CASE fl. THE SUSQUEHANNA.
that she was actually still in the water; or. as some say, actually moving back towards the Jersey shore. In a large part of the collision cases in this harbor there is similar testimony, and a similar contention on the part of one of the two boats. Nearly always there are other circumstances and testimony, as in this case, which show, flitter that the witnesses are mistaken as to the time when the quick-water was observed at the bows, or else that that circumstance is not incompatible with the continued forward motion of the boat. That the ferry-boat in this case had some forward motion up to the moment of collision is proved by the fact of her continued approach to the Nicol at nearly right angles; by the nature of the damage done; and by the shock, which was sufficient to be felt by the engineer of the ferry-boat, though the stern of the tug, under her port helm, was swinging, if anything, towards the New York shore. The real cause of the collision was the fact that the lookout of the boat, though he saw the tug some time before the first signals, did not report her, supposing that his pilot would see her, "as she was plainly visible;" and the fact that the pilot, not having noticed the tug, gave a signal, which, had he observed the tug, would not have been given; llnd because when, on hearing the tug's answer, he concluded to let his own previous signal stand as a signal to the latter, he did not at once take the necessary measures to go astern, as his signal imported that he would do. I do not find any fault proved against the tug; bet:ause, at the time when her pilot first had any reason to apprehend danger, he could do nothing to avert it by stopping or backing, 'or by the use of his wheel. All he could do was to hook up strong, and this he did. The ferry-boat must fore be held alone to blame. A decree may be entered accordingly, with a reference to compute the damages, if not agreed upon.
THE MAY CLINTON. I
YORK, L. E. & W. R.
THE MAY CLINTON.
(Di8trict Oourt, E. D. New York. May 12, 1888.)
COLLISION-BETWEEN STEAM-BoAT AND TUG-MuTUAL FAULT.
The ferry-boat S., crossing the North river from Jersey City to New York, had on her starboard hand the tug M. C., with libelant's canal-boat in tow along-side. which was going up river near the New York slips. The ferry' boat made no change of course or speed on account of the approach of the tug. The latter also maintained her speed until close to the ferry-boat. though perceivmg that the latter was approaching without slackening speed, and making for her slip. The ferry-boat and libelant's canal-boat came together, causing the damage for which these suits were brought. Held, that the ferry-boat, having the tug on her starboard hand, was b,ound to keep out of the way of the latter. Hetd, alBo, that, the course of the ferry-boat being< known to the tug, and her. speed being observed to be unchecked. it was the tug's duty to have stopped at once, or to have sheered out into the river and plloBsed under the ferry-boat's stern; that the damages, therefore, should be divided between the tug and the ferry-boat. 2
JReported by Edward G. Benedict, Esq., of the New York bar. · See Holland v. Brown, 85 Fed. Rep. 48.
In Admiralty. atryente'r&: Mosher, f0r Case. Wilcox, Adams &: Macklin, for the Susquehanna. R. D. Benedict, for the May Clinton.
BENEDICT, J. TheseactioDs raise for the determination of the court' the question by whose fault it was that the Victor and the ferry-boat Susquehanna came in collision on the 2d day of October, 1886. The canal-boat Victor was, atthl:l time of the collision, being towed on the starboard side of the tug May Clinton, which tug was coming up the North river, bound to the foot of Twenty-Fourth street. The Susquehanna was a ferry-boat of the Pavonia Line, at the time making one of her regular trips from Jersey City to the foot of Chambers street, New York. The collision occurred about 6 o'clock in the evening. The tide was running ebb. The night was clear, so that ordinary lights of vessels CQuid be seen a sufficient distance. The proofs show beyond controversy that .the made no change of course or speed because of the approach of the tug from below. The collision occurred when the stern of the ferry-boat was a few feet outside of the upper rack of the ferry-slip, which is on pier 20. As the ferry-boat was on a course crossing the course of the tug, having the tug upon her starboard side, by the general rule it was the duty of the ferry-boat to keep out of the way of the tug. I find no facts in the case that will make it an exception to the general rule. The mere fact that the ferry-boat had the right to believe that the .tug knew the ferry-boat to be bound to her slip at the foot of Chambers I3treet, gave the ferry-boat no right to disregard the approach of the tug, and rely upon the tug's stopping so as to allow the ferry-boat to pass into her slip ahead of her. The collision must therefore be held to have been caufled by fault on the part of the ferry-boat in not keeping out of the way of the approaching tug. I find the tug also in fault for navigating close to the mouth of the slip without sufficient cause, and holding her course and speed, as she did, until close upon the ferry-boat. She saw the ferry-boatapproachingj she observed the ferry-boat was not slacking her speed. The position of the ferry-boat with relation to the ferry-slip, in my opinion, cast upon the tug the duty to stop at once, or else, by sheering out to her proper place in the river, togo under the ferry-boat's s,tato. The ferry-boat was seen to be holding berspeed, and the course that she was intending to pursue was known with certainty to the tug. The tug was bound to know that that course irtvolved risk of collision. This rendered it incumbent upon her to stop, or to sheer out. She did not sheer out, and held her speed until too late. For this she was in fault. The collision having bellO found to have been caused by fault of both vessels,the libelant, Niles Case, must have a decree against the ferry-boat and the tug and in the case of the New York, Erie & Western Railroad· Company the damages must be apportIoned.
rHE SAMMY· AND THE MAcMASTER
1/. THE SAMMY· AND THE·
R. ·W. ·BURKE.
(District Court, S. 11. N61JJ York. .May 81, 1888.)
COLLISION-STEAlI:-TUGs-CROSSING-BAD LOOKOUT-DELAY IN BACKING.
The B., with a railroad tIoat along-side, had rounded the Battery into the East river some 800 yards from the shore. The tug B.· with libelant's bark upon her starboard side, was at the time proceeding from Buttermilk channel towards the New York shore. lind was on the starboard hand of theB. latter. when off Hamilton ferry, N. Y., and some 400 yards from the B., gave two whistles, indicating an intention to pass ahead of the B. Getting no answer she repeated her signal, which theB. answered with two; and afterwards, and when, as alleged. the collision was unavoidable, the S. stopped and reversed. The B. contended that she stopped and backed as soon as the two whistles of the B. were heard. Held, that both tugs were answetable for libelant's damage,-the 8. because she was boundto keep out of the way of the B.. and took the risk of an attempt to pass ahead of her; the B. for her neglect in not observing the signal of the B. in time either to have refused assent to the latter's maneuver. or, on assenting to it, to have taken· measures in time to allow the S. to pass in safety ahead ot her.
In Admiralty. Wing, SluYudy Putnam, for libelants. Edward D. McCarthy, for the Sammy Biddle Ward, for the R. W. Burke.
BROWN, J. At about 2 o'clock in the afternoon of February 8, 1888, the libelant's bark Mary MacMaster, lashed upon the starboard side of the tug R. W. Burke, while proceeding from Buttermilk channel to pier 6, North river, came in collision with a railro1ld float along·side the steam-tug Sammy, and received damages, for which tllis libel was filed. The collision was probably not more than 300 feet off the end of pier 6. The tide was slack, running a little flood along· the shore. The bark struck the float nearly amid-ships, and about at right angles. Each was previously going at the rate of about three or four knots. The Sammy and her tow had come from the Erie Railroad dock atJersey City, bound up the East river. They rounded the Battery some 300 or 400 yards off; and, when off Hamilton ferry, N. Y., and some 300 yards distant from it, seeing the Burke moving up and crossing the East river towards pier 6, and about 400 yards distant, gave her a signal of two whistles, indicating that she would pass ahead of the Burke and between her and the New York shore. Gettjng no answer, the Sammy, about half a J;Dinute afterwards, when between piers 2 and 3, and from 700 to 900 feet distant from the bark, repeated her signal of two blasts. She starboarded her wheel so as to approach somewhat nearer to the shore, and continued on until the float, which wassome 225 feetlong, reached the line of the Burke's course, and was within50 or 100 feet of her, when her engines
Beported by Edward G. Benedict, Esq., of the New York bar.