her, must be held to be responsible for the payment of any expenses on their account. This, as well as the amount of wages, is an expense which has been properly incurred on account of the seizure, and the final payment of which must depend upon the determination of the question of forfeiture. Let judgment be entered for the amount proven.
THE ALGIERS. 1
(Ol'rcuit Oourt, E. D. Pennsylvania.
April 15, 1886.)
The steamer Algiers and the schooner William J. White were sailing on convergent courses. The steamer's was N. N. E.; the schooner's N. W., or somewhat to the northward of that. The steamer's head-light and signal lights were set, and burning brightly. The officers and seamen were on the lookout and watchful. The schooner's side lights were burning brightly, but were set in the curve of her bow, and did not throw her light abaft the beam. Her binnacle was on the top of the cabin, and a white light therein was· visible, within an arc of 22 deg. 3 min. to a vessel off her port quarter. The first mate and two seamen were on duty, one of them at the lookout. The schooner's side lights were seen by no one 011 board the steamer. A white one, however, was seen. The steamer's lights were seen by those on the schooner for a long time before the collision, but no precautions were taken to attract her attention. A torch kept for that very purpose was not lighted. The was not noticed until too late to avoid a collision. Held that, having proved vigilance, negligence could not be inferred from failure to see a light, and that the schooner was in positive fault in failing to light and exhibit the torch, as the law re'quired her to do, when she knew the steamer was approaching on a course which crossed her own.
In Admiralty. S. M. Thomas, H. R. Edmunds, and .J. Warren Coulston, for libelant. 1"1. P, Henry and Edward McCarty, for the Providence Washington Ins. Co. Curti.s 1'ilton and Henry Flanders, for respondent.
The following facts are found as the result of tb
by C. B. Taylor, Esq., of the Philadelphia bar.
ahead, her head-light and signal1ights duly set, and burning brightly. Her officers and crew were properly stationed; the lookout was upon the bow, and watchful; the second officer was upon the bridge, looking for lights; the master was in the pilot-house, standing at the forward window close by, obserVing the progress of his ship; the quartermaster was at the helm, and two seamen were amid-ships awaiting call. (4) The schooner was on a voyage from Alexandria, Virginia, to Providence, Rhode Island; her spped about four miles an hour. She was beating up the coast, close-hauled, on her starboard tack. She was in command of the first mate, and two seamen were on duty, one at the wheel, and the other at the lookout. Her course varied with the wind, but was N. W., or somewhat to the northward of that. Her.sidf' lights were burning brightly, but were set in the curve of her bow, and did not throw their light abaft the beam. Her binnacle was on the top of the cabin, and a white light therein was visible, within an arc of 22 deg. 3 min., to a vessel off her port quarter. (5) The courses of the vessels were convergent, and at an angle more or less acute. The schooner's bearing was somewhat on the steamer's sta.rboard bow, and the steamer was approaching on the port quarter of the schooner. (6)'rhe.side lights of the schooner were not seen by the lookout on the steamer; or by her captain, who was in the pilot-house on the starboard side; or by her second officer, who was on the starboard side of the bridge,-both of which officers were looking through glasses in the general direction of the schooner's approach; nor by two seamen, who were amid-ships, and were in the same direction; nor by the quartermaster at the wheel. (7) The mast-head light of the steamer was seen continuously, for morf than an hour before the collision. from the schooner. Afterwards the steamer's green light was seen by those on the schooner, and they knew that the steamer was approaching their course. (8) The schooner had a torch on board, but no attempt was made to light it. When the collision was impending, and immediately before it occurred, a globe light was swung on the schooner, which was seen on the steamelj but it did not give her timely warning of the schooner's proximity. (9) The steamer did not reduce her speed, or change her course; and, when the collision was immint'nt, her helm was put hard a-port, and an order given to stop and back her. The collision, however, occurred, by which the bow of the steamer was stove in, and she was considerably damaged, and the schooner was at once Kunk. Under the pressure of the respondent's proof, giving it its full weight/ I think it is incontestable that neither the hull nor the light of the schooner were seen by any person on the steamer. But it is urged that this is overborne by the appellant's evidence that the schooner's lights were burning brightly, and hence that they ought to have been. seen by the steamer, and that the impact upon the schooner was direct and perpendicular. If the steamer was not negligent, it is not necessary for her to show why the schooner's lights were not seen by her. It may be accounted for by imputing only a slight mistake to the schooner's witnesses touching her course. But the testimony for the steamer establishes that her lookout was faithful and dutiful, and that several other officers and persons on her deck were carefully observant in the direction of the schooner's approach, and that no lights were or could be seen, except a white light, which they afterwards believed to be a misleading light in the schooner's binnacle. Whether this be so or v.28F.noA-16
not is not necessary to determine. Its ohief significance is in showing the vigilance of the persons on the steamer. If vigilance is proved, an inference of negligence is not to be deduoed from the mere fact that a light was not seen, (The Annie Lindsley, 104 U. 8.191;) and, if the collision did not result from the negligence of the steamer, there is no liability. But the sohooner was in positive fault. She saw the steamer an hour before the oollision, and knew that she was approaching her; and was where it was evident that the oourses of the vessels orossed each other, and the danger of oollision was threatening. She failed to light and exhibit the torch which she kept on board for the very purpose of giving warning undersuoh oircumstanoes. If she had exhibited the toroh, it is reasonably certain that a collision could only have ocourred by the willful act of the steamer; aud hQlr fault is not condoned or mitigated by the faot that her side lights were burning brightly, and the assumption that they oould have been and ought to have been seen by the steamer. The law gives her no snch disoretion, but required her to inform the steamer, in this mode, of her proximity and oourse; and, if she consoiously omitted to do it, the unfortunate consequences of her failure are imputable to her alone. The libel is dismissed, with costs.
(OiIrcuit Oourt, E. D. Penns1/Voania. April 22,1886.)
In Admiralty. 8ee 6 Fed. Rep. 526. Flanders et Pugh, for libelants. H. G. Ward and M. P. Henry, for respondents. Me KENNAN, J. This suit is brought to recover damages for the refusal by the respondents to fulfill a charter-party alleged to have been
by C. B. Taylor, Esq., oftha Philadelphia bar.