ceeded with the chief engineer to draw the fires, though forbidden by the master to do so; and all the m,en in the engineer's department forbidden to leave. There shortly after left the shipwith jeers, can be no doubt that all the men in the engineer's department, from the chief engineer down, after the discharge of the latter, were acting concert. Not only did everyone refuse duty, or leave contrary to orders, but the chief engineer, on the Tuesday following, proffered the services of all in a body; and on the trial evidence was offered of a custom for the men to' be engaged and to leave with the chief engineer. The evidence and the custom were ruled out as incompatible with the shipping articles and with the discipline of the ship. It is evident that a word from the chief engineer would have prevented the departure of all the rest of the men, which was semi-mutinous in character, and would have been prevented by force had the ship not been moored to the wharf. I cannot resist the conviction that the drawing of the fires contrary to the master's orders, the refusal of the first and second assistant to attend to the engines, and the qeparture of all the men in the department against the master's .protest, was a concer,ted movement, which, if not directly instigated engineer,had his sanction ,and support, and which, under by the circumstances, must be mainly chargeable upon him, since a word from him .wouldhave Pl!6vented it.. The chief engip.eer's act of drawing the late on Saturday afternoon of a cold day, and ,in effect,abetting the departure of the first and second· assistants, which furnil'hed the only plausible reason for drawing the fires, were acts safetyof the vessel; ap.d for these acts, clearly malimust cious, in which the first and second ,assistants concurred, all be held, in a court of admiralty, to have forfeited the residue of the month's, pay to which they would otherwise have been entitled. The amounts tendered in the answer will be decreed, but without costs since that time.
(District Oourt, S. D. New YO'1'k.
1. ,COLLISION-VESSELS RoUNDING BEND.
In rounding a bend peHher of two approaching vessels has a right to assume ,that'the other will hold her exact course by but only hlJr relative sit"llatiQn in the stream. . Neither should change tlleir relative situation in tIle stream when they are "apprdacliing, so as to involve danger of collision, without timely notice to the othlJr by $;gnahvhistleil. ."
Where the tug T., having a ,tow ona hawser, was coming down the East 'river, <With a strong errlJ"tide, near the middle of the stream, and on approaching , tl,le BaUery ran in towards shore h)' a sheer, crossing the courllc
of the tug B" which was rounding the, Battery in the opposltedirectlon. and the tide againstB. 's tow, &ndneitller tug gave any the. T. 's tow swerving whIstle, except one whIstle by the T. whentoo late to beaf any"uae to the B., held, that both were in fault for not signaling in time.' . "
J. A. Hyland, for libelant. Beebe &: Wilcox, for claimants.
BROWN, J. This action was brought to recover damages for injuries to the libelant's canal-boat' F. ,F. Stoddard, in' tow of the steam-tug William H. Beaman, through' a collision with the scow Empire, in tow of the steam-tug James N. Thompson, on the fourteenth of September, 1880, some 300 or 400 feet off from the barge office near the Battery. , The Beaman had the Stoddard'lashed upon her starboard side, projecting about 30 feet ahead of her bows. She had left Hoboken between 11 and 12 o'clock, bonnd for Delancey street, East river. The tide was the last of the ebb in both the North and East rivers, and the Beaman rounded the Battery some 300 01' 400 feet off shore. The Thompson at the same time was coming ont of the East river, having left Newtown creek, with the Empire in tow upon a hawser of about 20 or 25 fathoms length;bound'f6r Weehawken. She came .down about the center of the East river, or a little nearer the New York shore, and as she pier No.3 her helm· was put slightly to port. She was then in charge of the deck hand who was acting as pilot, while the captain was below at dinner. The captain testifies that while at dinner, by head, he look along the port side of the Thompson, and in tha.t manner noticed the Beaman direclllyahead, about a quarter of a mile off, and that he then came out and told the man at the wheel to put the helm more to port. This was done, arid by the captain's directions one whistle was blown, as he says, at the saine time. If both vessels had continued on the courses they were o'nprior to the wheel being ported, all the testimony is to the effect that they would;have passed well clear of each other, starbbard to starboard. . The captain of the Empire heard the one whistle, understood it as a'signal by the Thompson that she would pass to the right, and .mediately ported his own helm. He testifies that the two tugs were only about 300 feet apart at the time this whistle given. The captain of the Bellman, and other' witnesses for the libelant, st(tte that when the tugs were about 200 feet apart the Thompson gave a rank sheer, under a port wheel, thereby crossing the bows of the Beaman,and rendering it impossible for the latter to escape from the Empire, which, despite her port helm, swung downward and: outwl1rd with the ebb-tide, and directly upon the BeaIllan'stow;rNo whistle was heard from the Thompson on board the Beatn8ln\ltfldnd signal was given by ihe'latter. As soon as'the sheer by'theThompson was seen the engines of tpe Beamen were reyersed fun speed';
but though her wheel was put to starboard, the effect of the tow upon her starboard side was to cant her head one or two points to port, and the Stoddard struck the Empire about amidships, on her port side, and received some damage. No other vessels were in the way, and this collision could not hava happened had the rules been observed by either of the tugs. Each was· evidently desirous of availing itself of the slack water near the Battery. Tha Thompson having come down about the middle of the river, some 900 or 1,000 feet off from the New York shore, in rounding the Battery, on seeing other vessels coming around the saD;le bend, was bound, before changing her relative situation in the stream, and running in-shore, to give timely notice, by signals, of her intention to do so. In this case one whistle was blown, sufficient to be heard on the scow astern, but it was not heard or noticed by any persons on the Beaman or the Stoddard. Without considering the question, whether the blast of the whisle given was probably a sufficient one, I am satisfied it was given when the tugs were much than a quarter of a mile apart, and altogether toolate to. meet the requirements of the rules, or to enable the Beaman, with her tow, to avoid the swing of the Empire. In effect, the Thompson changed her course within about 300 feet of the Beaman, and when they were approaching each other at the combined speed of about eight miles an hour, and when Bcarcely half a minute apart. The Beaman was, m like manner, bound to signal to the other vesBel on which side she intended to nass. The actual lines of the courses of the two when they firFlt saw each other were croBsing, as in the fifth situation, and by the inspector's rules each was bound to signal to the other. Had this been done when they were first sighted, there is no reason why the collision should not have been avoided. The eourse of the Thompson, when first seen, may have been towards Communipaw, and to the starboard of the Beaman. But as the Thompson was then upon the bend, the Beaman had no right to assume that the Thompson was going to Communipaw, or would hold the exaet course she was on. The ordinary traffic around the Battery forbids any such assumption. All that she had a right to assume was that the Thompson would not change her relative position in the stream in going around the bend, without a clear and timely signal. I do not find any fault with the Beaman in backmg as she did. The d:rection of her bows was doubtless thereby somewhat changed. Brit backing was her evident duty, and it tended to avoid the collision, although it changed the position in which the blow was received. Both tugs must, therefore, be held in fault for not giving the signals required by the rules, and judgment is ordered against both in the form authorized in such cases, (The Sterling, 106 U. S. 647; S. C. 1 Sup. Ct. Rep. 89,) with costs, with a reference to compute the lamage.s.
NEW JERSEY ZINO & !RON CO.
TROTTER and others.
(Oircuit (}ourt D. New Jer8ey. November 6,1883.'
RICHOVAL OF CAUSES.
The second clause, section 2, of the removal act of 1875, enacts that when m any suit pending in a state court there shall be a controversywhich is wholly between citizens of different states, and which can be fully determined between them, then either one or more of the plaintiffs or defendants actually interested in' such controversy may remove said suit to the circuit court of the United States for the proper district. To enable a par,ty to remove under this cla,use there must exist in the suit a separate aud distInct of action, in respect to which all the necessary parties on one side are citizens of different states " from those on the other.
On Motion to Remand. T. N. McCarter, for plaintiff. C. cJ: R. W.. Parker, for Trotter. NIXON, J. This is, a motion to to the state court a suit originally commenced, in .the court of chancery of :New Jersey, and which one of the defendants (Trotter).has attempted to remove into this court. The decision of the question depends upon the nature of the suit, as disclosed in the pleadings and the construction oithe second clause of· the second section of the removal act of March 3, 1875. The bill is filed by the complainant corporation of New Jersey against Charles V'f. Trotter, James L. Curtis, surviving trustee ()f the Franklinite Mining Company, and the Franklinite Steel & Zino Company. Trotter and Curtis are citizens of New York, and the Franklinite Steel & Zinc Company is a corporation of the state of New Jersey. The object of the bill seems to be to obtain the reformation of certain deeds, .under which the oomplainant corporation claims title to the ore called "franklinite" in a portion of the premknown as Mine Hill, in Sussex county, New Jersey. The first of these deeds was executed by Samuel Fowler, on March 10, 1848, to the Sussex Zinc & Copper Mining & Manufacturing Company, and describes the tract of land on which the franklinite, claimed to have been conveyed, is contained, by specific monuments, and by metes and bounds. The allegation of the bill is that by reason of the inaccuracies and defects in the description of the premises, which inaccuracies and defects are repeated in the subsequent conveyances of titles, there is a difficulty in locating the said deed upon the frank· linite vein, as it was intended to be located, unless the same shall be corrected so a.s to make it conform to the intention of the parties. The relief asked for is that the said deeds may be so amended 'and corrected in the description therein as to make them conform to the intention of the several parties thereto, when they were respectively executed, and so as to convey, without doubt or mistake, that portion of the franldinite vein on Mine Hill which. is included within a parv.18,no.6-22