United States v. The M/V Black Falcon, 58-15.
| Decision Date | 08 May 1959 |
| Docket Number | No. 58-15.,58-15. |
| Citation | 172 F. Supp. 776 |
| Parties | UNITED STATES of America, Libelant, v. THE M/V BLACK FALCON, her engines, tackle, etc., Respondent. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — District of Massachusetts |
Anthony Julian, U. S. Atty., George C. Caner, Jr., Asst. U. S. Atty., Boston, Mass., for plaintiff.
Thomas H. Walsh, Boston, Mass., for defendant.
In this libel brought to recover penalties for violations of the Dangerous Cargo Act, 46 U.S.C.A. § 170, libelant moves to strike claimant's answer to libelant's request to admit facts and to declare the facts recited in the request admitted.
The answer filed clearly fails to meet the requirements of Admiralty Rule 32B, 28 U.S.C.A., requiring such answer to be under oath. The answer is signed:
"Skibsaktieselskapet Herstein "By /s/ Bjarne Holter-Sorensen "Its Director."
Attached to the answer is a Certificate of Acknowledgment of Execution of an Instrument signed by Joanne V. Winn, Vice Consul of the United States at Oslo, Norway. Nothing in the answer or the accompanying certificate indicates that the answer was ever sworn to or intended to be made under oath.
The exact status of the person signing the answer is not clear. From some documents it appears that Skibsaktieselskapet Herstein is the owner of the vessel. The claim filed in this proceeding by the master states that Sigurd Herlofson & Co. A/S, Managers are the owners. However, it is not necessary to resolve this difficulty, since whether or not the answer is signed by a proper person, it is not under oath and must be stricken. No answer having been filed conforming to the requirements of the rule, the facts recited in the request are to be taken as admitted.
Respondent's counsel appears to contend that the unsworn answer should be accepted because it has not been shown that there are in Norway any notaries or similar officers authorized to administer oaths. This court finds it hard to believe that an officer authorized to administer oaths cannot readily be found in Norway. There is, however, a short answer to this whole argument. The answer was acknowledged before an American consular officer. Such officers are authorized to administer oaths, 22 U.S. C.A. §§ 1195 and 1203. The answer could have been sworn to without any difficulty.
Ordinarily this court would be disposed to grant an extension of time to permit the answer to be made under oath in compliance with the Rule 32B. Such extension has not been asked in this case, and under the circumstances would not be granted.
Libelant's request was filed August 20, 1958, calling for an answer within twenty days. On six occasions thereafter respondent moved for extension of the time within which to answer, and libelant assented. Finally when libelant would assent no longer, the court on February 20, 1959, granted a further extension until March 20, 1959, and the answer was finally...
To continue reading
Request your trial