rem. Furthermore, section 4192 of the Revised Statutes is simply a reg;istry statute. It does not give a maritime lien to the mortgagee; for the contract of mortgage, as We have shown, is not a maritime contract. As statpd,by Mr. in The Guiding Star, supra, with whose views on this matter I heartily concur: provision (section 4192, Rev. St.) merely requires registration of mortgages or othercollveyances of vessels as essential to their validity, ex,against the grantors or other pers!>Ds having actual ,notice thereof. and leaves all questions as totbe priority of the incumbrances as they were before. ·The mortgage is but a conveyartce of the title of the grantor, and can pass,only what at the time be had, subject to E'very lien that had' already become vested. More than this, ,the mortgagee is owner, and the vessel continUeS liabletp become subject. while his titlll subsists, to whatever liens, by sub· sequenttra,nsactions,tbe.law imposes, precisely as though there had been no orownersh1p. The mortgagee, as creditor, has no higherrank than an, other alienee...
Again, the rule prefen-ing a foreign to a domestic material-man seems to me to, IU,scriminate unjustly against the latter. For a materialman o,fMobile, furnishing necessary supplies to a vessel whose home port is NewOdeans,wouldbepreferred to a New Orleans, furnishing the same class ofsupplies tQthe vessel. That is to say, this court,.·sitting at New Orleans, on the trial of sllch a conflict, would be bound its own oitizens for the benefit of cith:Elns of another state. Itwould seem that if, in reason, any distinction should be made by a. court' ina conflict between citizens of different,states having claims of equal merit, in the abstract, the duty ,of the court ought to be to take care of, at least not to, discriminate against, the .citizens of, the state in which the court is holden. But in this ease all that is adjudged is, that ,they ahould be placed on, an equality" as to their respective claims of the same,nature. ,,' .The circuit judge concurs with Mr. Justice LAMAR in the foregoing ,opinion, referring, ,on the main question involved, to the views expressed in 'J!hs De Sma, 10 Fed. Rep. 483.
(.mBtrict oO'UJrC.s; D. New Yor?,-
.L and B., all under the control at the latter, belong, · Ingto'the lIame owners, took in charge ,a fleet of canal-boats, loaded with coal, to' be fT,Olll South Amboy. through tIle K!;lls, to New: ¥(jr,k., The wind was N. E; at I " 'the start.) lncre'aliedafterwllrds, and was' nearly a gale When' the tu'gs reached the " 01, the, KWs., They proceeded, however, and, the' canal-boats were after-
ward II mOlltly lOllt fIt the, bllY, tnro"gh th"" hllAvt Illm, the Ilinking ofll01ne, the pounding of otherll,aBll the general breaking up of the tow. HeW., that it was, negligence to leave the Kills and to attempt to cross the bay in suoh weather; that' the tugs ought to have asoertained the facts as to the before ,leaving the; shelter of the Kills and going into the Day, or to have turned about, as they might have done, near the mouth of the Kills, and have taken refuge at Port J., in the: Kills; and that the owners of the tugs were liable for the loss of the tow. .!
SAME-LIMITATION OF LUl'IILI'J'Y OF OWNER.
In section 4283 of the Revised Statutes the words "suoh vessel" include all the tugs belonging to the same owner engaged in the work of towing at the time whenl the fault is committed by the common captain or head ofnll the tugs; and all such, J:Dustbe surrendered, as a condition of the ,limitation of the owner's liability. In this case, that both the B. and Winnie must be surrendered, but not the Willie, ,inasmuch as she had been previously detaohed, and was no part of the moving force at the time when the negligence arose that caused the loss.
The Willie had been' ordered to detach the canal-boat C. from the relit of the! above tow, to be taken to Newark, and not out into New York bay. The Willie' negligently omitted to detach the C., and she wall taken by the B., with the relit of" the tow, into New York bay, and 101110. a wronl<"ful deviation, upon an UIIan-, thorized trip, as rellpectll the C., arising through the Willie's. neg-ligence,.andsuch. a wrongful act and breach of contract as would make the Willie's ble for \'he C.'s subsequent loss, even if it had arisen from subsequent additional' negufence on the part of tugs belonging to different owners; and that the erB 0 the Willie, being liable for the full amount of the O.'s loss, CDuldnot liJtiit their liability under the statute, as respects the C. and her cargo, except on the· surrender of the Willie to that extent. (8IIUabuBl1y the Oourt.)
SAME---DEVIATION-PARTIAL SURRENDER-DAM AGES-PROXIMATE CAUIlE.
In Admiralty. Petition for limitation of liability. , Biddle.,ere Ward, for the Pennsylvania Railroad Company, petitioner. Wilcoz, Adams ere Macklin, for five of the canal-boats, and others. Carpenter ere for the Western Insurance Com pany, and others.! Wing"Slwudy ere Putnam and Mr. Burlingham, for the Lehigh Coal &, Navigation Company, and others. Olark ere BuU, for the China Mutual Insurance Company, and ·. Hyland ere Zabriskie, for the Cahill. William J. KeUy, for the & Reading Railroad Company. T. O. Campbell, for the Hanagan. BnoWN,J'. On the night of November 24 to 25, 1888, the steam-tug Bordentown, assisted by the Winnie, having in tow a fleet of about 20 canal-boats, bound from. South Amboy, the Kills, to the sea fence, Brooklyn, encountered, on leaving the Kills, a heavy north-east gale,in which all but two of the boats were lost. Large claims for dam.. ages having been presented against the Pennsylvania Railroad Company,; the petitioners, as owners' of the tuge, charging that the loss was occasionecl through negligence, a libel and petition were filed in this, court to limit the liability of the company for the alleged losses, in ca.se they; were held answerable at all, to the value of the Bordentown, the Witmie,; and the Willie, or one or more of them, as might be adjudged. Thelibel further denied that the disaster was caused· through any negligence of the tugs, and alleged that, if it was so caused, it was without the privity. ofthe'petitioners. The evidence taken isvoluminous. It is notnecesBaryta state more than the leading ,facts that I deem pertinent toth'e conclusions reached. ,,: .
The tow left South Amboy between 5 and 6 o'clock of the evening of November 24th, in charge of the Willie and the Winnie, and had at that time two or three additional tiers of boats, which, just below the Baltimore & Ohio bridge, were detached by the Willie, and afterwards landed by her safely at the Standard Oil Company docks, near Port Johnson, in the Kills, and did not proceed further. The Bordentown, a large and powerful tug, but old, out of date, and expensive to run, took charge of the fleet soon after it left South Amboy. The Winnie acted as a helper throughout, running ahead, upon a hawser attached to the Bordentown. The wind had been north-east for two or three days previous. When the tow left South Amboy the wind was already somewhat fresh, and there was some rough water in crossing the bay at that point. In passmidnight, the wind was strong from the northing Newark bay east, and the water was so rough as to wash up on the decks of the boats on the port side, some of which took in water enough to make them careen. This was partly rectified by the nlen on board shifting the cargo. The callal-boat Cahill was attached, as an extra boat, outside of the line of the port boats of the tow, and was designed and ordered to be left at Newark bay. She was not left there, but was taken out into the bay, and was subsequently lost. After passing Newark bay, owing to the shelter from the land, no rough water, or other difficulty, was experienced until the mouth of the Kills was reached, about a mile to the westward of Robbins' Reef light, where the water was found to be rough, and the wind blowing strong from the north-east. The Bordentown and her helper, however; kept on, intending to go up and across ·the bay, about four miles, to the sea fence, Brooklyn. Many of the men on board the canal-boats made signals, by swinging lanterns, shouting,and blowing horns, to indicate that they were having trouble, and were taking in water from the heavy sea. Some of the boats had covered decks, or hatches with the covers fastened down, which, though washed by the sea, experienced no immediate injury therefrom. Most of the boats, however, had open decks. or their hatch-covers were off. The signals from the tow were either not seen or not heeded on board the tugs; but,after going out a little beyond Robbins' Reef light, the Bordentown turned the tow about under'a starboard wheel, and, as her witnesses testify, directed her course towards the American docks, about a quarter of a mile below the landing at St. George's ferry. This waS done, accorning to their testimony, on account of the alleged change of the wind to the westward, which would make,' it unsafe to moor the tow at .the sea fence. At this time it was ,ebb-tide at the mouth of the Kills, and slack water on the westward side of the hay. After proceeding perhaps a half mile towards the' American docks" the wind being observed, as the petitioners' witnesses testify, to have hauled again to north-east, which would make the Ameri<lan docks unsafe, the tow was turned to the north-west,. towards the Kills,under a port wheel, but had not proceeded far on that course when she waS 'met by the Willie, whose captain had come down from PortJohnsoi:1,or from the Standard Oil docks, after having landed his detachment of the tow at that point, to render any a$sistance to the Bor·
dentown that might be needed. He testifies that he reported to the pilot of the Bordentown that the water was very rough up at the mouth of the Kills, but did not give any advice. The pilot of the Bordentown testifies that he stated that the water was too rough to go in that direction. The pilot of the Bordentown, accordingly, determined to try again to go to the sea fence, and again turned to cross the bay. He had proceeded for a time upon this cour&e, drifting somewhat downwards, and, when about a mile to the south-east of the bell buoy, the canal-boat Hughes, the hawser boat on the port side, became so full of water that she sank head downwards, and parted the hawser. The result was that the whole tow got loose from the tugs, became kinked up, and pounded each other in .the heavy sen,and the open-deck boats, one after another, rapidly filled and sank. The Winnie rescued one boat, and took her to a place of safety; the Willie, two others. The Bordentown was difficult to-.8teer; and, in approaching and lying alongside of some of the other boats,she broke one of the links of her rudder backing-chain, which partially abled lier. In consequence of this accident, the Bordentown.'s pilot deemed it imprudent to attempt anything further than to rescue the lives of the men On board the canal-boats, who were accordingly all taken on the Bordentown, and safely landed upon a dock in the vicinity;of Fort Hamilton. The rest of the tow that had not sunk were left adrift, and mostly lost. . The immediate cause of this misfortune was the.sinking of the Hughes, the port hawser boat. She had an open deck, supplied with 18 ha;tchcovers, but her cargo of coal was so full that the covers could not be fastened down when need for it was found. Had a safer boat been in the place of the Hughes, and the Bordentown kept on, as at first, without turning, it is not impossible that she might have crossed without the loss of any of the boats. There can be no doubt, however, that from the time the mouth of the Kills was reached, there was a strong gale, and a very rough .sea. It was at that time nearly 2 o'clock, and the evidence of the Staten Island Ferry pilots furnishes outside proof of the violence of the gale at that time. In judging of the prudence of the Bordentown in attempting to cross the bay in such a gale and s.uch a sea, regard must be had to the condition and make-up 6f the tow she had in charge; and, .considering that so many of them deeply loaded, had open decks, and that the port hawser boat was of that kind, and was so loaded that her hatch-covers could not be put down, I can have no hesitation in finding that it was imprUdent and unjustifiable to attempt to come out of the Kills, in the face of such a wind and sea. It is urged that, as the tide in the Kills was at that time ebb, the tow had no alwrnative but to keep on, because there was no room to turn in the Kills. This,is not a sufficient justification. The evidence taken on the part of the respondents satisfies me thatthere was room to turn this tow before going into the rough water; and, even if it were a fact that there not room, .tha,t would not furnish a justification, but only throw the fault fnrther back, in not ascertaining whether the wind and weather were proper to proceed, before going so f!lor as to. make escape
FEDEa:A:L .REPORTER, \"01.
fl'omdestrtl&tronb1l1posaiblb.· Under the present means of communication 'and obsehiation;' it is very easy to learn the state of the weather at the mouth ·oftbe Kills before passing Port Johnson, and reasonable prudence would plainly require that it should be done. If no telegraphic ()ommunicatioO':'was established or was available, there was nothing to prevent the Winriie from steaming ahea.d, ascertaining the facts, and reporting. I think the petitioners are, therefore, liable for the imprudent and negligent navigation of their employes in taking the tow out into the bay under circuIllstances which the tow was wholly unfit to encounter. The M. M.Oaleb, to BIatchf. 471. It is not necessary to express any opinion as to the subsequent management in the various turns that were made, in the endeavors to rescue the tow from a situation which' was found to be dangerous. Under such circumstances, much must be left to the judgment of the person in command of the tug. There is 'considerable conflict in the testimony· as to the condition of the water atthe time the tow made her last tnrn to cross the bay. I think that the weight of testimony is that the sea was still rough and dangerous; and, considering that the distance to the smooth water of the Kills was far less than the distance to the sea fence, it seems to me that a great mistake, at leaElt, was made in the last attem pt to cross the bay. The situation" however, was Bbll\ewhat analogous to a situation in extremis. The real fault was in bringing the tow into that situation. the petitioners liable for the loss, I must further mnd that they are &lso entitled to a limitation of their liability, undei' the aet l of '1851, (Rev. St.§4283;) because I cannot, upon the evidence of the'respobdents,come to the conclusion that there was any negligence in the dispatch: of the tow from South Amboy at the time it was sent out; 'or any insufficiency of the tugs for the purposes of an ordinary trip to Ne\VYork. The tugs were not dispatched under any peremptorydirection&to make the trip throughwithout regard to the weather. On the contrary, <it is plain that the management of the tow was under the direction of the pUot of the Bordentown; that he had the entire authority, andth'atit was his: legal 'duty to' take the tow with reasonable ,prudence, and :to proceed, or to lay up at any point on the route, as the weather mightrequira. .The Willie laid:' up her detachment near Port J ohnsoo·; .Another Amboy, tow, on the Same evening, did the same. ,'!'hidmpl'udenoo that caused the loss was simply the imprtldence of the pilot of the Bordentown in proceeding into the bay under circumstances 'when he ought to have stopped short of it. His relation to the petitioners was in this"respect, therefore, no different from the relation of the mastel' of any vessel who brings responsibility upon her owners through ,hi& negligentle 'or misconduct. The owners, the principals,are entitled to '0. limitation'of'}iability, !whereth'ey have no personal privity with :the immediate! (la\1se of thelosB. That, is plainly the case nt-re. It is 'not what: grade of officers; in the case of a. 'corporation; it must be to make their knowledge or privity the knowl,edge or 'privity ofthecorporation.E\'en if the corporation would be :chal'gooble ,for :the punning of an unfit boat 'by; the' direction of its subi
ordinates, tcannot find that the Bordentown was unfit, by reason of her age or of any 'other cause, to be dispatched with a tow to New York, in any that was suitable for the tow to enter the bay. It. was wholly the improper course of master of the tow in going out into "the bay which brought about, the disaster; and, as against this impru. dence, the cOl'poration is entitled to a limitation of itsJiability. 3. As regards the vessels required by the statute to be surrendered in a case like the present, there can be no doubt that the Bordentown is one of them. The master of the tow was all the time on board of her, directing the navigation of all. I have no doubt that the Winnie, a,lso, must be included. At the time when the master's fault arose, the Winnie was as much a part of the moving power as the Bordentown, and was equally under the same direction. She belonged to the same. owners; 8:ndfrom the beginning to the end she was engaged, in the owners' behalf, in the work of towing the other boats, precisely as the Bordentown was engaged. It was immaterial on board which tug the master, for the time being, was, or .from which boat his orders were given. Both as related to the owners of the tugs and as related to'the owners of the boats in,to.w, the Bordentown and the Winnie, in taking the tow through to Kills,were in effect one vessel. In the case of The Oonnecticut and The S. A. Stever;ut, 103 U. S. 710, where those two vessels were towing a.third, which came in collision with the Othello, the Stevens, which was the .helper of the Connecticut j was exempted from liability, though the Connecticut was held for not signaling her movements. th!"t duty rested upon the Connecticut alone. An examination of the record in that case shows that the Stevens did not belong to the.owners of the Connecticut, but was an independent tug, hired for the occasion, simply to supply additional motive power,as a helper,and that she had done so, with:out· any fault on her part. Had the Stevens been owned,. by the $ame owners as the Connecticut, and· engaged in the same work, under a' single directing master, the case would have been analogous to the present. Where all the tugs employed belong to the same owner, and are under one comtnondirection. and are engaged in the service.at the. time when the fault is oommitted, tbeyare in the same situation, as ,it seems to me, as a 6ingle vessel, as respects responaibility for. the the commOn head.: 'The words vessel," in section 4283,embraces all such tugs., § 3; The Arturo t 6 Fed; Rep. 808. 'And all such must l'espond for the damages in prooeedings forlimitation of liability. An addiU4lual reason for holding the Winnie in this case is that ahe was needed to supply: .the pOOl' steerage power. of the. Bordentown, !"nd, I have no doubt. was in part retained: for that purpose. Acting as ,0. rud. der for the Bordentown, she was in a special sense a part of the moving power. As respects the \tug Willie, I think there is not sufficient to holdherj at the time when the real· fault in the caSe was com. mitted, viz., when going out into the bay, she was part of the moving power, but was miles distant, care, of a separate detachment of. the tow. After' $OOuring theirsl1Jety" she came .,o;ut . Kills;, for the ' p\:u'pose, giving help to: the p
needed, and met her, attempting to come back into the Kills with the -tow. If it were certain that the tow would have been saved by keeping on into the Kills, or that the Willie had caused, by any independent act of her own, the master of the Bordentown to turn again and attempt to cross the bay, doubtless the Willie W9uld be chargeable. But there is not sufficient evidence of the latter, and there is no certainty as respects the former. It should be observed that all the witnesses who speak of -the comparative smoothness of the-water on the return, while going towards the Kills, were on the -lee side. The witnesses on the weather side testify that it was becoming rougher as they went towards the Kills, against the tide. The most proper view, as it seems to me, to take of the situation when 'the Willie reached the Bordentown is that the tow -was already in a desperate situation, through the Bordentown's previous filUlt; that the Willie came and offered, as it washer duty to do, all the assistance she could render,8ubjectto the direction of the master of the Bo'rdentown, as to any course he thought fit to pursue under the circumstances. As before stated, the situation was one that called particularly for the exercise of the master's judgment upon the spot; and, though it . now would seem to have been a great to turn back again to' the eastward, I do not feel authorized to adjudge it a legal fault and negligence, rather than an error of judgment. If this view is correct, the Willie ought not to be held. Since no legal fault is deemed committed while she was a part of the moving power, she cannot be required to be surtendered simply for going to the rescue of boats in a desperate situation. The result is that the petitioners are entitled to a limitation of liability on accounting for the value of the Bordentown and the Winnie, with interest from the time of the loss. Though the Willie is not held for the general loss -of the tow, she must be held for the loss of the Cahill and her cargo, because she had specific instructions to leave that boat at Newark bay. These instructions con·stituted an appropriation of the Willie to'perfonn the general contract, previously entered into by the petitioners, to tow the Cahill to Newark. That boat, as' above stated, was placed on the port side, towards the forward part of the tow, for t,he purpose of being detached and left, as ordered. Contrary to 'lhese' instructions, and without reason, so far as it appears, the Cahill was carried out into the bay, and lost. It was the Willie's duty to perform her specific instructions; and, as nothing prevented her doing so, she must be held answerable for the loss of the Cahill in these proceedings. It is urged that, though the WilMe was negligent, her negligence was neither the proximate nor the natural cause of thesu:bsequent loss; but that this loss arose from a new and independent cause, not to be anticipated, viz., the negligence of the Bordentown, as the court bolds, in going out into the bay. I cannot sustain this contention. If the Bordentown, from the time when the Willie was detMhed, were regarded as an independent tug, belonging to different owners, still the petitional'S, as owners of the Willie, which had taken the contract to deliver the' boat at Newark, or to leave her at a suitable place therefor, would be personally responsible for the failure to do so.
This failure is a breach of their contract. The loss to the owners of the Cahill from this breach of contract is a total loss; and the petitioners could not set up, in diminution of damages, the negligence of the Willie, their own servant, in wrongfully permitting another tug to take the Cahill away upon an unauthorized trip. This exposed her to new sea perils, and to additional risks of negligence on the part of those having charge of her. These new risks were the direct and necessary result of the Willie's negligence; and from these risks the Cahill was, in fact,lost. The owners of the Willie must therefore answer personally for the loss, as the direct consequence of their negligence. As between them and -the owners of the Cahill, the loss was the direct consequence of the Willie's negligence. The owners of the Cahill could not be turned over to their remedy against the Bordentown and her owners, merely because there was also an independent act of negligence on the part of the Bordentown. If goods are stolen from a negligent warehouseman, the immediate cause of the loss is the act of the thief, nor is theft the necessary result of such negligence; but the warehouseman is liable for the loss, for his breach of contract, and neglect to keep with proper care, because he negligently exposed the goods to a natural liability to loss. It is the same with the Willie and her owners, as respects their duty to have detached the Cahill at the proper place to go to Newark. Having negligently omitted to do that, and having wrongfully suffered her to go rest of the tow, and become exposed to wholly new risks, on with the owners of the Willie, and not the owners of the Cahill, must bear all those subsequent risks that naturally attended their unauthorized acts. The maritime law is the same. A vessel deviating on her voyage must bear all the risks of subsequent accidents. The same rule is applied to forwarders, who are not under the obligations of common carriers. 1 Pars. Shipp. & Adm. 171, note 4, and cases cited; Goodrich v. Thompsoo, 4 Rob. (N. Y.) 75, 85, affirmed 44 N. Y. 324; Bazin v. Steam-Ship Co., 3 Wall. Jr. 229; Goddard v. Mallory, 52 Barb. 87; MaN: v. Steam-Ship Co., 22 Fed. Rep. 680; Phillips v. TheSarah, 38 Fed. Rep. 252. This is not a loss by the act of God, as in Railroad Co. v. Reeves, 10 Wall. 176; but the loss arose by a continuous and natural sequence of events set in motion, not by any new intervening agencies, but directlyby the Willie's own .tortious act, as in Railway 00. v. KeUogg, 94 U. S. 469, 476. Tpe agency of the Bordentown was an ag;ency to which the Willie directly and wrongfully committed the Cahill; and I know of no principle or authority that, under circumstances like these, would exonerate the petitioners from responsibility for the consequent loss. The petitioners, being, therefore, responsible for the loss of the Cahill and her cargo by reason of the Willie's negligence, can only be exonerated from this liability under the statute by the surrender of' the Willie, so far as necessary to pay that demand. Otherwise the Willie is free.· A decree may be prepared in accordance with this decision. v.40F.no.12-44
THE .FRED H.
et al. 1'. THE FRED H. RICll;.
(DI.8trl.ct Oowrt, S. D. New York. DecemberJ8, 1889.)
BBIPl'INo-D.uuGlD TO OABGo-.:.STRANDING.
A schooner bllund"from Mattawan to New York, took the more difficult oourse through the ihllliJnstead of outside and through the Narrows. While beating through ,theA-ill van Kull she was overtaken and passed by a tow, to avoid which she lulfed,lolt her headway, and was carried by the eddy tide on the rocks, and damaged her cargo. In an action by the owner to recover for such damagehheW, that the schooner took the additional risks to be expected in the passage of t 6 Kills; and. as the ohannel whereahe went ashore was wide enough for her to have kept ofCtbe rocks, notwithstanding the presence of a passing towJ and as the tii;le and the eddy were well known; tbe stranding waa not unavoidaDle, and the schooner waa answerable for the damage. .. ,
In Admiralty. AQtion for damage to cargo, by alleged negligent stranding. Halcyr:m. M. Close, for libelant9. A. B. Stewart, for. claimant.
BROWN, J. The libel is filed to recovel' damages to 11.', cargo of brick loaded on the schooner F. H. Rice, through the stranding of the schooner near Constable of the Kills,in November, 1888. The schooner had sailed from Mattawan, and, as the libelants contend, should' have taken the 'through the :Narrows, instead of coming thl10ugh the Kills,where the passage is more hazardous, through the narrowness of the channel and the greater liability to' obstruction by long tows. TheweMher was good, and there is evidence that in such weather the passage by the Narrows is!the most usual course. The ter's testimony'lstO the effect that the wind was northeast, and that in ,beating out of the Kills he was overtaken byatug l having a tow upon a hawser, in ,all some seven or' eight hundred feet long; that he had passed in front of the towupon\ sev.eral tacks, going· on his last tack to .the north-west,about 100 yards: in front ofthe tug;! that when; he after.wards tacked towards the south-east he was unable to proceed without runninginttdhe tow, arid therefore'luffed, and,lOsing his headway, ,dropped but· was carHedby the eddy tide on the rocks on the north shore. Ii cannot accept ,thisaccountassuflicient to throw upon the cargo the; damage occ8.sioned by stranding. In .selecting the more hazardous passage ·of the Kills; instead of going by the Narrows, the master took the-additional risks to .be expected in the Kills. He had .full notice oithe course ofthetowl's.nd, if the tow was so far on the northerly side of the. channel as: to leave· insuffiCient room to naVigate .the schooner, be :should not· have crossed the' tug's course IQn the previous ·tack,but have ,kept ()n .the; 80ntht'1'1yside. " The channel there·, &:s shown both by the chart and in cases often before me; ·waswide enough
by Edward G. Benedict, Esq., of thll New York bar.