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
withoutwl\iting for l\ reply, ported her helm to round in to her berth. The M., seeing the green light Qf the R. shutting in, and not knowing the latter's inten· tion of going in-shore, blew two whistles, and starboarded her wheel, supposing that the R. would straighten up river again. The vessels came together at nearl.y right angles. Held, that both were in fault for the collision,-the R. for not awaiting a reply from the M. before she ported her wheel; the M. for star· boarding her wheel as soon as sbe saw that the R. was sheering to port,-and that the damages should be divided.
In Admiralty. Cross-libels for damages. Cross-libelE' for damages by collision by the New York Harbor & TowBoat Company, owner of the steam-boat Rosa, and by Harrison B. Moore and the Eastern & Amboy Railroad Company, owners of the steam-tug Mercedes. . Wilcox, Adams &; Macklin, for the Rosa. Goodrich, Deady &; Goodrich, for the Mercedes.
BENEDICT, J. These are cross-actions, arising out of a collision which took place off Castle Garden on the 5th day of August, 1887, between the steam-tug Mercedes and the steam-boat about half past 8 in the evening. The tide was flood. The Mercedes was proceeding from the Stonington pier down the North intending to pass around the Battery into the East river. The steam-boat Rosa had come from the East river, and was proceeding to her berth I:I:t the bulk-head off Castle Garden, intending to round-to so as to head down the river. As the two vessels approached each other; the evidence shows that the Rosa was on the outside of the Mercedes, displaying to the Mercedes her green light. According to th& statement of the Mercedes, the green light of the Rosa. was observed to be shutting in. Two whistles were at once blown from the Mercedes, and the helm of the Mercedes starboarded. According to the statement of the Rosa,shfl gave one whistle to the Mercedes, and, without waiting for any reply, ported her helm, intending, as be10re stated, to round-to :lnd come ahead to the southward at the bulk-head off Castle Garden. When about 300 feet from Castle Garden the vessels came together, nearly at right angles; the Mercedes under a starboard helm, and the Rosa under a port helm. The speed of the respective vessels was about two miles an hour for the Rosa, and about eight miles an hour for the Mercedes. The cause of the collision was this: The Mercedes supposed that the Rosa was bound up the river, ann had no thought that it was her intention to round-to. at Castle Garden. The Mercedes accordingly presumed that the Rosa, on receiving two whistles from the Mercedes, would at once resume her course, and pass up the· river outside of the Mercedes. On the other hand, the Rosa assumed that the Mercedes, on receiving her Elignal of one whistle, would port, and so pass outside of the Rosa. 1 find both vessel9 in fault for acting upon presumptions unwarranted by the facts disclosed. It was the duty of the Rosa, when she blew her signal of one whistle, to await a reply from the Mercedes before porting her helm. Instead of so doing, assuming that the Mercedes would know that the Rosa intended to round.to at Castle Garden, and of course would
port, sbe ported. There was nothing to justify the Rosa in this pre,sumption, and in acting upon it without waiting for a reply to her whistle she committed a fault which conduced to the collision. On the part of the Mercedes, a fault was committed in starboarding her wheel as soon as she saw that the Rosa was sheering to port; doing this on the presumption that the Rosa was bound up the river, and would therefore, of course, go outside on receiving a signal of two whistles. There was nothing to justify the Mercedes in this presumption. Her pilot says that he saw the green light of the Rosa beginning to shut in, and immediately starboarded his wheel without waiting for a reply to his signal. It was a fault in him to starboard under those circumstances. If he had ported, I have no doubt he would have avoided the collision. Both vessels be. ing found in fault, damages must be apportioned.
J. W. HusTED.
THE SUCCESS. HAVENS 11. THE
J i W. HUSTED.
et al. v.
(Di8triot Oourt, 8. lJ.New York.
October 23, 1888.)
BALVAGE-TUG AND Tow-INTERFERENCE BY ANOTHER TUG-COLLUSION.
The lighter S,. loaded with oil barrels, and in charge of the tug' C., in the North river, got into difficultyby shipping considerable water in heavy swells from a passing steamer. The C. was competent to take care of her, and'was bound to do so.. The tug H. came up, and against the protest of the master of the lighter. but through the evident collusion of the C., succeeded in getting the lighter in her own charge, and towed her to the dock, and pumped her out, and thereupon refused for three days to deliver her to the owners, claiming salvage compensation on the false ground that the lighter had been abandoned ana: rescued by the H. In towing her she was negligently run against the wharf, causing some damage. Held, that the case was one of officious illtermeddling with the duties of the C.; that· the case was not one of salvage, and that no compensation for pumping should be allowed, as it was mOTe than offset by the injury for a groundless claim of abandonment and salvage, and detentiouof the lighter from her owners; and that the H. should pay for the damage her negligence had caused the lighter.
In Admiralty. Libel by Silas F. Havens, owner of the lighter Success, against the steam-tug J. W, Husted, for damages sustained by the Success while under the unauthorized control of the Husted. Also libel by Robert Rogers and others, claimants of the J. W. Husted, against the Success on a claim for salvage. Wing, Shoudy &: Putnam, for libelant Havens and The Success. Peter O. Carter, for Rogers et al. and The Husted.