"11', I . n ·
.. Co.''I1.,TH,E'ED\vIN HAWIJtt.,,
; ", " : ", " ·
I,,' , ,
, " :
the masts ofa lilY' Bunk in the river,tnedisabloo. vessel, haviDgt\O rv.ddll!-", Q.lI'@eDsheer,':Which;t.h!l,tug was unable to pr!lvent, alid t)J.e of Which, in tJ!e st1'O\).geb\>-tide, was wcarry the tug ,the masts of , thesllnk\:Jn steam-ship. '):Jilor tlie damage the owners of the steam-Ship libeled' the ·t",g..,,'! Beld'"th.,vessel, WlIoS" PQ neg,ugen,eEl, the pa,rt of wastUlJ,'iD there the ,to, thel!oid of the disabled p.ot,withstandi\log ,the fog; there no negligence in her '" me'tbOd' of towing, whib1'i \+as the' only method possible ; and, as' the sheer of the .\ wail the imm!l4iaw alid lloleC4'Use Df t)J.e accident was occasioned by.the ,dillsbled Y!lSsel,and +he prevent it, or t1letug to anticipate or ,withstand it, the'tug WaS nO,t hable for tile Ilamag!l. " , ", '::,
r;; ,\.iWgj iDa",ery. dimlJl!ffllg,:wept !io the aid9f -,a disabled which she. took :' W, Ww. While tow!ni,her t() the sbore; pD a, COurlle wbich WOUld. have ,her
iWheeler, CUrtis tIc Godkin, for i1"G'ar.Pente1' tIc Mosher, fot"-elaimant.·
;:T,I· : .
, Actiori'for damage by collision.
pltny Wnssunkin the North river,itrid Mthetime in' question lay su});. metged,with her two-masts standing above the water some 20 or 30 feet. Ofithe 25th Of :B'ebrdary; 1889, the tug-boat Edwin ,Hawley, while 1yingata pier in the North 'river. in adehse fog,leilrnedthat a ferry-boat hdbecdme disabled in the river. She thereupon put out into the fog to the, ferry-boat; , .· The·ferry-bdat .was in time found, and. thereUpon the tug took herin'tow by twolines,-one leading from the stem bitts ofthe tug to the port, lind onetu the starboard bitt of the ferryboat,-and endeavored to: take of safety on the north sid$ of the river. The fog was still exceedii'lgly dense. Thetide was strong the:tUgto knowtpatshe was nearingthe New York sho1'e;bl1tit was impossible. for' the tug to know her position in the river.' . In nearing the New York shore, the course of the tug carried her ashortdistatice inside t1>,e sunkensMatlier;and, while in this way pasSing the mast dfthe'sUllken steam-ship; It;sudden sheer to westward was having no rudder, took given the tug by' a sheer which the towards shore; When tug-boat was thus sheered, she by the strong ebb-tide then running, was caught on her steamer, which' was and carrieli 'down upOll'the'mast 'of brokerioff bythecolliSidb.;'to the daUla.geof the steatn-ship, as claimed, 65,000. '. . . ,. . The evidence being that the mast was n'ot at any time seen by any one upon the tug, the contention on the part of the libelant is that a negligent lookout on the part of the tug caused the disaster; and reliance is
IR!lport!ld by Edward G. Benediot, Esq., of th!l N!lw York bar.
13EN1mtcr,J. A steam-ship belonging to the Atlas Steam-Ship Com.o.
placed upon the testimony of witnesses froro the ferry-boat, who say that they saw the mast of the sunken steam-ship before the tug came· up to it. I am by no means certain that, in such Ii. dense fog as this was, failure to see such an objectasa mast sticking up in the water was negligence. But, however this may be, it is plain that, the tug's failure to see the mast did not cause the accident. Although the mast had not been seen,'the tug-boat had taken a course which would have carried her past the mast in safety, without touching it; and that course was a1tered,not'byany voluntary act of the tug, but by the action of the ferryboat upon the stern of the tug, against which it was impossible for the tug to 'cont;end. This itwas that caused the collision. There was no negligence on the part of the tug in going out to rescue the ferry-boat, notwithstanding the density ofthefog. '. It was her duty to attempt that. There was no' negligence on the part of the tug in towing the ferry-boat in' the'wlly she did; for, so far·as appears,tha.twas the only way 1:>.le,' under the circumstances, to tow the ferrY-boat. in. The sheer of tug; which was the immediate and 'sole cause of the accident, was not caused by the tug, but by a sheer in the disabled:ferry-boat, which thefeiTy.. boat could not prevent, and which the tug was unable to antic.. ipate or withstand, and for which she is not responsible;, No fault heing1found on the part of the tug, she cannot be held liable for the dam.. age$ resulting from her contact with the mast.
TaE ANGLIA· .HENDERSON
'tI. THE: WAVERLY,
THE ANGLIA, THE A. C. OHElOJY' THE AND THE ASSISTANCE. .
(DiBtrictOou'l't,E. D. New York: Match 8,lil9o.)
Col,LJIJON ....BBTWBEN STEAM;-SHIP8- CROSSING 'CoUBSBS- Dll'J.'Y '01' VaSIBL HAVING RIGHT o:r,Wu. . . .' . . .' . " .'
When two 'steam-ships are on crossing courses, the'Velsel having the other on her portAand is not in fault for whl*lbt4ady, and il not-In,fault for slack, ening .her "!hen her are not anl1.the approaching vessel is seen fA> be aWlUgmg al though to cross h e r ' b o w . ·
acrosl mouth of tbeEast J:iver to Brooklyn. The steam-ship W., bound out of the East river, was on 'a courSe O1'OsSingth:atof the A., and had 'the latte!.' on her starboa'l'd halid.The W. had no lookout on board, ,anll the A. 411r,!pl\&ter; or pilot until a man'on a tug along-side cMled attention to one Whistling of t1re A:.'stugs. It was then too late to avoid the collision which ensued. Held, that the cause of the lision was the neg-Iect of the W. to keep a lookout. ..
'rh«!! steam-ship A. was beillg trwed by
by Edward G. Benedict, Esq., of the New York bar.