Page:Federal Reporter, 1st Series, Volume 5.djvu/549

 HOLMES V. OBEGON ic CALiFOBNIA BT. CO. 52i'l �Were standing on the deck forward of the pilot-hoiw© went ashore, as was usual in the day-time, some on the upper and others on the lower side of the pontoon, where it-andi^içboat touched or came close together, 'without objection or direction frona any one. From the pontoon the street ascends the hill to Front atreet, a distance of probahly 200 feet. Near the f oot of the hill some hôtel hacks were standing, one or two of ■which had lights shining towards the river, and upon the further side.of Front street, and about 35 feet above the level of the river, stood a street lamp. Besides these and the watchman's lantexn there were no lights at the landing or in the vicinity. On the pontoon th«re were a number of hôtel runners making the air ring with tiie names and advantagea of their respective houses. �Neither the defendant nor the family had ever been at Portland, or had any knowledge of the landing or itssurround^ ings. As soon as the boat struck the pontoon, and the pas- sengers on the deck began to gp ashore, the deceased, who had reason to believe the boat ■we^.s landed, went down from" the cabin to go ashore. He had a sack of clothes on one arm and a valise in the other hand ; and as he reached the deck and passed forward he disturbed the ofE horse in the mail wagon, and the animal, being skittish or vicions, jumped or kicked, whereupon the driver railed out at Mm, telling him with much profanity to stand back or take care, or he would get hurt. With this the deceased, who was now at the front of the pilot-house, diverged a little to the right, and saying, "I am ail right, " walked forward to the starboard quarter of the bow, a f ew feet forward of the end of the raU, and under- took to step off on to the pontoon, but struck bis toe against the latter instead of stepping on it, and thereby feU into the river through the space between the pontoon and the boat, which was there from 18 inches to two feet wide, and was drowned. Upon this state of facts it is too plain for argu- ment that the deceased came to his death by "the wrongful omission" — the negligence — of the defendant. �Tbe defendant was a common carrier of passengers for ����