Wild v. State, 21
| Decision Date | 03 December 1952 |
| Docket Number | No. 21,21 |
| Citation | 201 Md. 73,92 A.2d 759 |
| Parties | WILD v. STATE. |
| Court | Maryland Court of Appeals |
Wm. A. Grimes, Baltimore (Randall C. Coleman, Jr. and Ober, Grimes & Stinson, Baltimore, on the brief), for appellant.
Kenneth C. Proctor, Asst. Atty. Gen. (Hall Hammond, Atty. Gen., Anselm Sodaro, State's Atty. and Edwin A. Gehring, Asst. State's Atty., Baltimore, on the brief), for appellee.
Before MARKELL, C. J., and DELAPLAINE, COLLINS and HENDERSON, JJ.
The appellant was convicted by Judge Tucker, sitting without a jury, in the Criminal Court of Baltimore, on charges of allowing or permitting the discharge of fuel oil into the waters of Baltimore harbor, in violation of State law and a city ordinance; and fined $200. He was the First Assistant Engineer on the steamship Thomas T. Leathers, an American Liberty ship owned by the United States and operated by the Eastern Steamship Lines for the United States. The Master, Chief Mate and Chief Engineer, who were indicted and tried along with the appellant were acquitted. The sole question argued on appeal is whether a motion for a verdict of 'not guilty' at the close of the State's case should have been granted.
On December 28, 1951 the Leathers was moored to the west side of Recreation Pier, having no cargo aboard. At 2:30 p. m. a barge of the Harbor Towing Company, M. P. 23, loaded with 4000 barrels of fuel oil, 'bunker sea,' came alongside and made fast. The barge captain testified that he passed up his hose, by means of a derrick, and that two colored men on the ship took it and hooked it on to a valve after he had passed up to them two bolts and a wrench. These men then told him to go ahead and he started pumping at about 3:20. There was a white man in an officer's cap on deck at the time. After pumping for some time he learned that the valve on his pump was not working, so that no oil was being delivered. Apparently this fact was discovered by the Superintendent of the Harbor Towing Company, who went aboard the Leathers at 4:20 p. m., talked to the barge captain, and returned in a tug boat with the port engineer. They went aboard the barge and the latter repaired the valve. The barge captain, the superintendent and the port engineer all testified that a man in an officer's cap on the ship told them to resume pumping, and they did so at about 5:20 p. m. This man asked how long it would be before they were ready to pump. They said they were ready. He said: They were unable to identify the man who gave the order, as it was rather dark. Pumping continued until 7:30 p.m. when the valve on the ship was cut off after it was discovered that some 1000 barrels of oil delivered in this period had gone overboard. It was shown by sample analysis that the oil in the water was the same type as that in the barge. The superintendent testified he was called to the ship about 8:45 p.m. and talked to the Chief Engineer and the appellant. They told him they had been pumping water (ballast) out of the tank to which the oil hose had been connected, so that the oil was pumped or siphoned out on the opposite side of the ship as fast as it came in. They both told him they didn't give the order to pump oil and didn't know the oil was coming aboard.
The relief, or night, mate testified he came aboard at 5 p. m. He saw the barge alongside, the scuppers plugged, the hose connected and a red flag flying on the ship. He said he saw an oilslick alongside about twenty minutes after he came aboard and reported it to the Chief Mate, who said he would go down and tell the First Assistant. He saw the Chief Mate talking to the First Assistant Engineer, but did not hear what was said. He also testified that he talked to some people on the barge and they told him their pump was broken down. He thought pumping was not resumed until about 11 p.m. The master was not on the vessel during the whole time the barge was alongside, nor were the second and third mates. The Chief Mate was aboard until he went to supper some time after he was relieved by the relief mate. The Chief Engineer was aboard but went ashore...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Lawrence v. State
...the scope of the term "on or about" in CR § 4-203(a)(1)(i).15 This Court cited to Morissette as early as 1952, see Wild v. State , 201 Md. 73, 77, 92 A.2d 759 (1952), and later pointed to Morissette 's discussion of "the construction of criminal statutes" in declining to read an intent requ......
-
Boone v. State
...of the facts. Kier v. State, 216 Md. 513, 519, 140 A.2d 896; Berry v. State, 202 Md. 62, 66, 95 A.2d 319. We noted in Wild v. State, 201 Md. 73, 77, 92 A.2d 759, 761, that 'knowledge may be inferred from circumstances, even where there is positive denial. Moore v. State, 199 Md. 676, Appell......
-
Grimm v. State
...knowledge, i.e., reasons for disbelieving a denial of scienter may provide a basis for finding scienter. ”). See also Wild v. State, 201 Md. 73, 77, 92 A.2d 759, 761 (1952) (“[I]t is nevertheless clear that knowledge may be inferred from circumstances, even where there is positive denial.”)......
-
Grimm v. State
...knowledge, i.e., reasons for disbelieving a denial of scienter may provide a basis for finding scienter."). See also Wild v. State, 201 Md. 73, 77, 92 A.2d 759, 761 (1952) ("[I]t is nevertheless clear that knowledge may be inferred from circumstances, even where there is positive denial.");......