lookout, but the proofis that she had two lookouts, and that the schooner was seen as soon as possible. It is also said that the. bark sounded no horn, but the schooner's own witnesses prove that they heard her horn. And, lastly, it is said that the bark was in fault for not starboarding her helm. The bark did not starboard, but why should she? She was close-hauled on the starboard tack. She was notified by the schooner's horn that a vessel was approaching close-hauled on the port tack. The bark's duty, therefore, was to keep her course, and to assume that the schooner would keep out of her way. Certainly she was not bound to starboard. I find therefore no fault committed by the bark. The result is that any damage sustained by the bark may be recovered in her action against the Laura Belle, while the libel of the Laura Belle against the bark must be dismissed. Costs in each case to the successful party.
THE W. E. CHENEY. CAnPENTER v. THE CITY
AUGUSTA and another.
(Diatrict Court, B. D. New York. March 19, 1887.)
1. COLLISION-WHARVES AND SLIPs-BURDEN OF PROOF.
Where a 'V6$llel, .moving out of the Illip, injures another moored to the wharf, the burden of proof is upon the former to show that she was without fault. SAME-CA:SE STAtED-OLD VESSEL-SUSPIOIOUS CmCUMSTANCES-HALF DAMAGES.
While the steamer C. of A. was being towed out of the slip, the libelant's sloop, lying' along-the wharf, was injured by being jammed in conseque\lce, as was alleged, of tiJie steamer's bowline not being cast off in time. Held, on . a conflictofevidell;ce. that the sloop was jammed by the steamer; but the sloop being old, and previous notice given to the sloop to move away, and other circtulIstallces existing not satisfactorily explained, half damages only' were allowed. .
In Admiralty·. Hyland &- ZabriBkie, for libelant. John E. Ward,for the City of Augusta. BROWN, J. As the libelant's sloop Frances was lying along the northerly side of pier 35, taking in It cargo of iron, she was jammed somewhat, as I must find upon the evidence, by the steamer City of Augusta, as the latter was being towed out of the slip at high water, to be taken to the dry.dock. The great confidence with which most of the wHnesses for the City of Augusta testified that this was before dinner, when the time of tide shows that it must have been several hours after, detracts not a little from the confidence to be placed in the details of theirtes-
THE LORD WARDEN.
timony in other respects. The explanation of the collision given by the libelant's witnesses is that the steamer was started before the bowline was cast off, and that her head was accordingly jerked towards the libelant's vessel. It is denied by the steamer's witnesses that she had started before the line was cast off. The sloop, howe\ter, was not wrongfully where she was, and, as she was struck by a vessel in motion, the burden of proof is upon the latter to show herself without fault. Considering all the evidence, I do not think that this burden is sustained, and the City of Augusta must therefore beheld liable. The sloop, however,was 26 years old. She has not been repaired since the accident. She was used more or less for a considerable time without repair after the accident, and was subsequently sold for $300, under attachment. These circumstances are so peculiar, suspicion of the infirmity of the vessel is so strong, and the testimony of the libelant himself was accompanied by so singular mistakes, that I do not feel warranted in giving him the benefit of full repair, as of a vessel probably able; to withstand ordinary contacts.. If the vessel was weak, as well as old,asI very strongly sus'pect, I think the captain should have got ont of the ;way·;· according to the previous notice given him, or have taken care that the person who suggested to hiro. to remain was either the superintendent or some i proper representative of the steamer, neither of which is proved. Under the circumstances, therefore, I allow him half of hit; damages, as against the City of Augusta, and estimate this half at $300, for which sum the libelant may take a decree; or, if desired, a referenc,e may be t..'tken by either party to compute the damages, at the risk of costs to the party demanding it, if a more favorable award is not given.
WARDEN and another. 1
THE LoRD WARDEN
THE SILIOA and another.
(Oircuit Oourt, E. D. PennsylvanUi. March 1,1887.)
In cases of collision, the rate of demurrage provided for in the charter-party of the injured vessel will, in all save exceptional cases, be adhered, t,o in the determination of the damage suffered by the delay of the injured vessel while undergoing repairs.
In Admiralty. Sur exceptions to commissioner's report. The bark Silica sailed from London for Philadelphia, on August 11, on the seventh of October. There 1884, and arrived at the latter she was chartered for a voyage from Philadelphia to Fiume. She proceeded on her voyage in the tow of the tug Protector, and, owing to the
lReported by C. Berkeley Taylor. Esq.tof the Philadelphia bar.