that the fact calls for animadversion from an admiralty court. That speed, thus produced, is not itself criticised in the present discussionJ except so far as it aggravates the negligence of the want of a lookout. No steam vessel ought to move in any navigated water fast enough even to give her steerage-way, without a lookout, who is its eyes and It is the absence of a lookout that was the presumptive cause of this collision, and I have treated the rapid speed of the ferry-boat only as an aggravation of that cardinal fault.
(Ol'1'cuit Oourt, E. D. Pennsylvania. March 10, lll88.)
COLLISION.....,BETWEEN STEAMERS-CRoSSING VESSELS.
The steamers A. and B. were sailing down the Delaware bay, the A. being a tew miles ahead of the B. When the A. arrived at the breakwater. she signaled for a boat to take off her pilot. None responding. she determined to Dut back up the btty & few miles, and anchor for the nig-ht, it being then about '7.45 P. M. The A. selected an anchorage east of the regular channel for outbound steamers, and was slowly proceeding to it, with all lights burning brightly, and obeying every requirement of the law touching the mode of giving notice to vessels. She discovered another steam-vessel approaching on her port side, Involving danger of collision. and kept her course as required by the rules of navigation. The B.'s officers saw the A.'s lights, but mistakenly supposed them to be those of another vessel passing down ihe' bay, and did not discover their error until to,o late to avoid the collision.. Held" that. the B.,'s officers were guilty of carelessness or recklessness, and that the B. must be held accountable for the consequences.
In Admiralty. Cross-libels for damages. On appeal from district court. 26 Fed. Rep. 463. M. P. Hf/Ilry and H. R. Edmunds, for the Lord O'Neill. Oharla Gibbon8, Jr., for the Helena.
McKENNAN, J. These are cross-libels for damages resulting from a collision between the Helena and the Lord O'Neill, each vessel insisting that the other was solely in fault. On the afternoon of February 13, 1885, were steaming down the Delaware river from Philadelphia, tbe Helena on ber way, in ballast, to Baltimore, and the O'Neill, with a full cargo on a voyage to Liverpool. The tide was flood. The O'Neill was in tbe lead. She was followed by tbe Agnes, a sister ship of the Helena, and the Helena was in tbe rear. As the nigM closed in, the O'Neill was over four miles in advance of the Helena, and, as the faster vessel, was increasing this distance; and the ,Agnes about two miles and a half allead
lReported by C. Berkeley Taylor, Esq., of the Philadelphia bar.
ofthe' Helena!,; which was "following the track of the 'two ships as near aspossible." Both vessels w81'e.in,chargeofpilQts. The Lord O'Neill went down towards Cape Henlopen;burned blue lights for a boat to take offher'pilot"and,receiving no, answer,' the master 'concluded to anchor for the night higher up the bay, and to the eastward ofthe deep-water channel,becausehe could get better anchorage, and would be· out of the She ,then turned on her course and went up the way of pll.ssing course, moving at half speed, and bay, steering a northward and occasionally slowing to take soundings. It was then dark, and the lights of the O'Neill were proper.lyset, and burning brightly. After she changed her course and was moving up the bay, the Agnes passed, going down on the port side, and about one-fourth of a mile distant from her. After these vessels thus passed 'each other, the pilot of the O'Neill, in proceeding to the intende<l ground to the eastward of the channel, and in shallow waters; changed his course to the eastward, steering this time tqehead-light of another east by north by the compass. : steamer, which afterwards proved to'bethe Helena,'; was reported on the port bow of.the, Lord ()1Neillby the lookout of that veBsel, and seen about the same time by the pilot at a considerable distance off. The Lord O'Neill ported and continued slowly at half'speed on this course, tailting .while '011 this course. . The showed a green indicating that .the two vessels were approaching each other by col'lvergingcourses, the lines of which would, :it ,cross:J;lllch pilot of the Lord obs¢rving that thegr,eel\light was rapidly approaching so as to :endanger & collision, stopped hisV;Elssel, reversed at full speed, and put 't#e'h,el,rp,hardaport; but Wap,proach until she ran striking her, on the port side,about 25 feet from the 'doing ,her eeriousinjury.' This wltE(about 7.45 at night.. 'TliEi'O'Neill' afterwards caine to ail-chor. At the time of the collision the O'Neill was in eight fathoms o(water, and it was the place of anchorage intended by the pilot, towards which he had for aO.me time been holding an eastward course,moving atlL,slow rate of speed. The lights of both vessels were b\;J.rning, a>nQ have .been clearly seen.; the red or port light of the O'Neill, on side the was approaching, being visible to the latter; and it was not until the collision was llnmineI;ltthat engine)3 of the we:r:e reversed, ,her helm put hard I ,The Helena 9.own the Delaware !:lay in the track o.f:the,Agnes, and duringber, progress.a snowsqtJall came up,and.her 'Pi)ot.concluded to come t9 an an<;lhor. The vessel was accordingly ;s1Qwed down,. and the anchor cleared away. Her, lookout in away: ap.chor, and did not see or ex;pect the of 'the . The, engine Qftpellelena was stopped to get a. cast o.f : :lead coming to ltn anchorj but she was again put at half Speed, ).:wI the pilotcoIlcluded to go, to Cape Jie.nJopep. The wheelsman of theJlelena, who was steering on the bridge, first saw the light of the O'Neill. It was approaching, coming forward of the bridge, but he did not expect it. The head-light and red
light of the O'Neill were afterwards seen by the master of the Helena on his starboard beam, a little abaft of from the bridge at the it. Both he and the ,,:ere seeking to discover the Cape HeIllopen light, and not looking ou:tfor the light of other vessels.. Redid not wait to verify the course of the approaching vessel, but inferred that it was the light of ll. vessel bound down the river in the same direction being pursued by him, and he put the telegraph ahead full speed, ' In a brief period thereafter the master of the Hlillena called the pilot's attention to the fact that the vessels were rapidly approaching each other; who thereupon ordered her helm hard a starboard, and reversed her engines, but too late to prevent the collision. " These are all the material facts which I deem it necessary or proper for me to find. They are, in my judgment. the fair result of a preponderance of the proofs carefully considered and and they indiCate clearly the comparative nature and measure of the responsibilityof these two vessels for the disaster complained of. The O'Neill was proceeding on her outward voyage, intending to prosecute it continuously. She had on board a pilot to conduct her down the Delaware bay, and it. duty to discharge him at the mouth of the bay. Failing in obtaining a conveyance for him, she changed her purpose, and concluded to come to anchor for the night. She accordingly reversed her course, and moved up the bay, towards a safe anchorage ground, where she proposed to re-, main till the next day, and could discharge her pilot. She mov;ed slowly" and with dne caution, and had nearly reached her place ofaJ:)cliorage when the collision occurred.. There she would have been,outof the track of descending vessels, and in a place of safety for all this she was in the exercise of her unnoubted legal right. and was free from any culpability if she observed all the precautions by the law touching the mode of giving notice to approaching and her own cautious movements. .She was not derelict in any of these duties. Her rate of speed was slow. She was provided with lights which the law requires. They were set in their proper places apd were burning brightly, and when she discovered another steam-vesseI:approaching on her port side, involving danger of collision, she kept her course as required by the rules of navigation. She did notj thEjI-eforeJ by any fault of hers, contrIbute to the collision. · ' . ,: The Rele9a was sailing down the bay. and in view of the location of t,be O'Neill, on the eastern side of the main channel. If ber lookout and, officers were vigilant, they must have seen the light of the O'Neill, froTp, her starLoard' side, that the courses of the vessels crosslnglilll:Ch other, and involved danger of collision, and they must be presumed, have known that under such circumstances the law required keep outof the way of the O'Neill. If through want of due yig1lanpe, i:l1," they failed to discharge tNs duty, as they dip, tpey be held accountable for the ' .", . , The decision of the district court is affirmed, and a sum awarded to the O'Neill in that court, with interest J will be entered in this court with costs. ,: i " .. !';l'
THE JAB. THE FRAMMAB
'II. THE JAB.
(DiBtrictOourt, S. D. New York. March 7,1888.)
COLLISTON-MEABURlIl Oll' DAMAGES-STIPULATION OF CHARTER-PARTY FOR DEMURRAGE. .
The stipulations of a charter-party as to the rate of demurrage are not com· petent legal evidence in favor of the Ship-owner. in an action brought by him against third pers0ll-B for damages by collision.
SAME-VALUE OF USE OF VESSEL-EvIDENOE.
The amount to be allowed for the detention of a vessel is the value of her use. and evidence of the expenses of the voyage and the time it has taken, including loading and unloading. is competent eviden.ce to show the net value of the vessel per day.
,A charge for wharfage and necessary commissions. and interest are proper items of damage. and when not included in the demurrage charge, should be allowed as a separate item.
In Admiralty. On exceptions to commissioner's report. As the bark Maria Margaretta was lying at anchor ready for sea, she was injured in collision by the respondent's vessel. She had been chartered for a voyage from New York to Callao, and in consequence of the collision was obliged to put back to New York, and report for repairs. The damages have been assessed by the commissioner at $1,451.30, besides interest, including demurrage fo.r 14 days, at the rate of $40 per day. The charter provided for demurrage at the rate of 4d. per ton per day, amounting to $59.70 per day. The claimants, to prove the value of the use of the vessel, gave evidence of the expenses of the voyage, the time it had taken, including loa<ling and unloading, showing that the net value of the vessel per day was less than $30. 'l'he amount paid by the vessel for wharfage during the detention caused by the collision amounted to $40.10. Both sides filed exceptions. . H. Ptttnam, for libelant. Carpenter &- Mosher, for respondent.
BROWN; J. The charge for wharrage, as an expense made necessary by the collision, should have been allowed. When the charter rate of demurrage is adopted, and that rate is shown to include the charge for, wharfage, it of course, disallowed as an additional item. The a. P. RaymQrtd, 28 Fed. Rep. As the charter rate of demurrage was not in this case adopted by the commissioner, the wharfage should have been 11llowedjarld it was undoubtedly omitted only by accident. The stipulations ofacharteras to the rate of demurrage is not, I think, competent legal evidence in favor of the owner, in an action brought by him against third persons for damages by collision. Such stipulations are res inter alios actll3, and are not neCessarily based on the supposed value of the vessel alone. Upon this point the commissioner justly observes
'Reported by Edward G. Benedict, Esq., of the New York bar.