charge of discharging and loading the ship, which cannot be attributed to the owners. DW./jer v. Nat. Steam-ship Co. 8upra; The Germania, 9 Ben. 356. The actual negligence, however, was in removing a lamp which had hung near the foot of the ladder, and not replacing it. Rose testifies that he came down through the scuttle a short time before the plaintiff came back, found that the- lamp had gone out, relighted it, and carried it aft. If that lamp had remained where it had been during the day, and had been lighted, it seems impossible that the accident should have happened; for the main hatch was forward of the scuttle, and the libelant's place of work was aft of the scuttle, and it must have been through some confusion caused by the want of light that he took the direction he did. This fault was committed byafellow-workman who was employed. on the very same job with the libelant, and the law is too well settled to be changed, ex.cepting by congress or the supreme court, that the common employer is not liable for an injury occurring to a workman under such circumstances. For these reasons I have felt bound to affirm the decree below. In consideration of the great hardship to the libelant, I suppose costs would not be asked against him from 80 court of admiralty.. Decree affirmed, without costs.
(Oif'ouit Court, E. D. PennsyZvania.
ADMIRALTY-COLLISION-BURDEN OF PROOF ON LIBELANT.
The libelant must show that the vessels were approaching in the way be describes.
Libel by the master of Cross Creek Barge No. 5 against ,the tug Dr. John Wolverton, to ;recover damages for So collision. testimony disclosed the following facts:
The Wolverton, having the barge Atlanta in tow astern by a hawser, started from Roberl's stores, Brooklyn, bound for a dock in the North river. When near the Battery she met the tug Packer, with libelant's barge lashed to her port side, coming up the East river, after rounding the Battery. The Packer blew two whistles, indicating that she wished to go inside, or on the New York side of the Wolverton. To this the Wolverton made noreply,and immediately thereafter the libelant's barge struck the Atlanta, damaging
Iflleported b:r Frank P. Prichardo Esq., or the PhUadelpb1a bar.
both vessels. Libelants claimed that the Wolverton was steering diagonally across the East river, so as to just clear the Battery in rounding it; and that she caused the collision by improperly attempting to cross the bows of the Packer, which was coming up the East river close to the shore. Respondents claimed that the Wolverton was proceeding down the East river close to the shore, being on the port side of the Packer, or nearer to the New York shore; that the Packer blew two whistles, to which the Wolverton did not reply, because the Packer immediately put her wheel to starboard and attempted to go across the Wolverton's bows, and that this latter movement caused the collision.
E. D. McCQlfthy and Morton P. Henry, for libelant. Alfred Driver, J. Warren Coulston, and H. R. for r.espondents. BUTLER, D. 1. The burden of proof is on libelant. He must sq.Owl that the vessels were approaching in the manner he describes, or submit to an adverse decree. If they were not thus a.pproaching -if the respondent was not distinctly to starboard-the Packer could not expect her to pass on that side, and she was blameless in going where she did. Under such circumstances the Packeris signal was unimportant, and required no answer. Looking at the evidence on both sides it seems impossible to say that the vessels were a.pprQaching as the libelant asserts. It is quite as probable.· the respondent was·directly aheali, or a. little· to port. I incline to tllink the of the evidence justifies 8 belief that she was, and that the. collision resulted from the Packer's desire to run further in, on account of the tide, and improperly undertaking to do so. It is sufficient, however, that the libelant's position is not proved. As this view disposes of the case it would be unprofitable to discuss ii further. .
(District Oowrt,JJ:. D. Ner.o York. June 26,1882'1
VUSSELS AND BOATa-LIEN FOR SUPPLIES.
Where family supplies and hay and oats were furnished by b dealer in Buffalo on board a canal-boat lying up there for the winter, and the boat, having departed before the bills were paid and come into the eastern district of New York, was there libelled by the provision dealer, claiming a lien upon the boat as for maritime supplies, and it appeared on trial that the horses and man were employed at work on the streets of Buffalo, and that the captain of the boat had not ordered the'supplies, nor l;he woman who owned the boat, and whosehusband was so at work on the streets with his horses, held, that the supplies were furnished on personal credit, and no lien on the boat arose out of the transaction.
Beebe, Wilcox, rt Hobbs, for libelant. L. R. Stegman and E. G. Davis, for respondent. BENEDICT, D. J.. The libelatit cannot recover in this action for two reasons: First, The supplies hi question were not ordered by the .c/l.ptain the boat, but by David Hulsapper,husband of and he, horses, was then employed in working on the streets of Buffalo for a contractor. The, articles sued for were· for the food o,f tpis man's family, the food of his horses, .and the food of a man hired to drive the hqfses hi'the streets of·Bufwhep. David Hulsapper was so employed on the falo st!eets. They were not to enable the boat to earn freight, nor purfor purpose. No lien upon the boat arises out of provisions and stores furnished unde.rsuch cIrcumstances. In the second place, the bill sued for constitutes a. part of an account of some $200, run up by David Hulsapper during the time he was working for the contractor upon the streets; and while it is no doubt true that these items were placed in a separate account and charged to the boat, the whole account was furnished with knowledge that the boat was not running, and that Hulsapper and his horses were working on the streets, and the attendant circumstances were such as. to indicate with sufficient certainty that the articles sued for were furnished on the personal credit of David Hulsapper, as confessedly was the rest of the account. The libel is therefore dismissed, and with costs.