fact the light of the schooner, and the green had been brought into view solely by such a change. Another circumstance that diminishes confidence in the lookout's testimony is his intimation that when the schooner's green light was first seen he could not see her hull or sails; he could only "a green light and some kind of a dark spot. I couldn't make it out. After she came a little further, I could see it was a schooner." It was a bright, starlight night; it was already dawn; and, upon the other testimony in the case, it is very clear that at the time when, as now claimed, the green within 500 to 70.0 light was first visible, the. vessels were so near, i. feet, that the hull and sails must have been in plain view. It is impossible, upon testimony of this character, to hold the libelant's narrative a fabrication in its main particulars. See Ohamberlain.. v. Ward, 21 How. 54$, The Angle of Collision. Had both vessels collided any change by either of their former courses, the angle of the blow would have been bJltoneand one-half points, if the schooner was in fact sailing .N. by E. I do. not regard, however, the latter fact as certain, because she was not sailing by compass, but by the wind. The angle of collision, as shown ip ,the drawings from the models placed by various witnesses to illustrate. the collision, varies from four to six and one-half points. The of the schooner places the vessels at an angle of four and threepoints, the mate at four and two-thirds, the steward at four poinis. But the master, who came on deck but a few seconds before the collision, states that the brig's red light was then about two points, only on his starboard bow. All the other estimatea of the bearing are the same. Moreover, as the brig was going nearly twice as fast as the schooner, and was from two to three times the schooner's tonnage, strik· ingherforward of amid-ships, would necessarily, almost immediately send the schooner's bows to the northward, and increase the apparent angle of collision. It is not at all improbable, in my judgment, and it is probably true, that within the last few seconds before the collison the wheelsman luffed somewhat in the hope of avoiding the brig, which was close upon them. The wind is stated as "about N. N. E." I do not find thaUhe precise course of the schooner, by compass, was noted. The fact that the sails of the brig, about 4 o'clook, were trimmed aft more than they had previously been, affords some indication that the wind was hauling to the northward; and, if so, the course of the schooner would graciually veer also to the northward. And it is 110ticeable that the steward, who could have had no idea of the bearing of his answer, gave his judgment of the schooner's course, simply from general knowledge of the sound, as N. E. or N. E. by E., though he did not preiend to swear to this; and, if the schooner was in fact sailing a point more to the northward than she had previously been, the bearing of the brig's light would be two points off her starboard bow, as her witnesses estimate it was. Opposed to this is the mate's statement that Faulkner Island light bore E. N. E., one point on his port bow, about ten minutes the collision. I cannot place much reliance upon the brig's v.33F.no.15-5G
testimony as respeetsthie:position of the schooner's sidls. the second mate says the foresail and, mainsail were full, on the starboard tack, as, the sails were on: the 'port side; The master says they were full, with the booms on the port side. Several say the jib-sheets were hauled to starboard. The lookout says the sails were fluttering "a little." If the sails were full on the starboard tack, the schooner must have completed her tack, and changed her course from 9 to 10 points. Not only is it impossible that any such change could have been made in the short intervalofa half minute from the time when the green light was first seen till butH seems to be absurd and incredible to suppose that the schooner, with the brig's lights near at hand, on her weather bow, '(as the respondent's contention requires to be assumed,) should have tacked' ahnost under the very bows of the brig, to cross the brig's course, when she was safe in holding her own course to the leeward of the brig. Subh a 'change is denied by' all on board the schooner, and cannot be aoce,pted as a fact. If, again, the schooner had luffed five or' six points, the 'sails would have been shaking, not (la little," as the Iookbut puts it, but 'violently.' There is testimony on behalf of the brig that under her starbOArd wheelShe fell off ()neand one-half points before the collision, 80 to 'head W. by S.Butfrom the short I haV'e much doubt off a point. ' Although the respondent's'iVitnesses do not directly allege any ch*rtge of course' by the brig, and say they did not perceive :ahych'ange itiher bourse, the master and the mate judged that 'they m.\isthl1ve been the north-west. .But this is based upon the llssumptionthat the did not materially change her heading. ''Milch 'less reHapce is to be1placed. Ithink, upon any estimate of the angleot :Collision, in the excitement of such an occasion, than'upon the bearing of the lights a few seconds before, which seameri are accustomed to observe a.nd 'to estimate." Taking. however, all the testimony tOgether, I judge that f!.t· the moment ofcollisiori (the angle of the vessels was at least three to' '. But· as the precise course of' the schooner is not knoWn, and as it is quite probable that the wheelsmanput his wheel to at ,the last monilmt; as he would 11-aturally do when the brig was nearly 'upon them. I cannot give great weight to this elementin the case. The,te$timonyof'the master that when he came 'on bly not 15 or20geconds before the collision, the brig's red light bore abol1thyo points off his starboard bow is, I think, much more likely to be. cortectthan his estimate of the' angle.of. collision. , What "a,s served afterwards when the schooner's bows had naturally swung tothe northward; might easily be taken by all the witnesses for the' angle of collision. . Most of the respondent's witnesses did not see the schooner at the moment they struck; and hence Cf!11not tell the angle of the blow. The master of the schoonersays that whElU he eanie on deck the collision was inevitable, and that he therefore gave no orders. If the sails were then shaking, he would have noticed,it as he came outofthe compr.nion way. It is probable that .the wheelsman, if the master gave no order, of own motion luffed when the' brig was near,and after the master had come up. There was still time for her to change three or four points,
as ,she was a small vessel; and the shaking of the sails on the close approach of the collision would not be likely to attraot the attention of the men on board. In the case of The Fa,irbanks, supra, it was sought to prove that the sailing vessel changed her course from the appearance and effect of the blow upon the steamer, which indicated a right angle. The court say: "The circumstances adduced do not satisfy the court that any such change of course was made by the brig as is supposed, certainly not until the prox· imity of the two vessels was so close that a collision was inevitable; and then it is quite that the steamer malle a sudden change, and it may be that the brig also changed her course, as is supposed by the claimants. Fault. under such circumstances, will not be Imputed to the vessel required to keep her course. if she was otherwise blameless." In the case, neither the angle of the blow, nor the luffing of the !!Chooner to the northward, if such was the fact, is material, unless the schooner's course had been previously such that her red light was ex,. hihited brig; because, if the schooner's red light was not shown to the brig, the latter was in no way misled; nor were any efforts on her part to avqid the schooner thwarted by the latter. If the testimony of the witnesses for the schooner is to be believed, and 1 see no reason why it should not be, it is clear that the brig's red light, seen oft' the schooner's starboard bow, did not draw nearer to the schooner's stem, when the brig was approaching somewhat near. This is conclusive evidence that the brig was not moving on a path that would cross ahead of the schooner' without collision; and in that situation the schooner's starboarding, if the helmsman did starboard, was not material, and did not produce the collision, since it tended to take the schooner away from the line of the brig's course. The question as to the angle of collision bears chiefly upon the credibility of the schooner's witnesses, and, in my judgment, the evidence relating to this angle is not sufficiently certain as to the amount of the angle, the time it was Observed, and the causes of any such changes as may have taken place, to impeach the general credit to which 1 think the llchooner's witnesses are entitled. My conclusions are: (1) That the schooner's course was from E. by N. to E. N. E., and that her green light was at all times presented to .the brig. (2) That the brig's red light was at no time seen on the schooner's port bow, or ahead, and consequently that the schooner's red light was not shown to the brig at any time. . (3) That any red light seen two and a half or three points on the brig's port bow was not the red light of the schooner. (4) That the schooner made no material change of course that misled the brig, or contributed to the collisionj a.nd that the green light reported by the brig's lookout, not more than balf ll. pj,ln.ute before collision, was not over a point or a point and a half 'on the hrig's port bow, and its being seen was not caused by any change in the schooner's course. (5) That .the collision was caused by the fault of the ,brig,in\l1ot seasonably observing the lights of the s<fhooner, in .not ,keeping.8 constant watch upon them, and not taking timely meas· .ures to avoid her. .,(6) If the light first seen was the schooner's
it. was not over a point on the brig's porl bow, and was the green light, and not the red light. If it had appeared in this case, or been proved in any case, that the green light, by reason of faintness after long burning, or the partialobscuration of the glass, or from the effect of the dawn, showed red at first, I should give that explanation to the respondent's testimony in this case; and, in that event, should have held the schooner liable for such a defect in her light. Though a claim of such a different appearance in the green light has sometimes been made, I do not know of any case in which it has been established or recognized as a fact. Nor have I overlooked several conjectures which would admit of the brig's actually seeing the red light of the schooner, and afterwards her green light; but every such conjecture is incompatible with the two facts on the part of the schooner which I consider established, namely, that the brig's red light was .seen all the time on the schooner's starboard bow, and, 8S it aI:>proached, did not draw nearer her stem. Compelled to choose, therefore, between the nal'rativeof the respondent and that of the libelant, I feel 60rtitrained to uphold the latter, and award a decree in favor of the libelant, with costs, and a reference to compute the damages.
THE BRARO. MCCOLLEY
'/I. THE BRABO.
(District (jourt, B. D. Alabama. December 10, 1887.)
The steam,ship Brabo, while on a voyage, went on the rocks. Some of the crew were sick, and libelants, who were passengers, although they could have leftJhe vessel. voluntarily, rendered sundry services, in the way of paying out cables, fastening and raising anchors, and the like. On the rise of the tide the steamer came off the rocks by means of her own engines. Held, that libelan\s were not entitled to salvage.
SAME-SERVICES BY PASSENGERS-QUANTUM MERUIT.
The passengers, as well as the crew, of a vessel, being under an obligation. as long as they volunta.rily remain on board. to do what they can to save the vessel, are not entitled to any compensation in the nature of quantum mer1tit, the only compensation they can claim being for salvage for extraordinary services.
To authorize compensation in the nature of quantum mM'uit there must be some proof of the reasonable value of the services rendered. 4; SAME. . When such services, at the time they are rendered, are intended as a gratuIty, they Cannot subsequently be made the basis of a claimJorcompensation.
In Admiralty. Libel for salvage. In November, 1837,while the steam-ship Brabowas onavoyagefrom (Jentral America to Mobile, Alabama, she went on the rocks near Cape Antonio light, Island ox Cuba. A large number of the crew were disa-