trol and the Havemeyer, came up not long after the Croton had left, while the other boats were still playing upon the Hitchcock, and by their powerful streams the fire was soon reduced to a smouldering condition, so that the boat could be taken to a pier and the cotton removed, and the fire thereby extinguished. A claim for the extra compensation of salvage cannot be sustained, unless the service is successful. It was here successful, but not chiefly through the libelants' services. Nevertheless,·all the tugs that played on the fire before the Patrol and the Havemeyer arrived were of some service, and not an unimportant one, in checking the fire for the time being. The ultimate saving of cal'go was due to the joint efforts of all. Had not the small tugs altogether kept the fire in check until the Patrol arrived, it is not improbable that the Hitchcock would have been destroyed, and the loss of the cotton much greater. As it was, the value of vessel and cargo saved was about $33,000. Still, I am forced to regard the services of the libelants as quite subordinate, and comparatively small in the whole work. Upon all the testimony I think that $50 is a reasonable compensation for the slight salvage services rendered by the Croton. When the Croton left the Hitchcock the latter was still in the East river, and the cotton would have been mostly, if not wholly, lost but for the subsequent services of the other vessels. 'rhe salvage was due to the efforts of all from first to last. The libelants are entitled to a decree for $50, but without costs; which I withhold in consequence of the extra vagance of the claim presented.
THE AURORA V. THE REPUBLIC.·
(Diatrict Oowrt. S. D. Georgia. July 29, 1885.)
It is unnecessary to consider the question of negligence, unless It be first made to appear that the negligence complained of was in fact the cause of the injury. If the evidence discloses no injury traceable to the negligence complained of, the libel will be dismissed,
SPEER, J. The libelant has proceeded against the tug Republic to condemn the latter for damages alleged to have been sustained by rea. son of the negligent conduct of the latter while towing the bark Aurora to sea from the port of Savannah, on the thirteenth of November, 1883. 'l'he negligence alleged is that the crew of the tug cast off the hawser by which they were towing the bark, while in the mouth of the Sa.
Denmark ct Adams, for libelant. Garrard ct ]Vleldrin, for respondents.
by Theodore M. Etting, of the Philadelphia bar.
TRE AURORA V. THE REPUBLIC.
vannah river, and in shoal water; that this was contrary to the signals of the pilot in charge of tug and tow; that, by this conduct, the bark was rendered helpless, drifted upon the shore, and was injured by thumping in the manner specified in the libel. The answer filed by the respondents denies that the hawser was cast off. They deny the signals of the pilot not to cast off, but they admit that the lashing with which the hawser was fastened gave way; that after this casualty they, at the request of the master of the bark, took another line and towed the Aurora to sea. The usual allegations of care, skill, and prudence on the one part, and gross negligence on the other, are made by both libelant and respondents, and a good deal of testimony, very conflicting in its character, is introduced to sustain the cross-allegations. It is, however, unnecessary, in the opinion of the court, to consider this controversy, unless it has been first made to appear that the alleged negligence of the master and crew of the tug in fact was the cause of injury to the bark. It is conceded by the testimony for the libelant that the bark showed no sign of leaking, which was the alleged manifestation of the damage caused by the thumping for many hours after. the tug was cast loose, the pilot dismissed, and the bark had sailed on her course. Capt. U. Linn, the pilot in charge of the bark, a very intelligent witness for the libelant, testified that the vessel struck about 10 A. M. He remained with her until 3 P. M. During this time he was aboard the Aurora. Between 11 o'clock and flood-tide she was on her course heavily listed to starboard. (It was conceded that she left the wharf with the same list.) "Sbedidnot leak,"testifiestbe pilot, "anytime that I was on board." "The pumps were tried after the thumping, and there was no water to pump." "The pumps were not burt, nor the rudder, nor was anything hurt to my knowledge by this thumping." Again, he says, "I did not think she was injured by the thumping." For this opinion the witness gives the reason that from the time she struck until 3 o'clock, for four or five hours, at intervals, he tried the pumps, and she had not leaked. This witness also testifies that when they crossed the bar that day it was rough sea. Salvador Serrallach was the master of the bark. He testified that the bark did not. leak until the second day out. The weather for the first two days was about the same as when be left the bar. After the first two days it was variable, with heavy seas. It is more satisfactory, however, to extract from the log-book, kept on board the Aurora by this witness, an account of her experience. He describes the swell of the sea on the day he crossed the bar as "very strong." From Tuesday, 13th, to Wednesday, 14th: "We continue plying windward N. E. During the night the wind freshened and the sea became heavier." From Wednesday, 14th, to Thursday, 15th: "At the beginning of these twenty-four hours the wind changed to N. W., with heavy seas from N. E. to S. E. obliging us to shorten sail, increasing water in the pump. Kept going on
. JfEDERAL REPORTER·.
in this manner until night, and at midnight the wind northered, and was getting high, which obliged us to furl the mainsails and jib. 1m· possible to leave the pumps except for a few moments of rest. During the morning the wind flew around to S. E., and thus ended these twenty-four hours." The last extract is fairly descriptive of the difficulties which envir· oned the bark Aurora until she put into the harbor of Brunswick for succor, the/weather having become very violent. The Aurora was an old ship, having been constructed in the year 1852, hence 31 years old. She had been refused rating for insurance, and it being evident that after the thumping upon which the injury is assigned that she put to sea in exceedingly rough weather, and showed no leak for nearly two days, and no evidence of any other injury traeeable to the thumping having been presented, the court is of the opinion that no sufficient reason has been shown for a recovery against the respondents' tug-boat. The court, in view of all the evidence, is further of the opinion that the injury sustained was occasioned by the stormy weather and the unseaworthy condition of the bark. Ordered, that the libel be dismissed, and the decree be entered against the libelant for the costs of this proceeding.
TOWN OF PELHAM V. THE GEO.
(IJiatrict Oourt, 8. IJ. New York.
November 16, 1885.) "'
Wharfage, in its most general legal sense, includes the mooring of vessels for the purposes of protection and safety, as well as for loading and unloading the cargo.
ALMOST DESTROYED ·BY FIRE MAY BE LIABLE FOR.
The schooner B. had been seriously injured by the burning of her cargo of lime; her decks, many of her beams, and her masts had been burned away, and in that condition she was fastened to a Wharf, belonging to the town of Pelham, BO that she floated at high water, and at low tide was nearly or quite out of water. Held, that she had not ceased to be a vessel so as to be legally subject to possible claims for wharfage. . The schooner had been given to H. for repairs. H. tied her to the wharf owned by libelant, near his ship yard, and which he sometimes used for his convenience in repairing vessels. Held, that as the ordinance of the town only referred to vessels engaged in navigation, or in loading or unloading' their cargoes, and as no for wharfage could be collected except under an ordinance, wharfage in thiS case accrued only so far as the wharf was used by H. as a place for safely mooring the schooner, and for discharging and preserving what was aboard, for which $35 was allowed; so far as he used the wharf as a mere adjunct to his ship-yard, wharfage under the ordinance did not accrue.
S. SAME-TOWN WHARF USED FOR PRIVATE PURPOSEs-TOWN ORDINANCE.
,1,Re;ported by R. D. & Edward G. Benedict, Esqs., of the New York bar.