FEDERAL REPORTER, v.ol. 39.
master thorough control of her to tack, wear, and handle her as occasion might require. There should be a decree for the Willey and against the Martello in each case.
L'HOMMEDIEN et al. v. THE MISCHIEF. 1
(DistrMt Court, E. D. New York. July 12, 1889.)
COLLISION-VESSEL AT ANCHOR-LIGHTS.
The stearp.-tug Q. had taken a tow up Hunter's Point creek. and, having landed it in a proper place on the shore. was lying along-side the tow, stern down the creek, witho\Jtlights, and with over 100 feet of clear water outside of her. In the early morning the tug M. came up the creek and ran into the Q., doing the damage sued for. The M. claimed that the absence of lights on the Q. was the cause. of collision. Held, that under the circumstances the Q. was not required to have a light, and the M. was responsible for the collision.
In Admiralty. Action by Samuel L'Hommedien and others for damages by collision. Wing, Shoudy &; Putnam, for libelants. Alexander &; Ash, for claimants.
BENEDICT, J. This is an action to recover damages for injuries sustained by the steam-tug Quickstep in a collision with the steam-tug Mischief, which occurred in Newtown creek, above the first bridge. on the morning of the 8th of December, 1887. The evidence shows that early in the morning. and before light, the Quickstep had taken a tow up the creek. She landed her tow on the Hunter's Point side of the creek, above the first bridge, at a proper place, and at the time of the collision was lying still along-side of the boats, with her stern down the river. She had no lights. While so lying, the Mischief, having got under way below the bridge, passed up the creek near the Hunter's Point side, and struck the Quickstep in her stern, doing the damage sued for. The collision occurred early in the morning. The testimony leaves it somewhat in doubt as to whether, at the time of the collision, tlwre was not light enough to enable the Mischief to see the Quickstep in time to avoid her. Some evidence is to the effect that it was light enough to see a man on the other side of the creek, which was there some 282 feet wide. The only fault on the part of the Quickstep charged by the answer which deserves consideration is that she had no light. I am not aware of any statute which required her to have a light, under the circumstances,-not being in motion, but moored along-sirle other vessels attached to the shore of Newtown creek, and with over 100 feet of clear water outside of her. Nor can I find that an absence of light on the Quickstep caused the collision. The pilot of the Mischief himself testifies that he saw the Quickstep, but
NEW YORK, L. E. & W. R.
thought she was far enough out in the river for him to go inside of her, and so he changed his course to pass between her and the Hunter's Point sidE), He immediately discovered his mistake, but it was too late to enable him to swing the other way before reaching the Quickstep. His fault consisted in changing his course, instead of stopping his boat as soon as the Quickstep was discerned, and this fault caused the collision. Let a decree be entered for the libelant, with an order of reference.
YORK, L. E. & 'V. R. CO. v. THE BREAKWATER. DO},-II:-UON STEAM-SHIP Co. v. THE PAVONIA.
May 23, 1889.)
(District Court, E. D. New York.
COLI,ISlON-BETWEEN STEAMERS-DELAY DI BACKING.
A steam-vessel. which is bound to keep out of the way of another steamboat, will be held in fault if collision happen through her delay in backing, where the circumstances of wind and tide and signals exchanged were snfficient to have shown her that such backing could not be delayed without risk of collision.
In Admiralty. Cross-libels for damages by collision. The steam-ship Breakwater was coming into the :Korth river from sea, and as she approached her dock hauled in somewhat to the New York piers. The tide was ebb, and a strong north-west wind was blowing. When the Breakwater was still several piers below the Pavonia ferry-slip, the ferry-boat Pavonia was seen coming out of her slip on the New York shore. The ferry-boat immediately blew one whistle to the Breakwater, indicating that she would cross the latter's bow, to which signal the Breakwater agreed by one whistle, and stopped, but did not back until the ferry-boat had again signaled once, when the steamer reversed. But the tide and wind carried the ferry-boat somewhat down stream, and the boats came in collision, the stem of the steamer striking the port side of the ferry-boat. Cross-libels were filed for the resulting damages. Wilcox, Adams & Macklin, for the Pavonia. Owen & Gray, for the Breakwater. BENEDICT, J. It is proved that the Breakwater, although she stopped her engine, did not then reverse it. It is also proved that if the engine of the Breakwater had been reversed as soon as possible after it was stopped there would have been no collision. The Breakwat having r, the ferry-boat on her starboard side, and upon a crossing course, was bound to do all in her power to avoid striking the ferry-boat as she crossed. It was in her power to reverse the engine sooner than "he did, and by so doing to have avoided striking the ferry-boat as she did. The
lReported by Edward G. Benedict, Esq" of the New York bar.