island resident named James Hyatt.  According to one news report, in seeking the appointment, Pell called in favors owed him by ex-Assemblyman Billy Catlin of Rye who was well-known to President Cleveland and had done him “valuable service.”[10] 

When Pelhamites learned what Pell was trying to do, they circulated a petition opposing Pell’s appointment and asking that the acting postmaster, James Hyatt, be appointed permanently.  According to one report, 190 of the 238 voters on City Island signed the petition.[11] 

The petition was presented to the Grover Cleveland administration.  Cleveland promptly appointed Sherman T. Pell as postmaster, effectively ending James Hyatt’s employment.  Pelhamites were “indignant at the insult which the President has put upon them by his deliberate disregard of their wishes.”[12] 

Not long afterward, another local dispute foreshadowed what was to come.  Sick of Pell’s heavy-handed tactics, Town officials began calling for an investigation of him in 1890.  A New York City newspaper, writing of the dispute, stated: 

“Justice of the Peace John P. Hawkins accused Supervisor Sherman T. Pell of trying to ‘boss’ the town, of mismanaging its finances, failing to report his transactions to the Justices, and acting generally in so negligent a way that the tax rate has been raised very materially.”[13] 

A group of Pelham residents decided to act.  Twenty-five of them filed a special petition to commence a proceeding before New York Supreme Court Justice Bartlett seeking “a summary investigation of the financial affairs” of the Town on the grounds that “public moneys are being unlawfully and corruptly expended.”[14] Justice Bartlett promptly dismissed the proceeding, finding that the petition was based on mere rumors and lacked the factual allegations necessary to support entry of an order directing an investigation of Town of Pelham finances.[15] 

Sherman Pell had defeated his opponents again.  That said, local residents were sniffing around the edges of his administration and Town finances.  Pell, however, was emboldened.  He sued one of the principal proponents of the petition, John F. Scheller of City Island, for defamation, seeking $10,000 in damages.[16] 

First the provisioning business failure, then allegations of voting fraud, then calling in political favors to destroy a man’s livelihood for his own benefit, claims that Pell acted as a Democrat “Boss” who was mismanaging Town finances, failing to report financial transactions, and driving up the Town tax rate, and now a court proceeding asking for a financial investigation of Pell – what might be next?  Pelham soon would learn. 

The 1893 Town Supervisor Election 

For the next couple of years, Pell secured successive, close (and some would say “suspect”) reelections to retain his position as Town Supervisor.[17]   In 1893, however, Pell faced stiff competition in his reelection bid from Republican William McAllister.  The 1893 Town Supervisor election turned out to be Pelham’s own version of the hanging chad dispute that marked the 2000 U.S. presidential election. 

On Tuesday, March 28, voters in Pelham went to the polls to choose between Pell and McAllister.  Early the next morning, The New York Times reported that Democrat Sherman T. Pell had won the election.[18] 

The following day, however, the Times retracted its report, saying “William McAllister, Republican, was elected in the town of Pelham, instead of Sherman T. Pell, Democrat.”[19]   Subsequent reports indicated that on election night, “the count showed that Mr. McAllister had been successful by a narrow margin of two or three votes."[20]   Pell demanded a recount. 

Two constables reportedly guarded the ballots for nearly a week “to prevent their being tampered with.”[21]   On April 6 a recount gave Sherman T. Pell an incredible sixty-five vote lead.  According to one account: 

“An examination of the ballots to-day showed that the apparent majority of Mr. McAllister had been caused by an error on the part of some of the Inspectors.  In many cases the Inspector in detaching the numbered stubs had failed to follow the scored line, and in this way had torn into the tickets and thus cut off Mr. Pell’s name.  The recount gives Mr. Pell a majority over Mr. McAllister of sixty-five votes.”[22] 

Pelham Republicans cried foul and demanded another recount.  When the Town Board (led by Sherman T. Pell) refused, the Republicans applied to New York Supreme Court Justice Jackson O. Dykman (also known as J. O. Dykman) in White Plains for an order directing such a recount.  Justice Dykman issued the order, but four members of the Town Board still refused to conduct the recount:   Sherman T. Pell, John P. Hawkins, Charles Wand, and Ethan Waterhouse.[23] 

Justice Dykman had a simple solution to the standoff.  He imposed $250 fines against each of the four men, held them in contempt of court, sentenced them to imprisonment for thirty days in the county jail and issued arrest warrants to be executed by the Sheriff.[24]   Soon the Republican candidate, McAllister, was declared the winner. 

It turned out that there was a significant reason that Pell had orchestrated such a vigorous scam to retain his elected position.  He had been engaged in a fraud involving Town funds for years.  The jig was up.

Where Is Mr. Pell? 

In early May, William McAllister called on ex-Supervisor Pell and asked for the Town’s account books and moneys.  According to McAllister, “Mr. Pell then stated that he would deliver all books, vouchers, and moneys to me on Thursday, May 18.”[25] 

McAllister dutifully appeared on Mr. Pell’s doorstep on May 18.  McAllister later told one reporter: 

“’his wife informed me that he had sent her a message from New-York City by his brother, Henry Pell, stating that he was compelled to go to Pittsburg on business and thus could not keep his appointment with me.  I have called at Mr. Pell’s residence every day this week, and his wife has stated to me that she had received no word from her husband, and that she did not know where he was.  I hope Mr. Pell will return and thus put an end to the various ugly rumors that have been put in circulation.  If he does not return we will be compelled to take legal measures.  What these measures will be I cannot say, as the matter is now in the hands of my counsel, Martin J. Keogh.’”[26] 

Ex-Supervisor Pell had provided a $10,000 bond in support of the good faith discharge of his fiduciary duties as Town Supervisor.  There were several additional bondsmen including his father, Samuel Pell.[27]   Soon the additional bondsmen wished they had never agreed to bond Sherman Pell’s performance of his duties.  Indeed, Samuel Pell eventually was required to sell his house as a consequence of his son's dishonesty.

The newly-installed Town Board tried its best to audit Sherman T. Pell’s accounts.  Initially the Board concluded “there was an apparent balance of moneys in his hands of $1,700.”[28]   According to one report: 

“Nobody knows where that money is, nor does anybody know where Mr. Pell is.  He has been away from home for several days, and his counsel is reported to have said that he is in Florida looking after legal matters connected with the Carll estate which have arisen through a recent decision of the Court of Appeals giving a grant of land under water. In the absence of the ex-Supervisor’s books it is impossible to say how much he has taken in since his account was audited and how much he ought to turn over to his successor.  He officially receives the taxes collected by the Receiver of the town, back taxes, excise moneys &c.  The amount is variously estimated at from $8,000 to $10,000. It is not supposed that the town will lose anything, even if Mr. Pell is unable to meet the demands made upon him by the Town Board, as one of his bondsmen is James Hyatt, a wealthy City Island butcher.  Mr. Hyatt was Mr. Pell’s predecessor in office. [sic]”[29] 

Another report indicated that an audit of Pell’s accounts on March 27, 1893 showed a cash balance remaining in his hands of $8,585, but it was believed that “the total at this date will considerably exceed that sum.”[30] 

Little did they know the extent of Sherman T. Pell’s defalcations.

The Scandal Grows Darker 

By June 10, 1893, the extent of Pell’s scheme was becoming clearer.  For years Pell had executed notes on behalf of the Town, forged the signature of the Town Clerk, and sold the forged bonds on Wall Street to obtain funds ostensibly on behalf of the Town.  According to a variety of reports, in this fashion he raised amounts that totaled between $30,000 and $100,000.[31]   All of the money – and Pell – remained missing.  Moreover, Sherman T. Pell left his wife behind.  He also left his father, Samuel, and his brother, Percy, holding the bag.  They were two of his bondsmen who had provided $10,000 bonds to secure the honest performance of Sherman Pell’s duties as Town Supervisor. 

Pell’s scheme was devilishly simple.  State law at the time required the collectors of taxes in the various Towns of Westchester County to provide Town Supervisors with a sworn statement of unpaid taxes owed by Town taxpayers.  On or before May 1 each year, each Town Supervisor was authorized “to borrow, upon the credit of the town, a sum not exceeding the amount of the unpaid taxes” reported by the collector for use of the Town.[32]   Pell dutifully arranged for such borrowings from a single bank each year with the full knowledge and participation of the Town Clerk.  However, he also went to other banks and presented multiple sets of forged “certificates” for the same authorized amounts of unpaid taxes (i.e., municipal bonds) that he sold to different banks to avoid detection.  In this fashion he collected tens of thousands of dollars about which no one in Pelham knew until it was too late. 

As things turned out, Pell’s house of cards had begun to collapse more than a year before he lost the election in March 1893.  Broadway Savings Institution of the City of New York acquired seven of the forged notes.  In February 1892, the bank commenced an action against the Town of Pelham seeking $6,800 payment on the seven notes.  The summons in the action reportedly was served on then Supervisor Pell, but he “put in no defense and judgment was taken against the town by default and was entered April 2, 1893.”[33] 

These seven notes were not the only ones Pell had forged.  By June 10, the Town of Pelham was aware of seven additional notes held by Broadway Savings Institution of the City of New York totaling an additional $7,600.  Other banks in Westchester County held even more such notes.  As The New York Times reported on June 11, 1893, “the financial affairs of the town are beginning to look worse than most of the townsfolk had expected.”[34] 

Supervisor McAllister was the first to discover the extent of Pell’s scheme.  Shortly after he became Town Supervisor, he learned of the default judgment entered against the Town.  He obtained copies of the notes and viewed the originals in the bank’s possession.  He arranged for the bank to show the original notes to the Town’s counsel and to the Town Clerk who confirmed that the “signatures” were forgeries.[35] 

Lawsuits Fly 

The Town of Pelham applied to New York Supreme Court to set aside the default judgment entered against it on the grounds that the notes were unlawfully issued and that the Town Clerk’s countersigning signatures were forgeries.  The Court set aside the default judgment and reopened the case for further proceedings.[36] 

The bank, in turn, commenced at least one additional lawsuit against the Town of Pelham on the seven additional notes.[37]   Other banks sued to recover on other notes.  In late July or early August 1893, the Town of Pelham filed a civil action against Sherman T. Pell, Samuel Pell and Percy W. Pell to recover on the $10,000 bond.[38] 

Bondsman Samuel Pell, Sherman’s father, saw the handwriting on the wall.  He sold his home to one of his daughters shortly before the Town of Pelham sued him on the bond.  According to one account: 

“On June 30th [1893], a little over a month before the Town of Pelham brought suit against him and Percy for $10,000, Samuel Pell sold [his house on City Island] and the lots on the west side of Main Street to his daughter Lydia Scofield, who had inherited considerable property from her late husband and had developed an extensive and successful real estate business.”[39] 

Initially, a verdict was rendered against the Town of Pelham finding the Town liable to Broadway Savings Institution of the City of New York to pay off seven notes worth $7,600, $85 interest and an additional $250 “allowance.”[40]   An appellate court quickly overturned that decision, directing that a new trial be held.[41] 

Things got even more interesting when New York City annexed portions of Pelham including City Island in 1895.  New York City assumed the “debts” represented by the forged bonds and took over the defense of the actions by the Broadway Savings Institution and several other savings banks seeking payment on the notes.  According to a report published in 1898, the case was tried before Justice Smith of the New York Supreme Court in the spring of 1898 and a verdict was rendered in favor of the City.[42]   This meant the banks would have to bear the losses.

Conclusion 

Sherman T. Pell, as they say, was never heard from again.  A news account published years later in 1906 claimed that Pell was “said to have died in South America a few years later, a penniless tramp.”[43]   Other accounts suggest that he fled to Florida though nothing more was heard of him.[44] Sherman Pell's wife, Alzina Aurelia Rowland Pell, soon moved to Brooklyn, then to Belvedere, California, and died in Los Angeles in 1929.  Census records for the intervening years before her death list her as a "widow."

Captain Samuel Pell, Sherman Pell’s proud father who had been forced to sell his beloved home on City Island, died in 1894 shortly after the scandal broke.[45]   Pelham weathered the defalcations and dishonesty of Sherman T. Pell, apparently without serious financial loss.  But the scheme did have an impact on Pelham.  Among other things, construction of the original firehouse located in Pelhamville (on Fifth Avenue on today’s parking lot next to the present firehouse) was delayed until early 1895 because another appropriation had to be made and levied in taxes due to financial uncertainties created by the scandal.[46]

ENDNOTES

[1] New York City Landmarks Preservation Commission, Samuel Pell House, 586 City Island Avenue, Borough of the Bronx, Built c. 1876,  p. 3 (Oct. 29, 2002) < http://s-media.nyc.gov/agencies/lpc/lp/2115.pdf > (visited Nov. 23, 2019). 

[2] Id. 

[3] Business Embarrassments, N.Y. Times, Apr. 14, 1883, Vol. XXXII, No. 9861, p. 8, col. 2 < https://www.newspapers.com/image/20489199/ > (visited Nov. 23, 2019).  See also Business Troubles, The Brooklyn Union [Brooklyn, NY], Apr. 19, 1883, Vol. XX, No. 183, p. 1, col. 8 < https://www.newspapers.com/image/541840896/ > (visited Nov. 23, 2019). 

[4] Samuel Pell House, supra, n.1, p. 3. 

[5] No Tidings Yet of Mr. Pell, N.Y. Times, May 28, 1893, Vol. XLII, No. 13,029, p. 9, col. 7 < https://www.newspapers.com/image/20536988/ > (visited Nov. 23, 2019). 

[6] City and Suburban News – Westchester County, N.Y. Times, Apr. 2, 1885, p. 8, col. 5 < https://www.newspapers.com/image/20355513/ > (visited Nov. 23, 2019). 

[7] Westchester County, N.Y. Times, Apr. 3, 1886, Vol. XXXV, No. 10,791, p. 8 col. 3 < https://www.newspapers.com/image/20503908/ > (visited Nov. 23, 2019). 

[8] City Island, The Daily Argus [Mount Vernon, NY], Dec. 16, 1892, p. 1, col. 7 < https://fultonhistory.com/Newspaper%2018/Mount%20Vernon%20NY%20Daily%20Argus/Mount%20Vernon%20NY%20Daily%20Argus%201892/Mount%20Vernon%20NY%20Daily%20Argus%201892%20-%200853.pdf  > (visited Nov. 23, 2019). 

[9] National Capital Notes, Democrat and Chronicle [Rochester, NY], Apr. 19, 1888, p. 1, cols. 4-5 < https://www.newspapers.com/image/135100307/ > (visited Nov. 23, 2019); Lord Pell’s Descendant Gets an Office, The Evening World [NY, NY], Apr. 19, 1888, Evening Edition, p. 1, col. 3 < https://www.newspapers.com/image/50639419/ > (visited Nov. 23, 2019). 

[10] City Island’s “Reform” Postmaster, New-York Tribune, May 4, 1888, Vol. XLVIII, No. 15,146, p. 10, col. 3 < https://www.newspapers.com/image/85633796/ > (visited Nov. 23, 2019). 

[11] Id. 

[12] Id. 

[13] Pelham’s Little Row, The Sun [NY, NY], May 23, 1890, Vol. LVII, No. 265, p. 2, col. 5 < https://fultonhistory.com/Newspaper%209/New%20York%20NY%20Sun/New%20York%20NY%20Sun%201890%20Feb-July%20Grayscale/New%20York%20NY%20Sun%201890%20Feb-July%20Grayscale%20-%201382.pdf > (visited Nov. 23, 2019). 

[14] Pelham Won’t Be Investigated, The Brooklyn Daily Times [Brooklyn, NY], Aug. 20, 1890, p. 1, col. 8 < https://www.newspapers.com/image/555837424/ > (visited Nov. 23, 2019). 

[15] Id. 

[16] Campaign Lies and Libels, The Standard Union [Brooklyn, NY], Apr. 3, 1891, Vol. XXVIII, No. 7, p. 2, col. 4 < https://www.newspapers.com/image/542270223/ > (visited Nov. 23, 2019). 

[17] See Barr, Lockwood, A BRIEF,  BUT MOST COMPLETE & TRUE ACCOUNT OF THE SETTLEMENT OF THE ANCIENT TOWN OF PELHAM WESTCHESTER COUNTY, STATE OF NEW YORK KNOWN ONE TIME WELL & FAVOURABLY AS THE LORDSHIPP & MANNOUR OF PELHAM ALSO THE STORY OF THE THREE MODERN VILLAGES CALLED THE PELHAMS, p. 172 (Richmond, VA: The Dietz Press 1946) < https://www.ancestry.com/interactive/21802/dvm_LocHist007642-00057-0 > (visited Nov. 23, 2019) (noting that Sherman T. Pell served as Supervisor from 1886 to 1893).  See also Elections in Westchester County, The Sun [NY, NY], Mar. 28, 1888, Vol. LV, No. 210, p. 2, col. 7 < https://www.newspapers.com/image/79114460/  > (visited Nov. 23, 2019); Westchester Elections, N.Y. Times, Mar. 27, 1889, Vol. XXXVIII, No. 11,724 p. 4, col. 6 < https://www.newspapers.com/image/20380735/ > (visited Nov. 23, 2019) (indicating Pell had been reelected Town Supervisor as a “Democrat”); Democrats in a Majority – Result of the Town Elections in Westchester County, N.Y. Times, Mar. 30, 1892, Vol. XLI, No. 12,666, p. 1, col. 3 < https://www.newspapers.com/image/20521661/ > (visited Nov. 23, 2019) (noting that early returns indicated that Sherman T. Pell likely had been reelected Town Supervisor on the Independent and Republican tickets); County Legislators 1892-3, The Daily Argus [Mount Vernon, NY], Apr. 5, 1892, Vol. 1, No. 4, p. 2, col. 1 < https://fultonhistory.com/Newspaper%2018/Mount%20Vernon%20NY%20Daily%20Argus/Mount%20Vernon%20NY%20Daily%20Argus%201892/Mount%20Vernon%20NY%20Daily%20Argus%201892%20-%200014.pdf > (visited Nov. 23, 2019) (providing a “correct list of the Supervisors elected” including “Pelham – Sherman T. Pell, Dem.”). 

[18] See Westchester Elections – Supervisors and Town Officers Chosen – Sharp Contests, N.Y. Times, Mar. 29, 1893, Vol. XLII, No. 12,978, p. 5, col. 2 < https://www.newspapers.com/image/20507176/ > (visited Nov. 23, 2019). 

[19] Westchester County Supervisors, N.Y. Times, Mar. 30, 1893, Vol. XLII, No. 12,979, p. 9, col 3 < https://www.newspapers.com/image/20508111/ > (visited Nov. 23, 2019). 

[20] See Trouble at City Island, The Evening World [NY, NY], Apr. 6, 1893, p. 4, col. 2 < https://www.newspapers.com/image/78944284/ > (visited Nov. 23, 2019).  See also Mr. Pell Is Supervisor of Pelham, N.Y. Times, Apr. 7, 1893, Vol. XLII, No. 12,986, p. 5 col. 4 < https://www.newspapers.com/image/20513235/ > (visited Nov. 23, 2019). 

[21] Id. 

[22] Id. 

[23] Pelham Citizens To Be Fined – Judge Dykman Declares Them in Contempt for Not Recounting the Town Vote, N.Y. Times, Apr. 30, 1893, Vol. XLII, No. 13,005, p. 3, col. 4 < https://www.newspapers.com/image/20525216/ > (visited Nov. 23, 2019). 

[24] Id. 

[25] Ex-Supervisor Pell Missing – Considerable Money of the Town of Pelham in His Hands, N.Y. Times, May 27, 1893, Vol. XLII, No. 13,029, p. 10, col. 6 < https://www.newspapers.com/image/20536372/ > (visited Nov. 23, 2019). 

[26] Id. 

[27] Id.  See also No Tidings Yet of Mr. Pell, N.Y. Times, May 28, 1893, Vol. XLII, No. 13,029, p. 9, col. 7 < https://www.newspapers.com/image/20536988/ > (visited Nov. 23, 2019). 

[28] Id. 

[29] Id. 

[30] Ex Supervisor Pell Missing, Buffalo Evening News [Buffalo, NY], May 27, 1893, Vol. XXVI, No. 41, p. 5, col. 3 < https://www.newspapers.com/image/327111418/ > (visited Nov. 23, 2019).  Other reports suggested up to $28,000 in Town cash was missing.  See News In Brief, The Standard Union [Brooklyn, NY], May 27, 1893, p. 8, col. 7 < https://www.newspapers.com/image/542157609 > (visited Nov. 23, 2019). 

[31] Compare Pells of Pelham Sued – The Town Wants Them To Pay $10,000 on a Bond They Gave for a Relative, N.Y. Times, Sep. 8, 1893, Vol. XLII, No. 13,118, p. 8, col. 3 < https://www.newspapers.com/image/20386157/ > (visited Nov. 23, 2019) (stating “In May Pell absconded, and the town believes he took with him $30,000 belonging to the Public Treasury”) with “Honest John Shinn” Short – Ex-Supervisor of Pelham’s Accounts out $17,971, N.Y. Times, Jun. 20, 1906, Vol. LV, No. 17,679, p. 1, col. 2 < https://www.newspapers.com/image/20356428/ > (visited Nov. 23, 2019)  (stating that Sherman T. Pell “forged the Town Clerk’s name to $100,000 worth of bonds and sold them in Wall Street”).

[32] Broadway Sav. Inst. of City of New York v. Town of Pelham, 83 Hun 96, 63 N.Y. St. Rep. 814, 31 N.Y.S. 402, 402 (App. Div. 2nd Dep’t 1894) (citing the provisions of Chapter 193, Laws 1877, entitled “An act to amend chapter 610 of the Laws of 1874 entitled an act to authorize the sale of lands for the nonpayment of taxes and for the collection of unpaid taxes in the several towns of the county of Westchester”). 

[33] Signatures Were Forged – Affairs of Ex-Supervisor Pell of Pelham Assume a Darker Aspect, N.Y. Times, Jun. 11, 1893, Vol. XLII, No. 13,041, p. 8, col. 4 < https://www.newspapers.com/image/20543424/ > (visited Nov. 23, 2019). 

[34] Id. 

[35] Id. 

[36] Id. 

[37] Id.  See also Suit Against the Town of Pelham, N.Y. Times, Jun. 1, 1893, Vol. XLII, No. 13,033, p. 8, col. 4 < https://www.newspapers.com/image/20539034/ > (visited Nov. 23, 2019). 

[38] See Pells of Pelham Sued – The Town Wants Them To Pay $10,000 on a Bond They Gave for a Relative, N.Y. Times, Sep. 8, 1893, Vol. XLII, No. 13,118, p. 8, col. 3 < https://www.newspapers.com/image/20386157/ > (visited Nov. 23, 2019); Samuel Pell House, supra, n.1, p. 3. 

[39] Samuel Pell House, supra, n.1, p. 3. 

[40] See Town of Pelham Must Pay, N.Y. Times, Mar. 31, 1894, Vol. XLIII, No. 13,267, p. 9, col. 6 < https://www.newspapers.com/image/20449806/ > (visited Nov. 23, 2019). 

[41] See Broadway Sav. Inst. of City of New York v. Town of Pelham, 83 Hun 96, 63 N.Y. St. Rep. 814, 31 N.Y.S. 402, 402 (App. Div. 2nd Dep’t 1894). 

[42] Old Town of Pelham Bonds – Indebtedness Assumed by the City Declared Fraudulent and Void, N.Y. Times, Jun. 7, 1898, Vol. XLVII, No. 15, 103, p. 12, col. 4 < https://www.newspapers.com/image/20612745/ > (visited Nov. 23, 2019). 

[43] “Honest John Shinn” Short – Ex-Supervisor of Pelham’s Accounts out $17,971, N.Y. Times, Jun. 20, 1906, Vol. LV, No. 17,679, p. 1, col. 2 < https://www.newspapers.com/image/20356428/ > (visited Nov. 23, 2019). 

[44] Samuel Pell House, supra, n.1, p. 3. 

[45] Obituary Notes, N.Y. Times, Mar. 30, 1894, Vol. XLIII, No. 13, 292, p. 5, col. 2 < https://www.newspapers.com/image/20449192/ > (visited Nov. 23, 2019). 

[46] Village of Pelham, Village of Pelham Online:  Village News – Interviewed in 1935 Mr. Edinger Told An Interesting Story (visited Apr. 24, 2005) http://www.villageofpelham.com/home/00-00-35.shtml (an archived copy of the article is available via the Way Back Machine via https://web.archive.org/web/20030304032321/http://www.villageofpelham.com/home/00-00-35.shtml) (visited Nov. 23, 2019).

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."