substantial difference in the specifications consists in the use of different termS to ,describe the same thing; The bill must be sps.tained, and a decree entered accordingly.
PATENTB CO. et ale
(Oin'cuit Oourt, D. Ma88achusetts. February 5,1890.)
PATENTS FOR lNYENTIONS-INFRI!iGEMENT-VENTILATOR WHE'ELS.
Under letters'patent No. 261,128, dated July 18,1882, for improvements in venti· lator wlleels or fans, the 1lrst claim WlIS fora.hood-shaped piece ",1. the end cf each Wing in the fan, for the purpose of holding the air from escaping. It appeared that the samE\ device had long been used in the wing's of propeller wheels for the purpose of boldinj;t the water. Held that, as .the device had been in priort/sll, the tirst claim of the patellt cannot cover all applications cf it, but must be limited stdctly to tbe form of apparatus desoribed in the patent. :
In Equity. Bill for infringement of patent. William A. Redding, for complainant. Geo. O. G. Ooale, for defendant Berry. Benj. F. Thur8ton and Henry Mar8h, Jr., for defendant Barney. Cour, J. These two suits are brought to restrain the defendants from infringitig letters patent No. 261,128, dated July 18, 188.2, issued to for improvements in ventilator wheels or fans,.and James M. for anapcount. As the main defense in both cases is the same, I shall consider them together. ,The improvement described in the Blackman patentissiqlple, and contains but one. marked feature. The specification says:
"MYI in'vention to ventilator wheels or fans which are used for the pUl'pos'e of furcing air out from buildings and other places. As the wings of such fans have heretofore been constructed. their outer ends have been left open,andtbey have been so formed that they do not, operate to catch and draw air the fan at .tPEl ends of the wings; but, on the other hand, a por· tion of. the. air gathered by the fan falls over the ends of the wings back into the room.instead of being thrown out therefrom, especiallj' when the speed of the fan is great. 'fhe leading object of my invention is to obviate this dif· ficulty, Which I accomplish by giving to the l'nds of the Wings a new 'proved cOll8truction, covering the space which has heretofore ,been left between the'diagonal end of the-Wing and the outside oOhe wheel, as hereinafter forth. *. * * The h'ading feature of my invention is found in so the wings of the fan that the space which has been heretotore left upenbetwe,en the rim of the fan and the diagonal outer end of the wing wilt 'by that part of the wing marked 'd.' I find, by actual use, that fan.!lconstructed with wingsthus made are much more efficient than . when the ends of the wi.ngs are left open, as heretofore."
The' llrstclaim,which is the only one in controversy, is as follows.
"In a ventilator fan the scroll-shaped wing, D, arranged in the wheel in Ii diagonal position, and each provided at its outer end with the part, d, covering the space between the outer end of the part, e, of the wing, and the rim, b, substantially as and for the purposes specified."
These cases turn upon the question whether Blackman is entitled to claim broadly all wings in a ventilator fan which have their end-pieces, d, bent over in a hood shape, so as to scoop in the air in which the apparatus works. Now, the record abundantly discloses that this same hood-shaped wing or blade has been used in propellers. As exhibiting this feature, it is sufficient to refer to the Rose patent for improved water-wheels of September 24, 1850, and the Curtis patent of December 11, 1877, illustrated in the Scientific American M March 23, 1878. In view of the fact, therefore, that propeller wheels having scoop-formed blades, such as Blackman describes; were well known prior to the date of the .Blackrnan invention, I cannot give that broad construction to the Blackmau-patent which otherwise it would seem to merit. It is Qy the ,<;omplainants that the propeller works in water, and the venti1a.' tor inalr"Rnd that this makes a great difference. But the apparatus in both cases works upon a fluid,.in one case air and in the other water. Admitting the difference between air and water which is so fully pointed out by the counsel for complainants, and upon which he largely relies to sustain the Blackman patent, I cannot, after most careful tion, call it invention to take the old hood-shaped blade of a water-wheel and ,place it in a ventilator wheel. It is an instance of double uSe. If the first cll1-im of the Blackman patent can be sustained, it must be strictly limited to the form of apparatus therein described, and it can. not em brace other and different forms. The defendant Berry in the first case constructs a ventilator under his patent of October 4, 1887, and the defendant Barney constructs his wheel under a patent granted to him January 2i5, 1887. It is manifest that these forms of apparatus· differ from Blackman's, and, therefore, upon the construction which the prior art compels me to give of the first claim of the Blackman patent, assuming it to be valid, there can be no infringement. Bills dismissed.
THE N ESSMORE.
(Dr.8t1rict Oourt, D. Maryland.
January 20, 1soo.)
the course, an.d·thl1ot they mistook the steamer for a pilot-boat intending to run across the schooner's stern close enough to speak them. This testimony. was corroborated by the fact that the respective courses of the vessels would have brought them together about where the collision actually occurred. Held,. that the l!choouer's witnesses be believed, though the omears of the steamer testified .that the1lGhooBer'had chaBged her course to port. .
by the steamer N. The schooner's witnesses testified that no change was made in
A schooner inside Cape Henry light-house, at midnight, was ruu into and sunk
STEAMER AND SAILING VESSEL-CllANGE Oll' COURSB.
, . ,The schQOner's wltnes!!8s testi:lIea side lights were properly burn. '-, 'tnJ! biiJ(titly; and that 'her'green light,wl/os seen by them and others from !tb:esteam. , , er s'lleek,&ftel' the collision_ The:pilot aud master of the steamertestifled thltt they were on the lookout for a pilOlrboatithat, on discovering her maslrhead light, they burned a bl\1e light as a signal j that sOOn after they saw a torch in that direction, which they took to be an answering signal from 'the pilot-boat; that they saw a small whiteJight,which was moved uP,lUIll down once or twice jaud that, though they looked catefully, they Could see no side'lights on the vessel, which afterwards proved ,to be the, Sobooner.lt also appeared -that the burning of the: blue light on the ,steamer a,blindingejfect, and l\V,Quld m!lokeJt impossible for those whose eyes were ai'rectea by it to see thegreel1l1gbt of the schoonerfor some time afterwards; ,that the attention of the master and-pilot was concentrated on tbemast·head light of the pilot-boat, watching for an apswering signal; and that after the answering signal the 'schooner and steamer' were so close that all that could be dont:> was to reverse tbe-steamer's engine.. : The' pilot'admitted that he saw a small green light just before collisionhiP. SQhQOIl61,"S rljitging. tlJ,at the evidence fairly establlsliedthat the sc oonlilr1sgree'n light was burnmg.
8; ,',;'t"", ." " ,,"
that the m$ll_ of the schooner would not, have been justified in changing bel,' oourse even if he bad'closely observed the steamer's lights, the fact that tlie schooner's loo!rout,after reporting the steamer's' lights, was called away to help, J8tup a saU, Dot put the schooner in faulli. · wttnelllleS tbe eolUsion, will not be. given much :weight to discredit their sworn testi· monyoll thl:l triQ1, when tbe proofas to wl1a.t.they said was uncertain.
AIlell86 COntradictory statements, made by some of
In Admiralty. Libelfor , Frank [Goodwin, Eugene ·P.Ghrver, and MarihaU Brouni' & :Bffl'M, for defennant.
' " , HaU. for libelants.
MORR1S;,,J.This libel is filed by ·the owners of the schooner to re-. from a collision which happened about midnight' bay, just inside ofCape on the'2Oth of August, l889,in a large iron"screw steamHenry light, between the steam-ship schooner Joseph Wilde, of ship of over;2,200 tons, and the about ,300 tons. The schooner was cut into on herstarboard side, between her main and mizzen rigging. nearly t6 her keel, and was a total loss, with all the\property on board. The schooner was loaded "·ith ice,and was on a voyage from Bangor, Me., to 'Richmond, Va. She came in port froUl the- sea:pa.st Cllpe Henry betweerl'10 and 11 o'clock that night; ,The wind was,a good stiff sailing breeze, from N. N. E., and her course was W. N. W.; and she had reached a point three or four miles Cape Henry light when she was struck. It was the master's watch; and he was on deck, with one seaman at the wheel and one on the lookout. 11 o'clock the' master went below, and called the mate to About during the aftassist in getting up the spanker, which had been ernoon on account of the winBand Sea outside: The schooner was mak. the as the master ing five or six knots an hou:" came on deck again, the lookout reported a light; and, going forward, and light 'ora the master saw,vhat he took to steamer three or, foul' pointS Qn l)isstlu;'Qoard .bow:. Ai,terIooking at ;it, he-came back aft,and to bring the rilate did, it on t.be side, just aftofthe fore rigging: ·After the torch had been and extinguished, the master took-the wheel'; Qlid"the mate' aqrl,lil.ll the sellmen, including the
100Kout', went 'to work to loose the spa:nker, and 'get it up. They had -'got the peak 'of the sail about half-way up, and were going across to the 'port side to get at the throat halHards, when they saw that the steamer 'was close upon them, on their starboard side; and immediately after'Wards 'the vessels struck. All the men on the schooner at once clhnbed 'up, some on her main and some on her mizzen rigging, and gotont0 ,the stellmer's bow, and were S8\"ed. The cut made by the stem of:the 'sieamer entered aft of the schooner's main rigging, and penetrated liquely towards her mizzen mast; and the blow was of such force as to 'Cut well into the center of the vessel, and cause her to sink.' The master of the ,schooner, testifies that soon after: he took the wheel be 'looked, and saw both the steamer's fights, and sa.w that she was coming towards hhn,but he was not ahmrted; as he supposed it was the steam pilot';boat intending,to run across his stern oloSe enough tospea:k of ber to see j ust where his stem 'him; andjto enable those in was, he held up a lantern, which he had by him at the wheel, and waved it. ;, '%e testimony of the master and lookout, and of other witnesses the colJision the ;from the' schooner,is very positive that just schooner's side lights were properly set and burning brightly" and also 'that the schooner's green lightwas seen by them and othel'8from the steamer's deck 'after they got abourdof her, and before the schooner distiestify a:lso, very positively, that no change:was made 'in the Mhboner's course. ' ' It appen;rs froni the testimony of the Chesapeake Bay pilot, in charge of the ste&1ll611, and of ,her master,'that she had lElft Baltimore in ,the morning"on's. voyage"tO Liverpool, and that when about six miles .below York' Spitlight,t she was headed for Cape Henry light, on a course S. S. E.· : She ran that couNle, for about an hour, at a speed '9fabout 10 :knotsj which brQtJght her' off the tail of the Horseshoe, to , about the place where, usually, pilots slow down the speed of steamers 'th'eyaret8lking to sea, and signal for the pilot-boat tomke the pilot 'oil. ' Thepi16t and master were on the !;lteering bridge, a qus.rtermaster anhe wheel; and there was a lookout on the forward orloox'out bridge, ''l'heseoffirerS'ivere looking for the light of the steam pilot'boat,' which they expected to find somewhere near the Cape Henrjr light; wh:en'they made'out the lights of a long tow, consisting of two steameri! and a :vessel of some kind, coming in from the sea,' and crossing their :course from port to starboard. In, order to give this tow plenty of roo:01, the engines were slowed,andthe helmstarbbardeda little, until the tow passed about a mile and a half ahead Qfthem.The steamer was :again headed, for Cape Henry lijl;ht, audher engines were ,continued slow, 88 they wished to gradually lessen her speed, in, order to discbargeJthe pilot., After the tow had passed, they made outa white on the steamer's port'baw, which they took to Jight bethe:st.elltl\ pilot's mast-head light, about fourmiIes off..· They then bumeda the steamer's port bow, as, a signal.to :the ,pilot:boat;a.nd sooIl':artertney:saw a flare.rip light orto'rch -in ,tliat: direction,
which they took to be the answering signal from the pilot-boat, which they were expecting. The pilot-boat did in faot answer with such a torch; and it seems probable that what they saw Wal3, as they took it to be, the pilot-boat's answering signal. After seeing the torch, and while looking in thatdireotion, the pilot and master presently saw through their glasses a smll1l white light, which was moved up and down once or twice. This was no doubt the lantern held up by the master of the schooner,and waved by him. Both . the pilot and the master of the steamer ,testify positively that, although they carefully looked, they could see no. lights on the vessel, which afterwards proved to be the schoonei!l and, as they saw no side lights,' they took her to be a sailing vessel with her stern towards them,. going in the same direction with them,-sbowing her binnacle light, or some stern light. The pilot ordered the steamer's wheel apott, and presently, discovering that she was a sailing vessel, coming towards the steamer, and apparently ohanging her COUrse across the steamer's bow, he ordered the engines full speed astern, to which the master replied that they were going astern. The pilot states that when the schooner was getting across the steamer's bow, and. was about 100 yards off, he discovered for tbe first time; through ,his glasses, 'Il small green light in the schooner's starboard rigging. The pilot and master of the steamer express themselves with some hesitation as to whether, at the moment of collision, the steamer's headway had been The master is inclined to think it was, and that she had begun to go astern; but from all the testimony, from the violence of the blow, and from the engineer's log, 1 conclude that the steamer muathavebeenmoving forwa:rdat least five miles an hpurat the time oBhe collision. The pilot-boat remained 'stationary where she was laying when her mast-head light was first seen; and the working of the engines after the collision, as evidenced by the engineer's log, would hardly have brought the steamer to the pilot-boat, if she had lost her headway at the time of the collision. There is an explanation of the statement made by those on the schooner that they saw the steamer's green light off their starboard bow,which I think is very obvious, and which assists in fixing the sequence of occurrences preceding the collision; and that explanation is that it was· the blue signal light which was burned over the steamer's port bow which the lookout and master of the schooner saw, and which they not unnaturally took for her green starboard sidelight. It would appear from the testimony of the schooner's lookout that after he went .on the top-gallant forecastle" at 10 o'clock, he made three reports of lights-First, the lights of the tugs and tow; next, the steamer's masthead light; and, 'third,the steamer's green light, which he saw about :four points on the starboard bow, and about two and one-half miles off. Soon after he hadrepprted the green light, the torch was buroed on the ,schooner, which, probably somewhat blinded bQth, him and the mate, who was holding it; and soon after that he was called aft by the mate to set the spanker, and he gave the lights no further attention. The look 'out, the. mate, and the master of. the schooner, all testify to seeing this.
light, which they took to be green. It could riot possibly have been the steamer's starboard light; and it must have been the blue signal light, which was burned over her port side, and which, while burning, would obscure her red light to them. That the schooner made no change in her course is, I think, fairly established. The testimony of her master and qrew is positive that she held her course; and I find nothing to cast a doubt upon their testimony on that point. It receives confirmation, also, from the fact that the respective courses of the vessels, without any change of course, would have brought them together just about as they actually struck. That the master and crew of the schooner were not alarmed by the approach of the steamer is shown by their continuing to work at getting up the spanker, and in the master's waving the lantern to indicate his exact position to what he supposed to be the pilot-boat. It would appear, moreover, that if the schooner had changed her course to port, which is supposed by the officers of the steamer to have been the change she made, it would, if done in time to alter ber position, have probably avoided the collision, as they frankly admit. That the pilot and master of the steamer estly think that the schooner did change her course I have no doubt, but it is common experience that a sailing vessel, in the night-time, appears her course as her sails come more distinctly into view; and this impression upon the senses, in such cases, is stimulated by the strong bias to believe it is so, affecting the persons who observe it from the other one of two colliding vessels. It cannot be relied upon, therefore,without proof of corroborating facts. The principal difficulty, as it seems to me, of this case, is whether or not the schooner's green light was burning, 110 as to be visible to those on boalld the steamer. The burden of proof is upon the schooner to prove that it could be seen; and I am free to say that if there were no way of accounting for the posHive testimony of the pilot and master of the steamer that they could not see the light except by discrediting their veracity, I should find great difficulty in doing so. They are both men of experience and reputation, and they gave their testimony with apparent candor and fairness. They testified quite independently of each other, and with no opportunity of either knowing what testimony the other would give. But there is unusually strong and !lirect testimony, from those on board the schooner, that the light was burning properly both before the collision and afterwards; and there is the admission of the pilot that he saw it dimly just before the vessels came together. In my judgment, the preponderance of proof fairly establishes that the schooner's green light was in its place, and burning; and there are circumstances developed by the testimony which, I think reasonably explain why it was that the pilot and master failed to observe it. Whether the steamer's lookout saw it or· not is not positively known, as he had shipped from Baltimore, in order to reach his home in Germany, and, on the steamer's arrival in Liverpool, at once left the ship, and could never afterwards be found. But I take it that his testimony would be the same as that of the pilot and master. In the first place, i.t is quite
probable that: w.hile the longstritig of lightson the t'Yo steamers and and passing the steamer, the, schooner's light, being beyond them, could hardly, be made out from the steamer. " mediately after the tow passed, the blue light was burned over the steamer's port bow ,just in thelinein which the schooner's green light would have appeared frvmeither the steering or the lookout bridge of the steamer, The effect of that ,light was blinding for the time, and made it impossible for those whose eyes were affected by it to see Ii green light in that direction, either while it was burning or for a short time afterwards. It was probably.duringthe:burning of the blue light .that the schooner; showed· her torch, and that torch was not seen from the steamer for th.esame reason. The pilot and master of the' steamer having before that seen the pilot-boat's mast-head light,'""""7"which, no doubt, was a very good one,-after the blue light was burned, concentrated their attentian .onthat light, to see if the pilot-boat gave them an answering signal.. They watched that light, and presently saw the answering torch exhibited ,on the pilof.boat. The bridge of the steamer is 136 feet from the bow, and is not a favorable place for seeing a light which is as closeRS the schooner's light then was. During all this time the steamer, andscbooner were approaching; and it was not until they were close to, each other, and the master· of the schooner held up ,his lantern, that' she attracted their ,attention at all. Then the schooner was so close that all that could be 'done. was to reverse the engines of steamer; and theatterttion of those, on the steamer was engrossed in, the movements of their own ship, and in trying to make out the exact nature and course of the 'approaching vessel, and not to observing her lights. I cannot take their fililureto see the green light during this short val of time, with their attention thus distracted, as sufficient to overcome the affirmative proof that it was properly burning. There is another explanation 'which suggests itself as accounting for the collision, which is that the pilot and master of the steamer did not see the an8wering ,torch of the pilot-boat, whioh was much further off, but did see the torch exhibited by the schooner, which could have appeared nearly: in the same direction. If this be the fact, it would explain a remark which the mate of the soh,ooner says the master of the steamer made to him after the collision on the bridge of the steamer. The mate testifies that he asked the master of the steamer if he did not see the schooner's tOrch, and the master I saw the torch, and if you had not shown it I would not have run into you." If this explanation is the true one, the officers of the steamer mistook the schooner for the pilotboat, because her tQlch was the answering signal they were looking for; and,they then shaped their course, not to avoid her, but to run close to ber. The steamer would thenveny,soon show both her side lights to thei schooner; and the schooner's mate testifies that, after' extinguishing putting it away he came up again' on deck, and before he went to work getting up the spankerhe saw both the steamer's green.and red:!ights.'i : This explanation is consistent; also, with certain averments in the.answerfiled by the master of the steamer, in which he states that
naI,s to the pilbtr'boat to come and take That at ·11:85 the engines :"vElre put full speed ahead, but at 11: 36 they Were again slowed, and were so .continued until 11:42, when they were stopped; and the Nesstllore was then awaiting the coming of the stearn pilot-boat, which bad replied to the signals of the Nessmore, and was some distance off to poeit.' At 11 :45 the engines were reversed full speed astern. At 11 :52 the engines were' stopped, the collision having occurred, to prevent the vessels from falling apart." If the schooner was thus mistaken for the it would appear probable that from 11 :35, when the engines were 'put full speed ahead for one minute to get the steamer headed on her course,she was designedly steered for the schooner until 11 :42, 'wheJ:l the engines were stopped because they had discovered their' mistake.· If this was so, it would explain the remark about the torch-light havirig caused the collision, which the mate says he never could understand, and about which the master of the steamer was not questioned on the witness stand. It wou!d also explain why, supposing whatever lights they saw 'on the pilot-boat were the lights of the vessel which exhibited the torch, the pilot-boat and the schooner being about in the same line of vision froni the steamer, they did not concern themselves about the lights until they found they were so rapidly coming upon the schooner, and began to see her sails. It is quite possible, therefore, that there was a double mistake; those on the steamer mistaking the schooner for the pilot-boat, because she appeared to answer the blue light with a torch, anq the master of the schooner mistaking the steamer for the steam pilot, because she continued to approach him after he had warned ber of his position byexhibiting the torch. One or the other of these explanations must, I think, be the true one, and either of them sufficiently shows how it was that the attention of those in charge of the steamer was accidentally diverted from the schooner's light, and how it happened that they pursued a course which took the steamer towards her until too lateto escape the collision. It has been strongly urged by counsel for the steamer that upon the schooner's own showing she is in fault, because, a.fter reporting the steamer's lights, the lookout was called aft from the top-gallant forecastle, his proper station, and all hands except the master, who took the wheel, went to up the spanker, giving no attention to the approaching lights of the steamer. The case of The Sunnymde, 91 U. S. 222, is cited as supporting this contention. That case is authority for the rule that, even though the sailing vessel holds her course when approaching a steamer, yet, if she fails to adopt all reasonable precautions to prevent collision which ordinary seamanship would dictate, she will be held infauIt. No doubt that rule would be applicable if there.were special circumstances in this case which the master of the schooner might have learned from closely watching the lights of the steamer, and which would have plainly shown him that safety required him to depart from the statutory rule; but, as reiterated in The Sunnyside, "it must be a. strong case which Futs the sailing vessel in the wrong for obeying the
4(jt<11:30:lhe engines were slowed, and blue'lights were burned,as,sig:'
In The St/lnnytide the, steaIll'-tug was lying nearly stationary, almost dead of the sailing vessel, in a place where it was well known thtttsteam-tugs were accustomed to wait for tows. The morning that such a vessel could be seen without lights a mile had so far and a halfoi', two miles off. The court found that the officers of the had abundant time .and means after the steam-tug was resailing ported to have determined that she was l10t in motion, and that they could easily have gone either ahead of the tug or under her stern, instead of continuing to head directly for her, running her down, as she lay nearly stationary t directly across the sailing vessel's course. The special was obviously circumstances found by the court were that the not in motion, and was at 8; place where she might be expected to be found not in motion; and the reason why the sailing vessel should have departed from statutory rule was held to be that the rule requiring steamers to keep out of the way is applicable to steamers in motion. I cannot, however,. perceive how such a contention can be supported on the facts ofthis case. There was nothing by which the schooner could disinguish this steam-ship's movements froni that of any other steamsnip navigating those waters. The steamer, although she had slowed her voyage to the capes, and it was her duty to her speed, was avoid the schooner. Her officers endeavored to perfonn that dl:lty when they became aware it was a schooner. They were entitled to choose their own method of doing so. How long the steamer had seen hie light, and what maneuver she would adopt, the master of the schooner could not know from watching her lights. If he attempted ailY maneuver of his own, it might be the very one which would thwart the steamer, and put the schooner in fault. Without knowing, or any means of knowing, what the stea1+lerwas proposing to (10, no skill or observation on his part could suggest to him, so far as I can see, anything that he ought to .do, except to obey the rule, and keep his course. As shaking the credit to. be given to the schooner's witnesses, it; is urged that the court should give weight to the testimony as to alleged contradictory statements and admissions made by some of them on board the pilot-boat after the collisionj. but experience in this class of cases does not justify dependence upo:n such testimony. The persons who report such conversations are full of previous impressions, and of strong bias, which colors what. they hear; and the great liability to misunderstand what is said is very obvious. I do not find, in this case, that the proof of what is claimed to have been said, and the meaning intended to be conveyed, is of such a clear and unmistakable character as to discredit the sworn evidence of the witnesses sought to be impeached. In my judgment; the libelant's case is made out, A.nd the steamer is to be held solely responsible for the damages resulting from the collision.
THE REVENUE.! THE DREW.
NEW JERSEY STEAM-BoAT CO. 'II. CoLUEB. COLLIER'll. NEW JERSEY STEAM-BoAT CO.
(Dl.stn'1.ct Oourt, S. D. New York. Februarv 27, 1890.)
COLLISION BETWEEN STEAH .urn SAIL-INATTENTION TO LIGHTS-SHORT SCREEN-BoARDS IMMATERIAL.
A collision occurred about 1 o'clock at night, in the Hudson river, a third to onEthalf a mile below Esopus light, and from 800 to 600 feet from the west bank of the river, between the steamer Drew, on one of her regular trips from Albany to New York,and the sloop Revenue, bound up the river. By reas,on of the collision the sloop was sunk, the Drew was injured, and cross-libels were filed to recover the damages.. The channel at that point is 2,000 feet wide. The night was a little misty, but not enough to obsoure lights. On the part oftbe Drew it was oontended that the sloop was at first on the east side of the river, but that, as the Drew swung around Esopus light, the sailing vessel ohanged bel' oourse to the westward, thereby running into the Drew, whiob had shaped her oourse to pass to the west. It was also asserted that defeots in the soreen-boards of the sloop's lights oontributed to the collision. The witnesses for the sloop olaimed thatshe was always only two or three hundred feet from the west bank, and made no ohange of her oourse towards thewest. Held, on conflicting testimony, tbat the accil1ent was in the western third of the river; th.at the navigation of the sloop was proper; that she did not ohange her course; that inattention on the part of the Drew, and her unjustifiable attempt to oross the sloop's oourse to the west, caused the collision; and that if the soreen-boards.were short, that did not mislead the Drew, or oontribute to the 001· 11sion.
In Admiralty. Cross-actions for damages by collision. W. P .. Prentice, for The Drew. Hylandt!t ZabriBkie. for The Revenue.
BROWN, J. The above cross-libels were filed by the owners of the steamer Drew and the sloop Revenue to recover for their respective damages upon a collision between these vessels at a little before 1 A. M. on the 12th of April, 1889. The Drew was making her regular trip from Albany to New York. The sloop was bound up the North river. The collision occurred from a third to half a mile below Esopus light, and from three to six hundred feet oft' the west bank of the channel, which is there over 2,000 feet wide. The sloop's bowsprit struck the port bow of the Drew about 80 feet from her stem, and tore away some 50 feet of her side. The sloop was so injured that she sank shortly after. Her crew were picked up, at the Drew's request, by the steamer Amaonia, which came up the river a few minutes after the collision. The night was mild and a little misty, but not enough to obscure the lights. The wind was southerly, and very light, and the sloop was making only about two knots an hour. At Esopus light there is a gradual bend in the river, so that the Drew, in going a ·half milA around the light to the southward, makes a change in her course of about four points to starboard. After the change there is a straight reach in the river' of from two to three miles. On the part of the Drew it is contended that the sloop was on the east side of the river before the Drew had rounded
by Edward, G. Benediot, Esq., of the :New York bar.