banyandher cargo were &20;700. Considering the 'peril the Albany 'was in, and also 'being of opinion that the compensation should be ,considerably , enhanced on account of the extraordinary character of the defense. I fix: the salvage at $4,000. A decree is to be entered for the libelants for thatatilount with costs. ' Ordered accordingly.
(DlBtrl.ctt;Jourt, E. D. New York. :March 28, 1890.)
NhmN';';'PB:aS01UL INJURIES-NEGLIGENOEOF FELLOW-SERVANT.,
A vel!l8!l1 and her Qwners not negligence of another seaman.
for injuries to ,a seaman caused by ,
In Aamiralty. Actio\i for damages for personal inJuries· .A. E. Stewart, for libelant. ' , Wing;, Slwudy &: Putnam, for claimant. BENE:DICT, J. This is an action for personal injury, brought by one olthecrew,of the American ship Sachem. On January 11, 1888, while theap.ip was lying' at anchor in Bristol roads; the crew, under the di. recW>'n:sof the mate, undertook to rig in the jib-boom. ' After the headgear was slackened, and the head of the boom raised clear, the boom came in gradually, until it reached the inner jib guy band, where it iti the bowspritcs,tp. The, men not succeeding in clearing it, the went out himself, and tried to pry the boom clear with a crowbbOm would not come. The mate ordered the heel rope to bar, beta'kert' oft' the capstan, and made fast to the shank painter bitt on the port side; and tackle to be made fast to the capstan. One of the crew, named 'Scotty, held the heel rope at the bitt, and the others began heav-,' ingon the capstan.rrhe boom not starting, the mate, as the libelant says,' drdered Scotty cast theheel rope off, and then gave the end of ,booIil another pry with his bar, when the boom started, surged in, and caught the libelant's leg between it and one of the towing bitts, bre!lkil'lg tJ:1e leg. The mate declares that no order was given by him to cast oft the heel rope, and that, the accident was caused by the act of, Scotty' inC8;sting offthe heel rope without orders. , ' Upon the testimony, I think theW-eight of the evidence is to the effect thatSqotty let go the heel rope without orders from the mate. This being so, case is one of damage caused by negligence of a fellow-serv,. ant, fot :Which the libelant cannot recover. If it could be found, upon the testIm0I:lY, that injury of the resulted from the negligence ot the illate in directing the heel rope to be cast off, a question
JRe}lortedby Edward G. Benedict, Esq., of the New York bar.
wonld then be raised very similar to the question decided by the preme court in the caSe of Railroad Co. v.Ross, 112 U. S. 377, 5 Sup. Ct. Rep. 184, where the court held the negligence of a. conductor of a railroad train to be the negligence of the railroad company. cision might be found to be authority for holding that the chief mate of a-ship, in charge of the deck, authOiized to command the movements' of the ship; to direct when she shall start, when she shall stop, and what sails she shall carry,-has the management of the ship so that the ship and owners thereof are responsible for injuries resulting from hig negligence. But the evidence in this case is not sufficient, in my opinion, to justify a finding that the injury to the libelant resulted from negligence on the part of the mate. The libel is dismissed upon the ground that the cause of the accident was negligence of Scotty, a fellow-servant with the libelant.
THE BRITANNIA.' THE BEACONSFIELD. CLEUGH
v. THE BRITANNIA.
'D. THE BEACONS-
CoMPAGNIE FRANCAISE DE NAVIGATION A VAPEUR FillLD. CoTTON
THE BRITANNIA. et al.
(Circuit Oourt, S. D. New York. March 7.1800.)
COLLt8tOl<r-eROS8ING STEAMBRB-STOPPING INSTEAD OF HOLDING COURlIl!I.
The Britannia and the Beaconsfield exchanged signals to pass port to port. When about half amile apart, the former touched bottom, and, to avoid grounding, went straight ahead at full speed for about half a minute, and passed some 600 feet of deep water without turning iJ!,to it. Her swing to starboard was then retarded by the ebb-tide and west wina, though her helm was put hard a-port, and for a brief space she made a slight swing to the westward. The Beaconsfield, being retarded by tide and Wind, was going much slower than the Britannia. When four or five lengths apart, the movements of the Britannia at that time not Indicating that she was porting, the Beaconsfield blew a single whistle, and, hearing no answer, reversed, the danger of collision continuing. Shortly after she reversed, the Britannia commenced to swing to starboard, and apparently they would not have collided had the Beaconsfield continued. Her pilot testified that there was a reef of rocks, which made it dangerous for her to continue in her course. Held, that the Beaconsfield was without fault, and the Britannia was liable for the loss of her and her cargo.
On appeal from district court.
FINDINGS OF FACT.
34 Fed. Rep. 546.
FirBt. On the 19th of November, 1886, about 10 o'clock A. M., a collision' occurred in the harbor of New York, at the mouth of the river, between the steam-ships Britannia and Beaconsfield, by which the Beaconsfield was shortly afterwards sunk.
84 Fed. Rep. 546.