TUB OITY 01' CHESTER.
escape of steam around the piston-rod, he proposeq, to confine. the steam behind the piston, instead of introducing it illto the cylinder in front Df the piston, as was done in his earlier invention. Accordingly he located the steam passages behind the piston,and adopted a tightly-fitting piston, and in,order that the piston might remain tight he adopted a detached piston-rod to relieve the piston from lateral strain. The specification states that "the piston is disconnected from its rod to prevent any late,al strain being communicated .to it, thereby decreasing to some extent the wear or the piston in the cylinder;" and further, "if the piston is closely fitted. it will wear a long time with very little leakage, and what there may be will be caught in the annular grooves in the side of the piston and passed at once through the exhaust passages, thus preventinR any leakage through the piston-rod." The drawings show a detached piston-rod, and all the co-operative devices are conformed and adjusted to a detached rod, such as the long sleeve in the cylinder to guide it, and the collar on the end of the rod to limit its movements. It is impossible to ignore the particular construction of these two parts which is thus pointed out as material. As the defendant's bell-ringer does not contain such a piston or piston-rod, infringement is not shown. The bill is therefore dismissed.
TUB CITY OJ' CHESTEa.
(District Court, 8. D. NW1 Ytn'k.
OoLLISION-IDENTITY OJ!' COLLIDING VBSSEL-PUPONDERANCB Oll'
The canal-boat B. F; W. being moored in the slip 100 feet inside of the end of the wharf, some other steam-tug in a high wind got wedged in and across the slip, and was for a few minutes thumping and pounding upon the stern quarter of the B. F. W., from which four hours afterwards a leak was first discovered, and the City of Chester was afterwards libeled a8 the colliding Tessel. Sbe had been past the slip the same morning, but aU her evidence was that she had not touched the wharf or entered the slip at all. Upon her testimony, her hourly log, and the libelants' testimony &s to the time of the occurrence, held, that the libelants had not established the identity of the City of Chester as the colliding vessel by any such preponderance of evidence as entitled them to recover, and the libels were dismissed.
BROWN, J. The testimony in these cases is irreconcilable aato .the identity of the vessel which collided with the libelants' boat, the B. F. Wade, on March 11, 1881. On the part of the libelants several witnesses testify that 'the B. F. Wade was moored on the north side of pier 46, bows in, with her stern about. 100 feet from the end of the
J. A. Hyland, for libelants. Shipman, Barlow, Larocque II Choatt, for claimantB.
pier; that the steam.tug, under a strong north-west wind, came into and across the slip, her bows striking against the steam-ship moored at the upper side of the slip, and her stern striking the stern of the B. F. Wade; and that the steamer remained there thumping and pounding against the B. F. Wade some 10 or 15 minutes before she was able to get clear and back out. One of the witnesses testified that after the steam-tug went away some one called out, "It is the City of Chester." Others say that -they read the name as she lay there pounding. Some five or six witnesses for the claimant testify that the City of Chester, though she had come across the river that morning for the purpose of towing the Juno from the slip below, and had passed near the end of pier 46, did not touch it, nor go at all inside of the slip between that and pier 47, or come in cont!l.Ct with any boat. The canal-boat was so far inside ,of the slip that it is difficult to see how the steam-tug, having n'o business in the slip, could have got in so far, without gross carelessne'ss in handling, notwithstanding the strong north-west wind; and it not possible that she could have got so far in the slip and become wedged in, as it were, between the
two vessels at her bow and her stern, unable to extricate herself for so long a time as the libelants' witnesses testify, without the fact
being perfectly known and remembered by the claimants' witnesses, if the tug was, in fact, the City of Chester. Among the libelants' witnesses, one had no interest in favor of th'3 libelants, and two of the witnesses for the defense were without interest for the claimants. The examination oftha witnesses on either side did not disclose any ground for doubting their credibility. Other vessels were proved have come into the slip the same morning, and it was not until four or fiv'Cl hours afterwards that any substantial injury was discovered or apprehended from the drifting of the vessel, whatever vessel it was, against the stern of the Wade. These libels were filed about a month afterwards. It would seem improbable that persons who were present at the time should mistake as to the vessel which came against the Wade. The fact that the contact came in the ordinary course of vessels drifting in a high wind, and not with any very violent blow, and that it did not lead to any apprehension of serious injury at the time, in connection with the fact that other tugs were going in and out, leaves room for the possibility that the question of what boa.t it was, was not considered until several hours afterwards, when the Wade was first found to be leaking; and it may have been then that the witness heard some one sing out, "It is the City of Chester." The witness says "that was after she had left," which gives some color to the of which vessel it was that had possibility that the rabbed or had pounded against the Wade did. not specifically arise in the minds of the witnesses until the leak was discovered; and if the vessel was not supposedio be injured at the time, they might
BRINK V. LYONS.
have mistaken in recalling several hours afterwards which of several vessels that had been there that morning it was. I refer to this as only a possible way in which a mistake might have arisen, because there are additional circumstances which seem strongly to confirm the several witnesses for the claimants, who assert that they did not go inside of the slip at all; that after laying about five minutes near the end of pier 46 she turned about under a starboard wheel, and went across the river without touching the wharf or entering the slip. Three of the witnesses for the libelants fix the time when the Wade was struck with such particularity of circumstance and de'tail that it cannot be held immaterial or be disregarded in considering the identity of the colliding vessel. The time as thus fixed by the three witnesses, all in different ways, cannot have been earlier than about half past 9 A; M. But the City of IJhester kept an hourly log of her movements, made up at the time, and filed daily. The log of March , 11, 1881, was produced, and it showed that the trip of the City of Chester from Jersey City to pior 47 was the first that she made that day, and was between 8 and 9 A. M., ani that between 9 and 10 she was towing another vessel at Jersey City. The burden of proof is upon the libelants to make out their CMle by a fair preponderance of evidence. The Albert Mason, 2 FED. REP. 821; 8 FED. REP. 768. The claimants' witnesses, as I have said, are in no way dibcredited. There are no other material stances about the transaction in which they are shown by other evidenoe to be grossly inaccurate or untrustworthy, so that the oourt has no satisfactory ground for preferring the testimony of the libelants to that of the olaimants, as in the case of The Florence P. HaU, 14 FED. REP. 408. Without being able, therefore, to answer satisfactorily the questions whioh arise upon the testimony on either side, I am oompelled to find that there is no such preponderance of proof as entitles the libelant to recover. The libel must therefore be dismissed, with costs.
BRINK 'V. LYONS
JJiBtriet Oowt. 8. D. 061.0 York. 1.
SEAMAN'S WAGES-DESERTION-SECTION PUNISHMENT.
November 24, 1883.1
Where Ule assistant engineer of a steamer, knowing that she was on the eve of departure, being sent ashore upon an errand, absented himself for an unreasonable period, and the master, after spending a couple of hours in searching throush the place and being unable to find him, departed on his voyage, leaVing the assistant engineer behind, held, that the master was justified in hill departure, and was not liable for the subsequent expenses of the seamlln. Held, al80, that the case was not one of desertion under the maritime law,. e.