to award the Chateau Margaux for.berservices, to which I add $2,000 for her expenditures caused by the rendition of the salvage service in question.
'V. THE METEOR.
(Di8trict Court, E. D. New YO'I'k.
October 4, 1888.)
The testimony of libelant was that he was hired by the master as mate, at $50 per month. That of the master was that he was only hired as a deckhand. at $1l0. There was no other mate than libelant, and he had been promoted dnring the previous season from a deckhand at $1l0 to a mate at $ 0, and as such served until the end of the season. Until about 8 weeks before his discharge he wore a mate's uniform. bought for him by the master. who explained it by saying that it was necessary to have some one to act as mate to receive guests. Letters from the master, written whet .iick, to the libelant, . authorizing him to employ_ men. and giving him directions to keep the work going, were introduced Ha/,d, that libelant was employed as mate, and should be paid $50 per month. .
BAME-BoARD OF SEAMEN.
BBAMEN-WAGBS-CHARACTER OF SERVICE-EVIDENCE.
The evidence of the seamen of a yacht. and the master. as to wbether they were to pay tbeir own board for a period of 10 days, when the vessel was without a cook, b.eing conflicting, the facts that a short time previously, when they boarded themselves, they were paid the amount it cost them in addition to their wages. and that. iftbey paid tbeir own board, they would receive only 25 cents per day during the 10 days, Instead of $1, throw the preponderance to the side of the seamen.
In Admiralty. Libels for wages. Libels by Sacqueland and others against the yacht Meteor for wages ll.$ mate and seamen. Noah Tebbet8, for libelants. Wilcox, Ada'l11.a Macklin, for claimant.
BENEDICT, J. This is an action against the steam-yacht Meteor to recover wages for services rendered on· board the yacht in the season of The claim of the libelant Sacqueland is that he was employed to be the mate of the yacht, at the rate of $50 a month; that he served as mate. but was paid only $30 a month, and is entitled to recover a balance of $60 for the time he served as mllte. In his case the only issue is whether be wtts hired to be mate at$50 a month, or to be deckhand at $30 a month. The testimony of the master and the testimony of the libelant is in absolute conflict on this point. The surrounding circumstances lead me to believe that Sacquelalld is entitled to be paid mate's wages. If Sacqueland was not mate, then the yacht had no mate; which seems improbable. It appears that on the previous season Sacqueland was employed first as deckhand on this yacht, at $30 a month, was afterwards promoted to be mate of the yacht, and his wages raised to $50 a month. He served as her mate to the end of that season. This warrants
SACQUELAND V. THE METEOR.
the presumption that if Sacqueland remained as mate ·(If the yacht for j,he season of 1887, he would be entitled to $50 a month, the wages paid on the previous season. That in 1887 he acted as the mate, and not as a deckhand, on the yacht, seems to be shown by the fact proved that until about three weeks before his discharge he wore a mate's uniform, which uniform he took off on being informed that the owner would not pay him at the rate of $50 a month. The mate's uniform so worn by Sacqueland was bought for him by the master, and made by a tailor who measured him by direction of the master of the yacht. The master's explanation of this circumstance is that it would be contrary to etiquette on pleasure yachts that guests, when coming on board, should be received by a and, as the master could not always be present to receive the guests, the mate's uniform was bought for Sacqueland in order that Sacqueland, when receiving the guests, might not be known to such guests to be a deckhand. The explanation is hardly sufficient to deprive Sacqueland of a mate's wages. Furthermore, two letters of the master to Sacqueland, at a time when the master was sick and out of town, are put in evidence, which are not such letters as would be written to a deckhand, but. are such as would be written to a mate in command. They authorize Sacqueland to employ men; they give him.directions to keep the work going ahead; and are inconsistent with the idea that Sacqueland had not control of the crew on board the yacht in the master's absence. The discarding of the mate's uniform at the end of the season by Sacqueland, when informed that the owner would not pay him male's wages, indicates that, up to that time at least, he had supposed himself to be a mate, and of course earning a mate's wages. Upon the evidence is entitled to recover mate's wages I am of the opinion up to the time that he took off the mate's uniform. As to the claim of the other libelants, being seamen who served on board the yacht during the season of 1887, the only question is whether they are entitled to recover 75 centsB. day for the expenses of their board from the 1st to the 10th of May, during which time there was no cook on board the yacht, and they paid their own board. In regard to the libelant Brown there can be no doubt. He was employed by Sacqueland, and both he and Sacqueland testify that the bargain was that he should be paid·a dollar a day for his labor, and 75 cents a day for his board during this time. The other men were hired by the master, and the conflict of evidence in regard to their hiring is complete. The master asserts that the agreement was that they should pay their own hoard during these 10 days. Each of the men assert that the vessel was to pay them 75 cents a day for their board during this period, I incline here to believe the statement of the seamen. It seems hardly possible that these seamen would have agreed to work in May for 25 cents a day, as would be the case if they paid their own board out of the dollar; and, moreover, it is proved that $1.75 perday.was paid them in April, when they paid their own board. My conclutlion is that the agreement was that the board of the rilen was to be paid them in addition to the dollar per day. They are therefore testi.entitledeach to receive $6.50, except Charles Colson, who, as
mony seems to show, has abandoned his claim. Let a decree in favor of the libelants, in accordance with this opinion, be entered. The libel· ants must also recover the costs.
THE SAMMm. THE CITY OF SPRlNGFIELD. HARTFORD & N. Y. TRANSP. CO. v. THE SAMMIE et al. LUTHER et al.
THE CITY OF SPRINGFJEl.O et al.
(Oircuit Oourt, 8. D. New York.
COLLISION-KEEPING OUT OF THE WAY-SAFE MARGIN-TIDE CURRENTS·
.A. steamer bound to keep out of the way must. at her own peril, shape hel" course for a safe margin against the contingencies of navigation, and the effects of tide currents. Held, in this case, that the conflict in the evidence was probably in part to be explained by the westward set of the flood-tide off Twenty-Third street, which changed to the westward the course of the S., a steamer 300 feet long, as she struck the current, and that the collision was by her fault only.
SAME-TUG AND TOW-SUDDEN BACKING-PARTING LINES-ERROR OF JUDGMENT IN EXTREMIS.
The collision bdng with a heavy car-float in tow along-side a tug, and the S. contending that the float had broken loose from the tug just before the collision, through the tug's too sudden backing, which the tug denied, held that, even if the lines were parted. as alleged. before the colliRion, the tug's backing was made necessary by the fault>f theS. when the danger was imminent, and that the error. if there was any error, was one of judgment, under the excitement of the moment, and not a legal fault. .
In Admiralty. On appeal from district court. See 29 Fed. Rep. 923. Cross-libels for collision by Thomas B. Luther and others, claimants of the steam-tug Sammie, against the Hartford & New York Transportation Company, claimant of the steamer City of Springfield. A decree · was rendered dismissing the libel against the Sammie, and sustaining that againstthe City of Springfield. Franklin A. Wilcox and Goo. B. Adams, for Hartford & New York · Transportation Company. E. D. McCarthy, for Luther et aZ.
LACOMBE, J. It is that if each vessel had kept her course ·after sighting they would have passed safely. The district judge found, amid much conflicting testimony given by witnesses whom he saw and heurd, that the Springfield changed her course so as to get. from the Brooklyn side of mid-river into the Sammie's water, and that the Sammie did DOt her course, or, at least, did not change it sufficiently to bring her to the eastward of the track which, by the first ex,change of signa:ls,she was justified in following. The new testimony