changed about three-quarters of a point, although she was running at full speed for a minute under that helm, and that, while she was under her helm hard a-port, at the time she was reversing her engines, her course was changed to a point and three-quarters to starboard. She could not have been a half minute under the helm hard a-port. The general course of the bark after 8 o'clock in the evening may be assumed to have been about N. E., or N. E. N. This was the conclusion reached by the Gistrict judge, upon considerations which are very convincingly stated in his opinion. It may be conceded that her mate, who is the only witness who attempts to give her course by the compass, is not entitled to any credit. The testimony of the diver of the Marine Wrecking Company, who visited the wreck a few days after the collision, shows that she was lying upon the bottom of the ocean headed about N. N. E., on a line parallel with the shore. This fact alone might not be enough to authorize the conclusion that she was headed N. N. E. at the time of the collision; but it is entitled to consideration as measurably supporting that theory, and is more persuasive in fixing her heading approximately than are the conjectural opinions of the witnesses, formed in the excitement and confusion of the moment, who think she was headed abo at E. If she was headed about N. N. E. when she was struck by the steamer, she did not change her course more than a point and a half under her port helm, and such a change would be consistent with the testimony respecting the proximity to the vessels when it was made which has been adverted to. It is not unreasonable to infer that the steamer, while running a minute under her hard a-starboard helm, thus covering a distance of four times her length, changed her course to the eastward three or four points, and that in the short distance during which she was under her hard a-port helm with her engines reversed she could not have been influenced materially to starboard. See White, Nav. Arch. 630-637. Upon this assumption, if the bark's course was changed one or two points, the steamer would have struck the bark at the angle shown in the diagrams of the libelant's witness Hagerty, and the claimant's witness Brown. It may be that the mate of the steamer is correct in the statement that the bark changed her course before the sounding of the steamer's alarmwhistles, and that the helmsman and lookout of the steamer are mistaken in supposing the change to have been made afterwards. But in view of the testimony of the steamer's witnesses as to what took place after the bark became visible to them, it can hardly be doubted that a half minute must have elapsed after that time before the change of course was made. As the bark was not visible more than an eighth of a mile away, and as the vessels were approaching each other not far from the rate of 1,400 feet a minute, it is plain that they must have been very near together when the change was made; and even if a less time than a half minute elapsed, they were probably within 200 or 300 feet of each other. For these reasons the conclusion is reached that the bark's change of course was not a fault, but, if injudicious, was made when the vessels were very near to each other, and was caused by an error of judgment on the part of the mate, committed in the excitement and alarm of the moment, when, owing to the misconduct of the steamer, the vessels were in a situation which did not permit him to deliberate. The case is therefore one for the application of the rule which is well stated in The Carroll, 8 Wall. 302: "Fault on the part of the sailing vessel at the moment preceding collision does not absolve a steamer which has suffered herself and a sailing vessel to get in such dangerous proximity as to cause inevitable alarm and confusion, and collision as a consequence. The steamer, as having committed a far greater fault in allowing such proximity to be brought about, is chargeable with all the damages resulting from the collision." MERSHON V. THE RAMAPO.1 (District Court, E. D. New York. May 29, 1888.) COLLISION-PETWEEN STEAM AND SAIL-CHANGE OF COURSE-EVIDENCE. The schooner M. and a car-float in tow of the tug R. collided near the mouth of the Kill von Kull. The tug alleged that the schooner did not hold her course. The schooner's crew, and the master of another schooner in the vicinity at the time, testified that she did. Held, that the account of the collision given by the master of the tug was highly improbable; that the schooner Gid not change her course, and was entitled to recover her damages. In Admiralty. Libel for damages. Carpenter & Mosher, for libelant. Wilcox, Adams & Macklin, for claimant. BENEDICT, J. This is an action to recover for damages to the libelant's schooner, the George B. Markle, caused by a collision between that schooner and a car-float, at the time in tow of the tug Ramapo. The collision occurred near the mouth of the Kill von Kull, in November, 1886. The wind was from the south-east,-a good sailing breeze,―the tide was ebb, the schooner was beating out close-hauled on the starboard tack, sailing under a jib, foresail, and a reefed mainsail. The weather was clear. The question of the case is whether the schooner held her course. On the part of the schooner, the testimony of the master and the two men composing the crew is positive to the effect that the schooner held her course, and they are confirmed by the testimony of the captain of the schooner Niantic, which was sailing into the Kills as the Markle was beating out. This witness testifies that the Markle was close to the wind all the time, and never changed. In opposition to the testimony produced by the libelant, the master of the Ramapo gives upon the stand a remarkable statement. He testifies to five successive luffs of the schooner, and five successive alarms given by him, and that the schooner fell off four times, all after she came in sight upon the starboard tack. This account of the collision differs from the account set forth in the answer, 'Reported by Edward G. Benedict, Esq., of the New York bar. and differs from the account given by the other witnesses called on behalf of the claimant to testify to a failure on the part of the schooner to hold her course, and is highly improbable. In view of such an account given by the master of the tug, I have little hesitation in believing the account given by the master of the schooner. According to that account, no fault was committed in the management of the schooner. The decree must be for the libelant, with costs, and a reference to ascertain the amount of damages. THE BALTIMORE.1 THE LACKAWANNA. HOBOKEN LAND & IMP. Co. v. THE BALTIMORE. PENNSYLVANIA R. Co. v. THE LACKAWANNA. (District Court, E. D. New York. December 9, 1887.) The ferry-boat Baltimore started from her New York slip, bound for Jersey City, and took a course of S. W by S. She sheered one point further south, to pass under the stern of the ferry-boat Delaware, and this sheer brought her on a course crossing that of the ferry boat Lackawanna, which was coming up the river, and with the latter on her port hand. The Lackawanna ported, to pass under the stern of the Baltimore, but the latter again starboarded her wheel, and the two ferry-boats came in collision. Held, that the situation of the boats was such as to make rule 19 operative, which required the Baltimore to hold her course. Her second change of course, therefore, was in disobedience to this rule, and was the fault that caused the collision. In Admiralty. Abbett & Fuller, for the Lackawanna. BENEDICT, J. An examination of these cases, aided by the briefs of the advocates, lately submitted, has confirmed me in the impression formed when the witnesses were examined last summer. As I view the cases, the cause of the disastrous collision out of which they arose was the failure of the pilot of the Baltimore to obey the nineteenth rule of the navigation laws. The Baltimore, on starting from New York, took the direct course from her slip; this was S. W. by S. When on this course, the ferry-boat Delaware, bound up the river ahead of the Lackawanna, blew to the Baltimore, and the pilot of the Baltimore says, "I hauled her down about S. S. W. first, to clear him." This brought the course of 'Affirmed on appeal, see post, 614. Reported by Edward G. Benedict, Esq., of the New York bar. the Baltimore one point further to the southward than before, but left her upon a course crossing the course of the Lackawanna, then coming up below, and having the Baltimore on her starboard side. The prox imity of the two vessels at that time was such as to make rule 19 operative, and the rule made it the duty of the Baltimore to hold her course, and the duty of the Lackawanna to avoid her. The Lackawanna, in compliance with the rule, ported, and commenced to sheer to the eastward. This she did before the Baltimore straightened her course down the river. After the Lackawanna commenced her sheer to eastward, the pilot of the Baltimore, as he himself says, blew two whistles, and straightened her course down the river. This second change of the Baltimore's course was made in disobedience of rule 19, and it was the fault that caused the collision. It was no fault in the Lackawanna to sheer to east ward when she did. She had the right so to sheer and allow the Baltimore to cross ahead of her, for the course of the Lackawanna was then crossing the course of the Baltimore, and the Baltimore was on the Lackawanna's starboard side. It was no fault in the Lackawanna to hold that sheer when once taken, for she had the right to suppose that the Baltimore, when she saw the Lackawanna swing to east in pursuance of the rule, would of course pass down on the outside, as could then have been done without difficulty. This view of the case renders it unnecessary to consider the other points discussed by the advocates. In accordance with this view the libel of the Pennsylvania Railroad Company against the Lackawanna must be dismissed, with costs, and the Hoboken Land & Improvement Company must recover of the ferry-boat Baltimore the damages resulting from the collision in the pleadings mentioned. THE BALTIMORE.1 THE LACKAWANNA. HOBOKEN LAND & IMP. Co. v. THE BALTIMORE. (Circuit Court, E. D. New York. July 12, 1888.) In Admiralty. On appeal from district court, ante, 613. Biddle & Ward, for the Baltimore. BLATCHFORD, Justice. The views and conclusions of the district judge in these cases are concurred in by me. Let there be a decree for the libelants in the suit brought against the Baltimore, for $2, 194.38, with interest from April 6, 1886, and for $1,200, with interest from the date of the Commissioner's report, and for their costs in the district court, taxed at $255.85, and for their costs in this court, to be taxed; and let there be a decree dismissing the libel in the suit brought against the Lackawanna, with costs to the claimant in the district court, taxed at $37.85, and with its costs in this court, to be taxed. 'Affirming ante, 613. THE NETTIE. THE WILLIAM ORR. THE A. C. HOPSON. (District Court, N. D. New York. July 3, 1888) COLLISION-BETWEEN TOW AND VESSEL AT DOCK-TOWING WITH LONG HAW SER. The tugs Orr and Nettie were proceeding up the Hudson river, about 35 feet from the east bank, at a point where the channel was 400 feet in width, with the canal-boats Duryea and Hopson in tow behind, all in line, making the tow nearly 500 feet in length from the bow of the Orr to the stern of the Hopson, when the Hopson sheered to starboard, and struck the canal-boat Lyons, lying unloaded at her dock, and caused the injuries complained of. It appears that the current was rapid, the water exceptionally high, and the channel part of the way narrow and dangerous. Held that, in the circumstances, the tugs were in fault in making up such a tow, and in passing so close to the dock, and that the Hopson was also in fault, for permitting herself to be towed in that manner, and thereby contributing to the injury, whether also in fault from bad steering, improper construction, or improper loading, or not. In Admiralty. Libel for damages. Hyland & Zabriskie, for libelant. W. E. Kisselburgh, for The Nettie and The Orr. J. M. Landon, for The Hopson. COXE, J. The owner of the canal-boat Nathaniel Lyons brings this libel against the steam-tugs Nettie and William Orr, and the canal-boat A. C. Hopson, to recover damages for injuries received by reason of their alleged negligence. On the 26th of April, 1887, the Lyons, unloaded, was lying at her dock at Troy, N. Y., on the easterly side of the Hudson river. On that day the tugs Nettie and Orr were proceeding up the river from West Troy to the state dam lock with the loaded canal-boats A. C. Hopson and W. F. Duryea in tow. They were in the following order: the Orr, the Nettie, the Duryea, the Hopson. The hawser from the Orr to the Nettie was about 40 feet in length, that from the Nettie to the Duryea was about 150 feet, and that from the Duryea to the Hopson was about 30 feet. The tugs are each about 50 feet, and the canal-boats 97 feet, in length. The entire distance, therefore, from the bow of the Orr to the stern of the Hopson was not far from 500 feet. Opposite where the Lyons lay, and about 450 feet distant, was an island. On the day in question, by reason of a freshet, this whole space was navigable. The tugs took a course about 35 feet from the east bank of the river. When the Hopson was opposite the Lyons she sheered to starboard, and struck the latter four or five feet aft of the bluff of her port bow, causing the injuries complained of. No negligence can be imputed to the Lyons. She was rightfully at the dock, and did nothing to produce the accident. The Nellie, 7 Ben. 497. The tugs were clearly in fault in attempting to tow two loaded canal-boats, one behind the other, up a rapid current, rendered more |