and anticipating references. an illustration:
The following quotation will Berve as
"Previous structures had supply tubes, which returned vitiated air to the burner, or which furnished fresh air from protected chambers, or which j .Irnished whatever fresh air would enter through an open funnel or bell mou:h; but no previous structure furnished fresh air by the aid of injectors, which compelled air, which would otherwise strike the lantern in such a direction as to exhaust the tubes, to enter the tubes in a continuous and irreversible CUITent."
The open funnel or bell-mouthed structure here mentioned unquestionably refers to the Holden devioe. It is safe to assume, from the oharaoter of the oounsel who argued that oause, and the judge who deoided it, that nothing was overlooked or slighted. The defendant infringes the first olaim of No. 104,318, and the seoond olaim of No. 151,703. The oomplainant, as to these olaims, is entitled to the usual decree for an injunction and an accounting.
THE ALASKA. VAN PELT and others v. THE ALASKA.
(District Oourt, S. D. New York. May 17,1886.)
COLLISION-STEAM-SHIP AND Pu.oT-BoAT- PILOT BOARDING STEAM-SHIPDUTY OF STEAM-SHIP AS TO SPEED AND HELM.
It is the duty of a steam-ship, when about to take on board a pilot at sea, to come to a substantial stop; i. e., to reduce her headway to the minimum speed required to keep her in position. She should not adopt a veering course, calculated to thwart the maneuvers of the pilot-boat as the latter approaches, but come as near to a stop as possible, and leave the rest to the pilot-boat.
SAME-DUTY OF PILOT-BOAT-NIGHT-GALE-HAZARDOUS METHOD-CuSTOM.
The pilot-boat in this case attempted to launch her yawl when ahead of the steam-ship, so that it should go down the latter's lee side, while the pilot-boat crossed the steamer's bow, to go down her windward side, and round under her stern, to pick up the yawl. Held, that no SUCh. invariable custom was proved of boarding vessels in that manner as to excuse the pilot-boat for attempting it at night, and in a gale which rendered 'that method hazardous and unjustifiable.
In a case of collision where all upon one vessel are lost, the narrative of the other, considering the natural bias of the witnesses, should be received with caution, and not adopted beyond what is consistent, rational, and probable. In this case the steamer's claim of low speed critically examined and disallowed, upon the other circumstances proved, and upon the insuperable difficulties and improbabilities in navigation that such low speed would involve.
Reported by Edward G. Benedict, Esq., of the New York bar.
4. SAm:-L rEX
Though a libel for collision had not been filed at the time of a change ,,! ownership of the vessel, held, on suit subsequently brought, that, as the accident was so notorious that the possibility of claims arising therefrom coulo not have escaped reasonably diligent inquiry on the part of the purchaser, the vessel was not discharged; the delay of 11 months in filing libel was not unreasonable.
XOT LOST BY REASONABLE DELAy-CHANGE OF OWNERSHIP OF LIBELED VESSEL-NOTORIOUS ACCIDENT-DILIGEN'r INQUTUV.
NEGUGENCE-DEATH ON HIGH SEAS-Loss OF SUPPORT-RIGHT TO RECOVER IN ADMIRALTY.
The pecuniary loss sustained by persons who have a legal right to support from one who has lost his life through the wrongful conduct of vessals on the high seas may be recovered in admiralty.
COLT,lSION-STATEMENT OF CASE.
The pilot-boat Columbia, after an exchange of signals, attempted to board the steam-ship Alaska about midnight, in a moderate N, W, gale, by crossin,g the bows of the steamer, so as to launch her yawl ahead of the latter, and then get away. In the act of launching her boat she was run down and sunk by the Alaska. The evidence indicated that at the time of collision the speed of the Alaska was about four knots, and, under the captain's orders to keep the pilot·boat two points on the steamer's port bow, the helm of the Alaska was kept to port so that her head continually veered to starboard, as the pilot-boat attempted to cross ahead of the steamer to the latter's starboard side. Held, that the steamer was in fault for her speed and constant veering, and the pilot-boat for attempting such a method of boarding, which was not justifiable in a gale, if ever justifiable at night.
In. AdmIralty. Whitehead, Parker & Dexter, for libelants. James Parker, advocate. Wilcox, Adams & Macklin, for claimants.
BROWN, J. At a little past ]2 o'clock on the night of December 2, 1883, when the steam-ship Alaska, bound for New York, was about 12 miles H. H. E. from Fire'Island light, the pilot-boat Columbia, in preparing to put a pilot on the Alaska in answer to her signal, was run down and sunk, and all on board perished. The libel and supplemental libel were filed by the representatives of the principalowners of the Columbia, and by the personal representati\'es of four pilots and the cook, who were on board at tile time of the accident, and by the widows of the pilots and of the cook, to recover for the loss of the pilot-boat, the loss of personal effects, and for the lOBS of support. The circumstances proved are sufficient to identify the boat run down by the Alaska as the pilot-boat Columbia. Neither the boat nor the men were ever heard from afterwards, and the pilots and the cook named in the libel and supplemental libel are proved to have been aboard. All the evidence in the case as to the eircumstances of the disaster is derived from the officers, seamen, and passengers on board of the Alaska. The principal facts are as follows: At 11: 40 P. M., the Alaska then heading about W. by N., the pilotboat's torch was observed bearing about S. W. The steamer an. swered with a blue light, indicating that a pilot was desired. The helm of the Alaska was thereupon starboarded, so as to approach the pilot-boat, until she headed W. by S. t S., when her helm was steadied. The wind was blowing a gale from N. W. The night was dark, v.27F.no.l0-45
but not thick. The pilot-boat shaped her course to the northward and eastward, so as to intercept the course of the steamer, and at the proper time to launch a yawl, as customary, to carry the pilot to the steamer's side. A ladder and light were placed at the steamer's gangway on the port side, which was the lee side, as a signal to the pilot where he would be received. This was about 200 feet abaft the stem. When the Alaska steadied at W. by s. t S. the pilot-boat bore about two points off the Alaska's port bow. The master ordered the helmsman to keep the pilot-boat at least two points off the steamer's port bow, and to mind his port helm accordingly. Under these directions, as the pilot-boat hauled to the westward, the Alaska'-g course was correspondingly changed until at 12: 06 she headed W. t S., and at the time of the collision, about 12: 10, she headed, as the wheelsman testifies, W. tN., nearly original course. When the pilot-boat was first sighted, and for some 12 minutes afterwards, the Alaska was making about 14 knots per hour. Her speed subsequently, and at the time of the collision, is one of the controverted questions in the case. The narrative of the log is as follows:
"At 11 :40 observed pilot-boat's torch bearing S. W.; 11: 52 proceeded halt speed. At 11: 57 proceeded slow. At 12: 06 stopped engines, Ship's head being W. t S., pilot-boat's light bearing about S. W. by W. ! W. At 12:08 observed the pilot-boat attempt to cross our bows. l'teversed engines full speed, and in about two minutes she came into collision with our stem, sinking almost immediately. 12: 13 stopped engines, and used every means of saving life with life bUOYS, lines, and also sending away a boat at 12: 20. Cruised about in the vicinity of the disaster until daylight; then steamed around with a lookout at the mast-head, and, seeing nothing, proceeded on our course at 7: 30."
The entries in the engineer's log agree with the above. The evidence of the pilots and others, calledaa experts, showed that there are three different methods pursued by pilots intending to board steamers when approaching in front of them in a strong head-wind. The first is for the pilot-boat to sail down into the lee of the steamer, and there launch her yawl, as Capt. Murray expected would be done in this case; the second, for the pilot-boat to sail across the steamer's bow, pass down on her windward side, wear around her stern, and launch the yawl as she comes up on the steamer's lee quarter; third, to launch the yawl ahead of the steamer, so as to let the yawl go down upon her lee side, while the pilot.boat crosses her bows, and goes down to windward, and rounds her stern to pick up the yawl. The latter was the course pursued in the case of The City of Washington, 92 U. S. 31, and the course manifestly intended by the pilots in this case. One of the most experienced pilots called as an expert testified that the proper course for the steamer, after signaling the pilot, under circumstances like the present, is to make towards the pilot-boat, and come substantially to a stop,-that is, not exceeding half a knot or a knot an hour, when off the pilot-boat's lee bow, and
a few hundred feet distant; and that in that situation the pilotboat may properly pursue either of the last two methods; but that the latter is not prudent or justifiable at night, in a strong wind, when the steamer is evidently in motion, and when her two colored lights have not been seen, and she appears to be keeping off to windward. The last two methods are deemed preferable to the first as a general rule, because the pilot-boat is thereby better enabled to keep clear of the yawl, and to keep control of her own motion. 92 U. S. 40. Although both these latter methods have been long practiced by pilots, the master of the Alaska testified that he had never before known such an attempt at night. His testimony, and that of the officers of the Alaska, leave no doubt that the pilot-boat was expected by them to sail down upon the lee side of the Alaska, and there launch her yawl; and that it was not until the Alaska's engines were reversed at 12 :08, "about two minutes," as the log says, before the collision, that the officers of the Alaska had any idea that the pilotboat was intending to cross her bows. Their account of the disaster is, and the answer states, that immediately before the order to reverse was given, the pilot-boat, being then two points on the Alaska's port bow, was observed suddenly to close in rapidly across the steamer's course, when apparently only a short distance ahead. It is supposed that the pilot-boat then luffed into the wind, so as to reduce her speed, for the purpose of launching the yawl. Her previous speed is estimated at some seven or eight knots. The carpenter testified that he saw the pilot-boat suddenly luff when within 50 or 100 feet of the Alaska's stem, and that he then saw, as he thought, one end of the yawl resting upon the pilot-boat, and the other end in the water; which, if true, would indicate that something unusual had happened in attempting to launch the yawl. The hull of the pilotboat, after striking the steamer's stem, was not again seen. It began to sink immediately, and passed along the starboard side of the steamer. The master ran down the ladder from the bridge, and saw from·the starboard rail only the light, the mast, and the peak of the pilot.boat's sail above water; and she disappeared altogether when about amid-ships. The yawl was capsized, and passed along the steamer's port side. Several men were seen clinging to it, and were heard calling for help. Another man near it was clinging to a spar. The lines thrown out to the men from the steamer failed to reach them as they passed astern, and none were afterwards found. On the part of the steamer the contention is that her headway was substantially stopped; that the pilot-boat, upon luffing, and while waiting to repair the supposed accident that happened to the yawl, was blown against the starboard bow of the steamer by the strong wind, upset, and stove in. The libelants contend that th!? steamer was under considerable headway, and ran upon the starboard quarter of the pilot-boat while she was engaged in launching