was somethil)gmore than eight feet, he ,is sure, from the eastern pieri that it was from "five to six feet,"he thinJrs, from the obstruction. It is plain that if ,this witness' statement is accurate, the schooner, following exactly on the tug's course, would necessarily encounter the obstruction. A decree must be entered for the libelal)t.
THE MARY N. HOGAN. HOOPER
THE MARY N. HOGAN.
(Oircuit Oourt, E; D. NetlJ York. June 80, 1888.)
TOWAGB-STRANDING TOW-OBIBTltUOTION8 WELL' KNOWN TO NAVIGATOBIl.
. On additional evidence adducild in thi8 court, sho:wing that the rock upon which libelant's boat struck whefi in tow of the Mary N. Hogan was an obstruction well known to navigators, held, that the tug was liable for IUch stranding. Reversing 80 Fed. Rep. 927. .
In Admiralty. On appeal, from district court. GoodrWh, Deady &: ,Goodrich, for appellant. Cb.ryenter Mosher, for appellee. .
30 Fed. Rep. 927.
BLATCHFORD, Justice. In this case I find the following facts: On July 11,1885, about half-past 5 o'clock in the morning, the three-masted schooner Mabel Hooper, laden with coal, while being towed from Ho,boken, New Jersey, to Hart's island, by the steam-propeller Mary N. Hogan, for hire, was run aground below North Brother's island, and between Woolsey's dock and the Sunken MeadOW, on a part of a ledge of .rocks called the "Middle Ground." The propeller had the Hooper on her starboard side, and another loaded schooner on her port side. The Hooper was drawing 16l feet of water, and the m\lSter of the propeller had notice of that fact. The tide was two hours flood. The place where the Hooper struck was a part of a ledge of rocks' which was well known to navigators, and was and is about 300 yards long between the lines of three fathoms. From the gov(jrnment charts. and published sailing di, rections,:' existing for several years before this occurrence, it appeared that the buoy was so placed on the middle of the, ledge that, by giving it a berth of 100 yards to either the eastward or the westward, vessels would pass safely in from 12 to 15 fathoms at low water. The locality was well known to navigators to be dangerous water. The propeller was .not proceeding in accordance with such charts and sailing directions, but negligently took the Hooper too close to the buoy, and thus caused the accident. I t is not true; as alleged in the answer of the claimant, that the propeller was navigated with all due care, skill, and caution, and that the Hooper suddenly struck some obstacle on the bottom, unknown to navigation., The Hooper was seriously injured by the accident. On
the facts I find, '!tsa conclusion of!awj,that 'the libelant is entitled to a decree against the propeller for hisdarnag.es, with costs in the district court and in this court;, the damages to be ascertained by a commissioner on a' reference.
'11. THE ALASKA.
(Gif-cuit GOU'l't, 8. D.
New York. July 8,1888.)
The steam-boat M., in an attempt to pass the S., which was bound In the same direction, suddenly sheered to the starboard, and thereby collided with the steam-boat A., bound in an opposite direction, on a course at a safe distancequtside the S. The A.' starboarded to let the M.· .break her sheer and recover her course, which the latter attempted, but failed. Held, .that though the A:s pilot, by porting his helm an instant before the collision, might have swung her stern enough to have enabled the M. to pass without touching, the failure to do so was no fault, but the sole cause of the collision was the pre· vious fault of the M. . 2. ADMIRALTy-JURISDICTION-CASE HEARD OUT OF DISTRtCT UNDER STIPULA,Cross-libels for damages sustained in the same collision, one tiled in the S. district and the other in the E. district, were tried together in the E. district, before the judge thereof, tinder stipulation, "to save two trials." The decree in the case in the S. district appeared on its face to have been made at a stated term held in that district by the judge of theE. district, and no application' to set it aside was disclosed in the record. Under Rev. St. U. S. 591-1)96, 600, under which such judgemight have been designated to ho.d court for the B. district, held, that it would be conclusively presumed that pe was act'ually holding such court when the decree was rendered, and that the decree was valid. .
In Admiralty. Libel for damages. On appeal from district court. See 33 Fed. Rep. 527. This suit was brought in the district court of the Southern district of New York, by Moses G. Wright and Gilbert A. Wright against the steam ferry-boat Alaska to recover damages sustained from a collision with the Morrisania. The libel was dismissed, and libelants appealed. McMahon & Handley, for appellants. Wilcox., Ada/Tns & Macklin, for appellees.
BLA'I'CHFORD, Justice. I agree with the district judge thattn this case the issue is as stuted by him in his decision, and that, on that issue, the clenrweight of the evidence is with the.A;lasfa;that there>wlUi ,no fault in ,the Ilavigation Of the .AIR$ka; and that the 1I0le, cause of the col.. li3ion WlUi the tim1t, on the, part of the. Morrisania, of suddenly sheering out from under the stern of the SupetiorJ and alll'088 the course' of the Alaska.