facts be proved which show to the court the existence of at least an apparent necessity togo at full speed to avoid some immediate danger. Judged by the law, the Umbria must be condemned. Turning, now, tt) the Iberia, it remains to determine whether she also was guilty of fault that conduced to the collision. One fault charged against the Iberia, and strenuously insisted upon, is that she was on a course across the track of vessels leaving New York bound to the eastward. Cases are cited in support of this contention, which, however, are mostly, if not all,cases of river and harbor navigation. It is not proved here, 'and of course cannot be proved, that in the locality of this collision no course is proper except an east or west course. No statute nor rule nor custom proved forbids a vessel to cross the track of vessels leaving New York bound to the eastward. The Iberia was in a fog. She was sailing towards the Long island coast, sounding with her lead, and she had not yet reached 10 fathoms of water. Pilots called in this case declare such a course to be proper for her, under the circumstances, and that is my opinion. Another fault charged on the Iberia is that she ported after hearing the Umbria's whistle, and before the Umbria was seen. Such action, under very similar circumstances, has been approved by courts. The Frankland, 1 Asp. 489; The Lepanto, 21 Fed. Rep. 655; The Haskell, (court of appeal, Eng. July 8, 1889.) As a matter of fact, the porting of the Iberia gave the Umbria more time to avoid her, which was what the Umbria needed, and I am unable to see that it in any way conduced to the collision. Another charge against the Iberia is that she kept no proper lookout. But the Umbria's whistle was heard in due time, and the Umbria herself was !leen as soon as possible. Want of lookout was no cause of this collision. Again, it is charged on the Iberia that her whistle was insufficient. As to this, all thatis necessary to be said is that the proof shows that her whistle was sufficient to warn the Umbria at the distance of a mile, and to indicate to the officers on the Umbria that she was distant a mile on a course crossing the course of the Umbria. These are all the faults charged upon the Iberia that seem to deserve particular attention. So far as I am able to discover from a laborious examination of the testimony, the Iberia was guilty of no fault which conduced to the collision. My conclusion, therefore, is that the Umbria alone is liable for the damages caused by the collision in question. Let decrees to that effect be entered in the several causes.
THE BETA. THE BELLE HOOPER. GILKEY PICKFORD
et al. v.
THE BELI.E HOOPER.
Oourt, S. D. New York. December 80, 1889.)
COLLISION-BETWEEN STEAM AND SAIL-CROSSING COURSE-LoOKOUT-YAWING.
The steamer B. and the schooner B. H. were going on nearly opposite courses oft' Hatteras, and collided; the steamer striking the schooner on the starboard side at an angle of about 45 deg. On a conflict of evidence, heW, that the steamer crossed the schooner's courSe from port to starboard, when, seeing both of the latter's lights, she ported, and then steadied before g-etting sufficiently to starboard to allow for the schooner's ordinary yawing; and that she did not early enough observe the schooner, and take means to keep out of the way; and that the steame)' was alone in fault.
In Admiralty. Cross-libels for collision. Wing, Shoudy &; Put1Wm and Mr. Burlingham, for the Beta. Owen, Gray &; Sturgis, for the Belle Hooper. BROWN, J. The above cross-libels grow out of a collision between the steam-ship Beta and the schooner Belle Hooper off Hatteras on March 26, 1889, whereby the schooner was so damaged that she sank on reaching Hampton Roaas. The vessels were sailing on nearly opposite courses,the steamer, on a course N. by E. ! E., at the rate of about nine knots per hour; the schooner, S. S. W., at the rate of about three knots. The collision occurred a little after 7 o'clock in the evening, the steamer's stem striking the schooner on the starboard side near the fore rigging, at an angle of about 45 deg. The wind was light from the N. E., the sea calm, and the weather a little hazy; but lights could be seen at a good distance. The evidence shows that when the vessels first came in view of each other's lights they were nearly end on, varying from this by less than half a point. On the part of the steamer, it is claimed that the schooner changed her course across the steamer's bows. But I am satisfied, from the whole evidence, that this defense is not sustained. It was the duty of the steamer to keep out of the way of the schooner. The lights of the latter were visible in ample time to enable the steamer to do so. And as I must find that the schooner held her course, and is in no wise to blame, and there was nothing in the way to prevent the steamer from avoiding her, it follows that the responsibility for the loss must fall upon the steamer. In arriving at the above conclusion, I have not failed to observe carefully all that has been said by the master of the steamer, and by the other witnesses in her defense. But the theory presented by the master, his estimate of times and distances, of the amount of his porting, and of the amount to which he brought the schooner on his port bow, namely, some three or four pointsllt a distance of three or four hundred yards, cannot possibly be correct, since the collision in that case could not pos-