side, and by the beam of vessels lying at its end. No local regulation restricting the use of the end of the pier has been called to the attention of the court. The provision in the ordinances (Revision 1866, p. 299) forbidding vessels to lie "at the end of or within any pier with the jib-boom rigged out" was omitted in the Revision of 1881; being perhaps considered to have been superseded by regulations of the dock department, to which jurisdiction over such matters had been theretofore confided. Even if still in force, it does not forbid vessels from lying at the end of a pier when their jib-booms are not rigged out. In the absence of local regulation, the ordinary use of a pier contemplates the occupation from time to time of sufficient water area off its end and at its sides to allow for berthing vessels. With the whole width of the river to swing in, and a starting point more than 500 feet down stream, it was quite easy and practicable for the steam-boat to clear the upper pier, and a space beyond it, sufficient to subserve its ordinary use as a pier. Beyond that space the Sinnott did not protrude, nor did she violate the .rule as to obstructing ferry slips. The Baltic, 2 Ben. 452. She was not an additional obstruction at that point, for she did not occupy any part of the river not already appropriated to obstrulJtion by the erection of the pier, and the use which its presence invited. She lay wholly within .the area which the Powell was bound to clear whenever called upon. The decrees of the district court should be affirmed, with costs.
S. S. Co.
tl. THE TALISMAN.
(District Court, 8. D. New York. October 20; 1888.)
·CoLLISION-81'EAMER·AND TUG-RULE 011' THE STARBOARD HAND.
The steamer City of S. was coming into the North river from sea. and moving with the flood tide. The steam-tug T.· going down the river with a car· float in tow, was nearer the New York shore, and on the starboard hand of the steamer, their courses not then crossing.. The latter, to approach her slip. ported. and l'ottempted to cross the bow of the float. but was struck on her port. bow, receiving damage. for which this suit was brought against the tug. Held, that the fault of the collision was with the steamer, which. from her position. was boqnd to avoid the tow, yet attempted to cross her bow, that the T. did nothing to thwart any proper maneuver on the part of the steamer, but backed as soon as the intent of the S. was clear; and tho libel against her should be dismissed.
In Admiralty. Libel for damages. Libel by the Ocean Steam-Ship Company against the steam-tug Talis. man, for injuries to the steamer City of Savannah by collision. ,. Rice .& Bijur; for libelant. 'Goodri.Jh, Deady &: Goodrich, for claimants. BROWN; J. On the 11th of February, 1888, the libelant's steamer. City of Savannah , in coming in from sea, collided with a car-float in toW'
OCEAN S. S. CO. ". THE TALISMAN.
of the steam-tug Talisman, a little past 8 o'clock in the morning, and from 100 to 200 yards off Chambers-Street slip in the North river. All,' the witnesses agree that the City of Savannah, when off the Battery, and when off Courtlandt street, was not far from the middle of the riveri that she afterwards ported, and at the time ",:' +be collision had swung around from three to six points towards the New York shore. The car-float, which was coming down, struck the City of Savannah on her port!>ide, about 25 feet from her stern, doing considerable damage. The libelants claim that when the City of Savannah was nearly in mid-river, and head· ing directly up stream, the Talisman and her tow were seen nearly di· rectly ahead from one-quarter to a half a mile distant, and about li quarter of a point on her starboard bOWi that the Talisman was at that time heading somewhat across the river towards the Jersey shorei and that the swing of the City of Savannah to starboard was made in order to give the Talisman more room to the westward, but that her maneuver was thwarted by the Talisman's starboarding, and thereby swinging towards the New York shore. Upon careful consideration of the testimony, I cannot find this theory borne out by the weight of evidence, or the probabilities of the case. The tide was strong flood. The tug, heavily in· cumbered, could not have been making by land more than three knots. while the speed of the City of Savannah by land was from two to three times as great. Had the Talisman been near mid-river, and headed to· wards the Jersey shore, as claimed by the libelant, she could not possibly have turned so as to reach the place of collision so near the shore at the time that the Savannah reached that place, without turning about at once and heading almost straight for the New York shore, which it fended she did, and which is incompatible with the libelant's other..tea. timony. The Talisman, in coming from Weehawken, .had followlild;tbe usual course, crossing the river to within 200 or 300 yards of the New York shore, and then following the line of the shore. There was no rea· son, after passing Tenth street, which must have been long before she was seen by the City of Savannah, for heading towards the Jersey shore, or for her being nearly in Tlle contrary is proved, not only by her own witnesses, but by disinterested witnesses from the Hoboken ferry-boats. The weight of proof agrees with the probabilities of the case, that when the Talisman was first sighted she must have been much nearer the New York shore than the City of Savannah, then nearly in mid-river. The City of Savannah was bound for her dock at Spring street. Having the Talisman on her own starboard band, it was her legal duty to keep out of tbe way, and she took all risks of attemping to cross tbe Talisman's bow, instead of keeping to the westward of bel', on her original course. She is in fault for this maneuver. From the place of colso near the shore, it is further clear that the City of Savannah must have persisted in bel' attempt to cross the Talisman's bows for a <lonsiderable time after it was safe to make such an attempt, instead of st.oppingand backing earlier, as she might easily have done, and thereby avoided the collision. The pilots of the Hoboken ferry-boats the Lackawanna and the Montclair of
the witnessesfrottl the Talisman, as to the position and course of the latter. As respects the Talisman, 1 think it clear that nothing on her part thwarted any proper maneuver of the City of Savannah. There was at first no danger; their courses were not crossing until the City of Savannah ported, to approach the New York shore. The Talisman was on the City of Savannah's starboard hand, and it was then the duty of the Talisman to hold her course. At the slow speed she was making against the strong tide, whether she starboarded her helm or not, (and 1 do not think that charge established,) she could not, in the short time after the alleged starboarding, have changed her position so much as to have made any difference in the result. The City of Savannah, after her first porting, had abundant means to keep out of the way of the Talisman by going to the westward. The pilot of the Talisman had no reason to suppose that the City of Savannah would persist in attempting to cross his bows, instead of passing to the westward, until shortly before the collision; and lam satisfied that he stopped and backed as soon as he had reason to believe that the City of Savannah intended to cross ahead of him, contrary to her duty. This was all that by the rules of navigation was required of the Talisman, under such circumstances, (The Greenpoint, 31 Fed. Rep. 231,) and the libel must therefore be dismissed, with costs. 1 have not thought it necessary to discuss the evidence concerning the fog or thick weather, alleged by the witnesses for the City of Savannah, although upon this point it seems to me that the weight of evidence is clearly against her. From this point of view it would seem probable that no sufficient lookout or attention was directed towards the Talisman by the City of Savannah while she approaching her pier, and that that may have been the real cause of the accident.
NEW YORK HARBOR Tow-BoAT Co. 11. THE MERCEDES.
'II. THE ROSA.
(DiBt'l'ict Oourt, E. D.
October 22, 1888.}
001lLISION-BJilTWEEN STEAMERS-MEETING STEAMERS-MuTUAL FAULT.
Tl).e steam·boat M. was coming down the North river, near the piers on the New York shore, and intending 'to round the Battery into the East river. The steam·boat R. had come from the East river into thEl North river, an<l was to round to her berth near Castle Garden. She was outside the M., and displayed to 'the hitter her green light. The R. whistled once to the M., and, G. Benedict, Esq., of the New York bar.
1 Beported b1Edward