demand to the amount agreed to be accepted as the libelant's claim, in which would be no ground to contend that the amount paid was not the amount of the claim. The clerk's taxation is affirmed.
CITY OF NEW
et al. v.
OF NEW YORK et al.
June 25, 1888.)
Oircuit Oou1't, 8. D. New York.
COJ,LISION-FoG-STEAMER AND. S.<\ILING VESSEL-RATE OF SPEED.
The steamer City of New York,outward bound, at 11 o'clock at night, in a fog in which vessels could not be discovered at more than one-eighth of a mile distant, was steaming 11 knots. an hour, all she could. do against the wind, headed S. by W t W. The bark B., headed about N. E., was sailing about four knots. The watch on the steamer heard the fog-horn of the bark about two minutes before the collision, and thought from the sound that she was about one point off the starboard bow. The steamer's wheel was put hard a-starboard, and the steamer continued at full speed for about a minute, when the bark was seen, going eastward across the steamer's boW. Alarm whistles were sounded, the bark luffed to starboard,. the steamer's engines were reversed, and her wheel ported. She was then not over 150 feet from the bark, and her headway could not be stopped. She struck the bark in her port side" and the latter sank almost instantly. Held, that the steamer violated both injunctions of the twenty-first sailing rule, 'in that she did not go at a moderate spet>d in a fog, and d:d not slacken speed after hearing the bark's horn, but kept on until the danger was imminent.
SAME-CHANGE OF COURSE.
The steamer also was to blame in ber movement to port under a hard a-starboard wheel, when she could not reliably locate the bark's position by a single signal of her fog-horn. "
8.SAME.:.-INJUDICIOUS ACT IN EMERGENCY.
The bark's change of course in the excitement, when, owing to the miscon· oftha s.teamer, the danger was imminent, and the vessels were within. 200 or' 300 feet of each other, if injudicious, was not a fault.
1n Admiralty. ' Libel for damages. 15 Fed. Rep. 624) 23 Fed. ,Rep. 616.
On appeal from district court.
FINDINGS OF FACT.
(1) The British bark Helen, an iron vessel ot 282 tons register, while on a voyage from Havana to New York city, loaded with sugar, was sunk by collision with the steam-ship City of New York,June 28,1879, about 10:50 P. M. The captain and three of the seamen of the bark were drbwned when the vessel sunk. (2) The collision took place at a point off the coast of New Jersey, 6t miles from shore, in lQ fathoms of water, 12f miles from Barnegat light-house, and9t miles from Tucker's The City of New York was a wooden steam-ship, Beach 242 feet long and 1,715 tons register, having alert-handed propeller, and was bound on a voyage from New York to Havana. Her full speed her headwas about 12 knots an bour, and, when going at full
THE CITY OF NEW YORK.
way could not be stopped,by reversing her engines, within a distance of an eighth of a ruile. (3) On the night in question the wind Was blowing strong frolD .the south-west or the south-south-west. About half an hour preceding the collision the night became foggy; so much so that vessels could not discover one another at a distance of. not more than one-eighth of a wile. During this time, and until within about three or four minutes. 'before the collision, the vessels had been approaching each other; the course oHbe steamer being about S. by W. ! W., and the course of the bark being about N. E, The steam-ship was going about eleven knots an hour, whi<lh was all the speed she could make against the wind; the bark was going abo1)t four knots an hour; and each vessel kept her she heard' the fog-signal of the other. (4) Durrespective ing the half houl' preceding the collision, three seamen were &n the deck of the bark besides the mate; one seaman being at the wheel and two on the lookout forward, alternately blowing the fog-horn, and the bark's lights were properly set and burning. During the same time, the navigation of the steamer was in charge of her second mate; her quartermaster was at the wheel; her engine was in charge of a competent engineer; she had a lookout on the forward deck; and her regulation lights were properly set and burning. The lookout on each vessel was vigilant. Each vessel observed the proper fog-signals. The steamer maintained her full speed against the wind until her engines were reversed just before she struck the bark. (5) Before either vessel discovered the other, those in charge of each heard the fog-signals of the other. At about two minutes prior to the collision, those in charge of the steamer first heard the foghorn of the bark, and from the apparent direction of the sound thought she was one point off the steamer's starboard bow. Immediately upon hearing the fog-horn the mate ordered the wheel of the steamer put to starboard and hard a-starboard. The order was promptly executed,and the. steamer proceeded on under full speed until those in charge discovered the sails of the bark. The steamer had run under a hard a-starboard atleast a minute before the bark was seen. Those in charge of the steamer then discovered that the bark's course was eastward across the steamer's bow.. The steamer then sounded successive whistles of alarm, and those. in charge saw the bark. luffing to the starboard. Thereupon the mate immediately ordered the steamer's engines reversed, and her wheel ported, and this orderwas promptly executed; but she was then close to the b,ark, probably not to exceed 150 feet, and her headway could not be stopped in time to avoid a collision, and the steamer struck the bark on the bark's pmt side, her stem striking just forward of the bark's mizzen rigging with snch force that she penetrated the bark a distance of five feet, and the bark sank almost instantly. The whistle of the steamer first heard by those in charge of the bark indicated to them that the vessels were quite near to each other. They thought the steamer Wll:S approaching bearing abeam on the bark's port side. Immediately they saw her mast-head light, and then her green light, whereupon the mate tol4rthe wheelsman to port the wheel, and called to those below tosaye tpemselves. The man at the wheel had ha1'qly gQt the wheel
struck!thtrbark. During,the time the steamer her hard'aJatarb6ardwheel!she changed her course to the' eastward ,three or four points," and the bark she luffed, changed her coun!tFoneor two points by the time the vessels came together. (6) By the collision the bark,: h\;irtealigo and freight; together with the personal, effects of the officers a:ndcrew, were' totally lost. 'The value of the bark, her stores, and pending was $16,289.59. The value of the cargo on board the said bark was the sum of $20,055.43. The personal effects of Capt. Barcla:ywereof the value of $1,026.25. The personal effects of the mate, W'.H. Taylor, wereof.the value of $220.83. The pers'onaleffects of John Brown were of the value 0£$100. The personal effects of George Camilleri were of the value·of $73.87. The personal effects of William Marzan were of the value of $83. The personal effects of JensMoller were Of the value of $55. The steamer also received severe injuries, the amounVof damage approximating $7,000.
when the steamer
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW. (1) The steamer was guilty of fault in violating the twenty-first rule, because she did not slacken her speed when she heard the fog-signals of the bark, and also because she did not go at a moderate speed when in Ii fog, and also because she changed her course, and kept on at great speed,after she heard the bark's fog-horn before seeing her. (2) The bark's change of course was an error in' extremis. (3) That the libelants are entitled to a decree against the claimants for the loss of the bark Helen and her freight and stores for the sum of $16,289.59, with interest from the 28th of June, 1879; for the loss of the cargo the sum of $20,055.43, with interest from the 13thdayof June, 1879; forthe loss of personal effects of Cupt. Barclay for the sum of $1,026.25, with interest from the 28th of June, 1879; for the loss of the personal effects of William H. 'raylor for the smu of $220.83, with interest from the 28th of June, 1879; for the loss of the personal effects of John Brown for the sum of $100, with interest thereon from the 28th of June, 1879; for the loss of the personal effects of George Camelleri for the sum of $73.87, with interest thereon from the 28th of June, 1879; for the loss of the personal effects of William Marzan for the sum of $88, with interest thereon from the 28th of June, 1879; for the loss of the personal effects ofJens Moller for the sum of$55, with interest thereon from the 28th of June, 1879. The libelants are awarded their costs in the district court and in this court, to be taxed. R. D. Benedict, for claimants. George A. Black, for libelant. WALLACE, J. By the decree of the district court both vessels were found in fault for the collisfon which is the subject of this suit, and an apportionment of theloss was decreed. Both the libelants and the clidmants have appea.led. Although the daimants insist that there was no fault on the part of the steamer, and that the collision was wholly the result of the fault of the bark in making a change of course at a time when
otherwise the steamer would have safely avoided her, the faults on the part of the. steamer are so. clearly established by the evidence as to devolve upon, the qlaimants the burqen of showing that the bark was guilty of contributory fault. The testimony of all the more important witnesses in the district cOurt for both vessels was taken by deposition; the mate of the steamer beipg the only person who sawall that took place, who was examined in the presence of the district judge. Some additional testimony has. been taken by parties in. this court; but in the view oLthe facts which has been reached, it has not been deemed of sufficient iniportancetorequirespecial consideration. The undisputed facts in the CaEleare thatthe collisiontook place in afog, June 28, 1879, at about 11 at night,at a point about 6t miles off the coast of New Jersey, 121 miles from Barnegat and 9! miles from Tucker's Beach The steamer struck the bark on the latter's port side, just forward oHhemizzen rigging, penetrating into her side about five feet, sinking her almost instantly. The Helen was an iron vessel of 282 tons I;egister, 122,feet long, .and was bound on a voyage from Havana to New York city, laden with a cargo of sugar. She was commanded by Capt. BarclaY, and her crew consisted of first and ,second mate, four able seamen, and two boys. The captain and three of the crew were drowned when the vessel sunk. The captain went below about 8 o'clock in the evening, after giving directions about the course to be kept by the bark, and left her navigation in command of the mate. The seaman who was at the wheel at this time was one of those who were drowned. He remained at the wheel until about 10 o'clock, when one of the seamen then on thelookou,t was called to take his place, and he was sent forward to· the lookout. From this time until the collision took place, the mate was on deck, one seaman wasat the wheel, and two seamen were on the l()okout forward, alternately, blowing the fog-horn. One of the seamen who was below in the forecastle, and had been kept awake by the noise of the fog-horn, got on deck as the vessels struck, and was the only one of those belovy who was saved. The City of New York was a wooden steam-ship, 242 feet long and 1,715 tons She was bound on a voyage fro/llNew York city to Havana. Herfull steam speed was about 12 knotfj hour, and 'her propeller was Her navigation at,the time·was in charge of her second mltte, her quartermaster was at the wheel, her engine was in charge ofa competent engineer, and she had a lookout stationed on the forward deck. Her course, .up to the .time she heard the first signals of the bark, from about 10 o'clock, was abou,t S. by W. i W. The testimony indicates that both vessels observed all the regulations in regard to lights and fog-signals, and that the lookout on each was properly sttttioned, and reasonably vigilant. The testimony also shows that about 10 o'clock, or shortly after, a fog of such density set 'in that vessels could not discover one another at a distance of more than an eighth of a mile, and at intervals could not do so at a considera,bly shorter distance. The quartermaster of the steamer testified, in answer to the question how far 4e could see in the fog, that he could see the length of the steamer. The first officer ofthe steamer, who came on
decK while the vessels werem contact, testified thathecould not seethe length of the bark; and the captain of the steamer testifies that after the collision he could not see the boats sent out to assist the crew of the bark from the time they left the side of the steamer until they got back. It is not open to fair doubt that after the night became foggy the as she was steamer maintained substantially her full rate of speed, against the wind, and without sails, until her engines were reversed immediately before striking the bark. The testimony denotes that the wind was blowing from the south-west, Or between that point and south-southwest, and thatthe steamer kept on at a speed ofll knots an hour. Neither is it opento fair doubt that, at the speed maintained by her at the time, her headway could not be stopped, by reversing her engines, within a distance of an eighth of a mile. When those in charge of the steamer first heard the fog-horn of the bark, they assumed, from the apparent direction of the sound, that herbearing was about one point off the steamer's starboard bow. Immediately upon hearing the the mate ordered the wheel of the steamer put to starboard and hard a-starbo.ard. The order was promptly executed. When the bark became visible to them they discovered that he,l: course was eastward across the steamer's bow, and' then saw her changing her direction and luffing to the star:board of her previous course. Thereupon the mate immediately ordered the steamer's engines reversed, and her wheel ported. This order was promptly executed,but the steamer's headway could not be stopped in time to avoid a collision. !tis entirely clear that the steamer disre. garded both of the injunctions of the twenty-first sailing rule. She did not slacken her speed when approaching another vessel, so as to involve risk of collisioll; and she did not go at a moderate speed in a fog. That she was approaching another vessel so as to invol\'e risk of collision from the time those, in charge heard the first fog-signal of the bark is suffi-ciently manifest by their conduct in putting her wheel to starboard and hard a-starboard instantaneously upon hearing the fog-horn; and it is -conceded by all her witnesses that she kept on at her full previous speed until the risk ofcollision became imminent, if not ilieyitable. That she was not going at a moderate speed in a fog is conclusively established by the fact that she was maintaining such speed that she could not effectuidly check herself,by reversing her engines, so as to avoid collision within the distance at which in the condition of the fog another vessel could be seen. In: stating that the fog was such that vessels could not discover one another more than an eighth of a tuile distant, and that the steamer Was not capable, when going at substantially full speed, of stopping her headway through the water within a distance of an eighth of a mile, the IDost liberal opinion in favor of the steamer has been expressed which can possibly be indulged upon the evidence. As is stated by Capt. Dearborn, one of the expert witnesses, when vessels can be seen in a fog at night an eighth of a mile there is not much of a fog. The committee appointed by the British association to investigate the subject state in their report that "it appears, both from the experiments made by the <committee and from other evidence, that the distance required by a screw-
THE CITY OF NEW YORE:.
steamer to bring herself to rest from full speed by the reversal of her screw is independent, or nearly so, Of the power of her engines,but depends upon the size and build of the ship, and generally lies between four and six times the ship's length." The rule by which to determine whether a given rate of speed is moderate or excessive, in view of the particular circulllstances of the occasion, is that such speed only is moderate as will permit the steamer seasonably and effectually to avoid the collision by slackening speed, or by stopping and reversing, within the distance at which an approaching vessel can be seen. Besides these infractions of the positive rules of navigation the steamer was guilty of fault by her movement to port under a bard a-starboard wheel, with unabated speed, executed when she did not know the location or course of the bark. She could not reliably locate the bearing of the bark by a single signal of the bark 1s fog-horn. So delusive is the apparent direction of sounds amid banks of fog in locating the true source that successive observations are commonly resorted to for greater certainty, and even then such are the aberrations that mistake is not infrequent. She could only conjecture the course ofthe bark,and could not know whether the bark was approaching, or was proceeding in the same direction with or whether 'she was running free or beating to windward on the starb0ard tack. Under such cirumstances she had no right to aCt upon conjecture; her duty was to reduce her speed to the lowest rate compatible with her efficient control, and proceed circumspectly until she could locate, the bark, and ascertain her course, or until further signals indicated that the bark was beyond the range of risk. The' Northern Indiana, 3 Blatchf. 92; The Hammorda, 4 Ben. 515, affirmed 11 Blatchf. 413; The Perth, 3 Hagg. Adm. 414; The James Watt, 2 W. Rob. 270. When such faults on the part of a steam-ship are shown, her owners are prima Jacie respon, sible for the collision, and must exonerate themselves by satisfactory ptoof that the sailing vessel was also guilty of misconduct which produced or contributed to the collision. Waring v. Clarke, 5 How. 465; The Oregon, 18 How. 570. The fault imputed to the bark by the claimants is the only one which could plausibly be assigned under the circumstances of thecase;-that she changed her course after she became visible to those who were in charge of the steamer. Inasmuch as all the witnesses agree that this took place when the vessels were in plain sight of each other, the case resolves itself into the inquiry how far the vessels were apart.,when this Ghange was made. The for the bark, while they differ in the details given, agree. that the fog-whistle of the steamer, when first heard by them, seemed to indicate .by the direction of the sound that e.r's bearing was abeam on the bark's port bow; that very shortly after Jaearing her whistle they saw the steamer's mast-head light, and then her green light, so near as to render a collision apparently inevitable; and that then the mate of the bark told the man at the. wheel to port the bark's wheel, and shouted to those who were below to save themselves. The testimony of the wheelsman, the lookout, and the engineer of the steamer so strongly confirms the testimony of the witnesses for the bark, v.35F.no.8-39
FEDERAL. REPORTER. .
the effeettha.t the bark's change of course was not made until the vessels were so close together a collision was unavoidable, that it does not seem necessary to devote any:time to the attempt to ascertain what the course oUhe bark was previously to the time this change was made. All the witnesses for the steamer agree that the bark's change of course took place' under their observation, and that the steamer sounded an alarm of successive blasts of her steam-whistle, and reversed her engines. successive blasts of the steamer's whistle which were given The while the vessels were approaching each other were given at the same time when the order to reverse was given by her mate. The mate testifies that when ,he saw the bark opening out her masts so that he could seethe sails between the masts, he ordered the wheelsman to port the helm, blew a general alarm at the steam-whistle, and rang the engine bells to slow, stop, and reverse, and that he was not more than four seconds in blowing the alarm, and four more in completing the signal to reverse. The engineer testifies that the sound of the gong had not stopped · when his engine was reversed; that he stood where he could lay his hand on the reversing gear; and that not more than from 15 to 20 seconds elapsed after hearing the first ofthefour bells oithe order to slow, stop, and back before he felt the jar of the collision. The captain of the steamer was in the room abaft of the pilot-house, was awakened by the alarmwhistles, and stepped instantly' into the pilot-house; and he testifies that when he got there the vessels were, then close togetheJ;, or, giving his timat"e,were about 40 feet apart. The violence of the blow given by the steamer to the bark shows that the steamer was under rapid headway when she struck the bark. According to the testimony of the steamer's lookout, the bark did not change .her course until after the of the steamer's, whistle wel'esounded, and the steamer's wheelsman corroborates' the testimony of the lookout in this respect. The mate of the steamer is the only witnessfor:the claimants who states that the bark cbangedher ooursebeforethe alarm was sounded. The helmsman of the bark testifies that he had not got her wheel fairly over in executing tbe order to port the helm, when the steamer struck the hark. It is insisted for the claimant that the bark changed hel course four or five points to the starboard. IDoubtless, if this were true, such a change could not have been made when the vessels were within 200 or 300 feet of each other. If it could be demonstrated that at the time of the collisionthebark was headed about E., and that her course previous to the change was N. E., the argument: for the steamer would be convincing; but this cimnotbe demonstrated 'unless the testimony of the helmsman of the steamer, who gives tae ctiurse on which the'steamer washeade4 when tne bark's change of ooursetook place. and also when the collision took place, is accepted as correct. It is highly improbable that, in th8 excitenlentandconfusionof :the moment, the helmsman of the steamer lodked a:t his compass so oarefully as ,to accurately note the steamer's course when he was ordered to put his wheel hard a-port, and again when the collision took place. EqUally improbableIs' his testimony that, while the steamer was under a hard,a.starboard helm) her course was only
THE CITY ·OF JiEWYOOK.
cbangedabout three-quarters of a point, although aHull speed for a minute underthat'helm,andthat, whi,leshe was nnder,her helm hard a-port, at the time- she was reveJrsingherengines, her course was changed to a point and three-quarters to starboard. She could not have been a half minute under the helm hard a-port. The general course of the bark after 8 o'clock ill: the evening may be assumed to have been abop.t N: E., or N. E. ! N.This was the conclusion reached by the upon ,considerations which are very convincingly stated in his opinion. ' It nHiy that her mate, who is thepnly wit. ness who attempts to give her course by the compass, is not entitled to any credit. The testimony of the diver of the Marine Wrecking Company, who visited the wreck a few days after the collision, shows that she was lying upon the bottom of the ocean headed about N. N. E., on not be enough to a line parallel with the shore. This fact authorize the conclusion that she was headed N. N. E. at the time of the collision; but it is entitled to consideration as ,measurably supporting that theory, and is more persuasive in fixing her heading approximately than lire fbe'conjectural opinions' of the witnesses, formed in ment ,anu confusion of the moment, who think she was headed about E. If she was headed about N. N. E. when she was struck by the steamer, she did not,cbange her course more than a point and a half under her port helm,a.nd such l\ change would be consistept with the testimony respecting the proximity to the vessels when it was made which has been adverted to. It is not unreasonable to infer that the steamer, while running a minute under her hard a-starboard helm, thus covering a distance of four times her length, changed her,cou,rse to the eastward three or four points, and that in the short distance during which she was under her harP. a-port helm with her engines revel'l3ed shepould not, have been influenc,ell materially to starboard. See White, Nav. Arch. Upon this assumption, if the bark's course was changed one or two points, the stea-mer would have struck the bark at the, angle shown in the diagrams of the libelant's witness Hagerty, and the claimant's witness Brown. It may be that the mate of the steamer is correct in the statement that the bark changed her course before the sounding of the steamer's alarmwhistles, and that the helmsman and lookout of the steamer are mistaken in &u,pposing the change to have been made afterwards. But in view of the testimony of the steamer's witnesses as to what took pla.ce ,after the bark became visible to them, it can hardly be doubte,d that a half minute must have elapsed after that time before the change of course was made. As the bark was not visible more than an eighth ofa mile away., and as the vessels were approaching each other not far from the rate of 1,400 feet a minute, it is plain that they must have been very near together when the change was made; and even if a less time than a half minute elapsed, t1:ley were probably within 200 or 300 feet of each other. For these reasons the conclusion is reached that the bark'scpange ,of cO,urse was not a fault, but,if injudicious, was made when the vessels were very near to each other, and was caused by an error of judgment on the part of the-mate, comulitted ,in tlW6xdtement and !11arm 9f:the
moment, when, owing to the misconduct of the steamer, the vessels were in a situation which did not permit him to deliberate. The case is therefore one for the ap?lication of the rule which is well stated in The CarroU, 8 Wall. 302: "Fault on the part of the sailing vessel at the moment preceding collision does not absolve a steamer which has suffered herself and a sailing vessel to get in such dangerous proximity as to cause inevitable alarm and confusion, and collision as a consequence. The steamer, as haVing committed a far greater fault in allowing streh proximity to be brought about, is chargeable with all the <.lamages resulting from the collision."
MERSHON ". THE RAMAPO.t
(District Court, E. D. New Y01'k. May 29,1888.)
n'.e" schooner M. aud in tow of the tug R collided near the mouth of the Kill von Kull. "The tUg alleged that the schooner did not hold her course. The schooner's' crew" and the master of another schooner in the vicinity at the time, testified that she did. "Held, that the account of the collision given by the master of the tug was highly improbable; that the schooner did not change her course, and was entitled to recover her damages. Libel for ,damages.
SAIL-CHANGE OF COURSE-EVTDENClD.
Ca.rpenter Mosher, for libelant. Wilcox, Ada/Ina Macklin, for claimant.
""' BENED:ICT, J. This is an action to recover for damages to the libel. ant's schooner, the George B. Markle, caused by a collision between tha:t schooner and a: 'car-float, at the time in tow of the tug Ramapo. The collision occurred near the mouth of the Kill von Kull,in November, 1886. The wind was from the south-east,-a good sailingbreeze,-the tide was ebb,theschoonerwas beating out close-hauled on the starboard tack, sailiog under a jib, foresail, and a reefed mainsail. The weather was clear .' "Theqllestioli of the case is whether the schooner held her course. 'On the part ofthe schooner, the testimony of the n1aster and the two men composing the crew is positive to the effect that the schooner held her course, and they are confirmed by the testimony of the captain of the schooner Niantic, which was sailing into the Kills as the Markle was beating out; . This witness testifies that the Markle was close to the wind all the time, and never changed. In opposition to the testimony prOduced by the the master of the Ramapo gives upon the stand a remarkable statement. He testifies to five successive luffs of the schooner, 'arid five successi'9'e alarms given by him, and that the schooner fell off four times, aUifter she came in sight upon the starboard tack.· This acconnt of the collision differs from the account set forth in the answer,
lReported by EdwardG, Benedict, Esq., of the New York bar.
and differs from the account given by the other witnesses called on behalf of the claimant to testify to a failure on the part of the schooner to hold her course, and is highly improbable. In view of such an account given by the master of the tug, I have little hesitation in believing the account given by the master of the schooner. According to that account, no fault was committed in the management ofthe schooner. The decree must be for the libelant, with costs, and a reference to ascertain the amount of damages.
THE BALTIMORE.· THELACKAWANN.A. HOBOKEN LAND PENNSYLVANIA
t1. TaE BAJ.TIMORE.
R. Co. v. THE
(DiatJrict Court. E. D.New York.
CoLLISION LAWS. BETWEEN STEAMERS -
December 9, 1887.)
DISOBEDIENCE 011' RULE
The ferry-boat Baltimore started from her New York slip, bound for Jerl!ey City, and took a course of S. W by S. She sheered one point further south, to pass under the stern of the ferry-boat Delaware. and this sheer hrough$ her, ()n a course crossing that of the ferry -boat Lackawanna. which :was coming up the river, and with the latter on her port hand. The Lackawanna ported, to pass under the stern of the Baltimore. but the latter again starboarded her wheel, and the two ferry-boats came in collision. Held, that the situation of the boats was such as to make rule 19 operative. which required the Baltimore to hold her course. Her second change of course. therefore, was in disobedience to this rule, and was the fault that caused the collision.
In Admiralty. Abbett &; Adler, fo1' the Lackawanna. Biddle &; Wg,rd, forthe.Baltimore. BENEDICT, An examination of these cases, aided by the briefs of the advocates, lately submitted, has confirmed me in the impression formed when the witnesses were examined last summer. As I view the cases, the cause of the disastrous collision out of which they arose was the failure of the pilot of the Baltimore to obey the nineteenth rule of the navigation laws. The Baltimore, on starting from New York, took the direct course from her slip; this was S. W. by S. When on this the ferry-boat Delaware, bound up the river ahead of the blew to the Baltimore, and the pilot of the Baltimore says, "1 hauled her down about S. S. W. first, to clear him." This brought the course of
·Affirmed on appeal, see post, 614Reported by Edward G. Benedict, Esq., of the New York bar.