(ogwithout a compass on board., ,At the time of thecollisirin she was utterly ignorant of her position" supposing herself to be in the middle of the river,when in fact she was steaming some. three miles an hour, OOad on, to tbeNew York piers, and close to them.: ·Her testimony shows that she discovered her compass to be out of order before she went into'the fog. Upon such a discovery it became her duty to keep out of thefog,as she might have done,for there was then no fop: above the bridge .wheresbe then was.: Agide from'the failure to have a compass it was, in my a fault on the part of the Mohawk to go into the fog. She struck the fog bridge. She could have tied up at sornepier in that neighborhood, instead of which she attempted to pass down across the mOllth of the ferry sl1ps, and so lost her bearings, and came ilicontactwith the Howard Carroll. ' Tugs navigating the East river in such a fog as: this was do it at their peril. The libelants must have a decree,with a reference toasoertain their damages.
THE SEA GULL AND THE TRANSFER REED LONG ISLAND R.
et al. v.
t1. THE SEA GULL AND THE TRANSFER
(Dilltrf,ct Oourt, E. D. New York. April i4,1890.)
COLLTSION-STliiAlII-VllSSlliLS MEBTING-CHANGlii OJ!' COURSB-SIGNALB.
The steam-boat Sea Gull was proceeding by night up the East river, just below Blackwell's island. 'rhe steam-tug Transfer No.5. with a car-floaton her starboard side, came down the channel on the east side of Blackwell's island, made the lights of the Sea Gull on her starboard bow, and blew her. two whistles. The Sea Gull .ported to cross the. course of the Transfer No.5, but came in collision with the carRoat and was sunk. Her justification. for her course was that the tug blew her one whistle. The court found that the Transfer's whistle was a signal of two blasts. Held, that the Sea Gull was in fault for the collision.
In Admiralty. Actions for damages by collision. The suit of Reed and others was to recover for the loss of the Sea Gull. The collision broke the float loose from the Transfer No.5, and it.drifted against a Long. Island Railway Company float, lying at a wharf. To recover for the damages thereby occasioned, the second suit was brought. Hi'll8dale &: Sprague, for Long Island Railroad Company. Wilcoo:, Adams &: Maeklin, for the Sea Gull. ..,Page &: Taft and R. D. Benedict, for the Transfer No.5.
by Edward G.:Benedict, Esq., o! the New York :Bar.
BENEDICT" J. The pleadings in these cases, and the testimony of the master of the Sea Gull, make it entirely clear that the Sea Gull was proceeding up the channel outside of Transfer No.5, which was moving down the channel. 'fhe vessels were not on parallel courses, and the natural navigation under the circumstances would have been for the Sea Gull to pass up in t41'1 tide outside of Transfer No.5, and for Transfer No.5 to keep near the shore coming down. Instead of passing outside the Transfer No.5, the Sea Gull ran across the course of the Transfer No.5, intending to pass up inside of her, and so caused the collision. lIer only justification for this course is that flhe received a signal of one whistle from the Transfer No.5; The case turns, in my opinion, upon the question whether the Transfer No. 5's signal, being the first signal given. be.tween these two, vessels, was a. signal of two whistles or of one. Upon this question of fact the weight of the evidence is against the Sea Gull, and in favor of the,averment on the part of the Transfer No. [) that her first signal was two whistles. This finding is conclusive of the case. The libel of Reed against Transfer No.5 must accordingly be dismissed, and the Long Island Railroad Company must recover in their agaiJ;lst. the propeller Sea GUll; and her libel as against the Transfer No. [) must be dismissed.
RARITAN. l DAYTON.
MARSELLUS f1. THE RARITAN AND THE MERCHANTS' TRANSP.
(District Oourt, E. D. New York. April16,1890.)
CoLLISION-BETWEEN STEAMERS-CROSSING COURSES.
The steam-tug L. P. D. was lying in the Hudson river, near the New York piers, headed for the Jersey shore, and with a car-float along-side. The steambarge R., coming up stream, undertook to pass between the L. P. D. and the sh',re, but collided with the float, and was sheered against a canal-boat, in tow of another tug, on her starboard side. The R. claimed that the L. P. D. baoked the car-float into her. The court found that the L. P. D. did not back, but that the R. wrongfully supposed that she would move ahead in time to leave room for the R. to pass, and therefore heW that the R. was in fault for the collision.
In Admiralty. Action for damage by collision. A. B. Stewart, for William Marsellus.
by Edward G. Benedict, Esq·· of the New York hare