must'teceive from the hands of the ship's master. His wages cannot be paid him day by day, but must be allowed to accumulate in the hands of an unknown owner. When the voyage is over he must at once provide himself with temporary shelter and with food, and for that purpose he must have money in his hand. it is that his wages are nailed to the ship, and therE)fore it is that, as in the ancient days of the Consolato, so now, the law is forced to declare that no man can be permitted to say anything or do anything to'deprive the seaman of the right to demand his wages when he leaves the ship. Upon these grounds the exceptions to the answer are allowed.
L. P. DAYTON, THE STEAM-TUG and the float or scow called
Novemhcr 9, 188O.)
(Oirtmit Court, S. lJ. New York.
L COLLISION-NEGLIGENCE-BURDEN OF PROOF.-A libel for collision alleged negligence on the part of the tugs Dayton and Bowen and the scow Number Four. The answer of the Dayton alleged that the collision was wholly caused by the fault of those on board and in charge of the Bowen and the scow, "as alleged in the libel." The answers of the Bowen and the scow alleged that the collision was due wholly to the fault of those managing the Dayton and the boats in her tow. Held, that these admissions by the Dayton upon the one hand, and the Bowen and the scow on the other, would not throw on either of the libelled vessels, as between such vessel and the libellant, the burden of fault in the other.
2. SAME-SAME-SAME.-Held, further, that there must be prima facie
evidence of negligence, in such case, in order to throw the burden of proof upon either of the libelled vessels. 3. SAME-SAME-SAME.-Held, further, that the mere fact that the injured boat was lashed to the side of the Dayton, without motive Of steering power, and the absence of any allegation of fault against her in the answers filed, did not prima facie establish any fault in any particular one of the vessels libelled.
M'NALLY ,,",-.sTEAM-TUG L. l'. DAYTON·
.. &ME-SAHE-SAME.-Held, further, that, although it might be the, proper conclusion from the pleadings in such case that sqme one two, or all of the three vessels sued, must have been in fault, it is for the libellant to show which one, and not for anyone of the three to exculpate itself, or prove fault in either or both of the other two. 6. &ME-SAME--SAME.-The answer of the Dayton alleged that the Dayton and Bowen were apprOaching in such a way that the proper course was for each to pass on the starboard side of the other; ,that the Dayton took the proper measures in that manner, and the proper signals were blown, but that the Bowen failed to give heed to said signals, and to take measures to pass on the starboard hand. of the Dayton and the boats in her tow. Beld, that this did not show any negligence in the Dayton, in the absence of any allegation to the contrary in the libeL 6. BAME-SAME-SAME.-The answers of the Bowen and the scow each alleged that at the time the Dayton and hertowwere discovered coming down the river, by the pilot of the Bowen, the green light of the Dayton was visible, and she appeared to be going between the Bowen and the New York shore, which was then about 300 yardsdistant ; that at a proper distance the' Bowen blew two blasts, to which the Dayton responded by two. blasts, and the Bowen thereupon starboarded, heading as far to the westward as she could safely do without danger Qf colliding with another tug and tow on her port side, heading in thE! same direction; that the Dayton, instead of keeping her course, or starboarding so as to pass on the starboard side of the Bowen, so changed her course as to shut out her green and show her red light to the Bowen; that thereupon, it being evident that the Dayton could not cross the bow of the Bowen and of the scow without imminent danger of collision,the Bowen slowed, stopped, and backed, and that at the time of the collision the headway of the Bowen and the scow was about stopped. Held, that there was nothing in any of these averments which made out a prima facie case of negligence ' against the Bowen or the scow.
E. D. McCm'thy, for libellant. W. D. Shipman, for the Bowen and the scow. Carpenter et Mosher, for the Dayton. BLATCHFORD, C. J. In this case I find the following f,acts as between the libellant and the claimant of the steam-tugL. P. Dayton, such facts being found from the libel a.neil !the Otnswer of said claimant, no testimony being put in on, the part of either of said parties: On the fourteenth of February, 1879, the boat Centennial, of the burden of about 300 tons, and of which the libellant was master, was taken in tow by the steam-tug L. P., Da.yton,
at 'the p;or foot of Fifty-ninth street, New York, to be towed
to the Erie basin, at about 5 :30 P. M. 'The said boat was loadeci ,with ,a cargo of wheat. When tIle Dayton left Fiftyninth'street pier she had in tow·four boats, two on each side. The Centennial was the inside l:ltarboard boat; ,that is, the one lashed to the starboard side of the Dayton. She was 103 feet in ,length, and her bow projected some 20 feet beyon,d'the bow of the Dayton. The evening was cle'ar and starlit; and the tide ebb. The Dayton landed one of the boats which had been On her port side at the Eagle pier, Hoboken, and thereafter pursued her course with the remaining three boats. 'Yhen about opposite or a short ciistance above pier 1, North river, and about 300 yards from the pierson the New yprk shore, the Centennial was run into by the scow Number Four, which was then in tow of the steam-tug James Bowen, and received such injuries that she sank, with her cargo. .The NumberFour was lashed to the port side of the Bowen, and the two were proceeding froni a point in the East river to tlleLong dock, Jersey City.' At the time of' the collision the Bowen was on a course opposite or nearly opposite the course then being taken by the Dayton and her tow. The Centennialwas under the control and subject to the direction of the Dayton, having neither propelling nor steering power of her own. On the foregoing facts I find, as a conclusion of law, that as the libel alleges that the Dayton was negligent and in fault in various particulars specified in the libel, and as 'the answer of the claimant of the Dayton denies each of said allegations of fault on the part of the Dayton, and as no facts are proved in the case as against the Dayton, except the foregoing facts admitted by said answer, and the libellant nas proved no negligence or fault on the part of the Dayton, the libel must be dismissed as to the Dayton, with costs to hel in this court, and with .$24.25 costs to her in the district against the libellants.
In this case I find the tollowmg facts as between the libel. lant and claimant of the steam-tug James Bowen, such facts
M'NALLY V. E>TEAl\t-TUG L. P. DAYTON.
being found from the li1;>el and the answer·or said claimant, no testimony being put in on the part of either of said par. ties. On the evening of the fourteenth of February,' 1879,the steam-tug James Bowen took in tow in the East' river the scow Number Four, the scow being lashed to the portside of the Bowen. The Bowen and the scow were bound to the Long dock, Jersey City. The tide was ebb. The Bowen alfd the scow proceeded down the East river to the Battety, and rounded the Battery.A.t It point about opposite pier I, North river, and about 300 yards distant from the NeW' York shore, the bow of the boat Centennial,' which was being towed by the steam-tug L. P. Dayton on the starboard side of the Dayton, and was going down the North river,'came into collision with the bow of the said scow Number Fohr, and the effect was that the Centennial sank. On the foregoing facts I find, as a conclusion of law, that, as the libel alleges that the Bowen was negligent and in fault in various particulars specified in the libel, and as the answer of the claimant of the Bowen denies each and every allegation in the libel charging or imputing any fault or negligence to the scow or the Bowen, or tll-ose in charge thereof, and as no facts are proved in the case as against the Bowen, the foregoing facts admitted by said answer, arid the libellant has proved no negligence or fault on the part of the Bowen, the libel must be dismissed as to the Bowen, with costs to her in this court, and with $23.95 costs to her in the district court against the libellant. In this case I find following facts as between the libelant and the claimant of the scow Number Four, such facts being found from the libel and the answer of said claimant, no testimony being put in on the part of either of said patties.: On the evening of the fourteenth of February, 1879, the steam-tug James Bowen took in tow, in the East river, the scow Number Four, the scow being lashed to tpe port side of the Bowen. The Bowen and the scow were bound to the