·.' THE BOLIVIA.
unexpected by anyone. No one doubted the ability of the barge to lie in safety at the stake-boat, and it is plain that she would have encountered no loss if loaded in a different manner. It was, therefore, without contemplation of either party that leaving the barge at the stake-boat would put her in danger of losing her deck load. The aot of the respondents in leaving the barge at the stake-boat-a remote cause, perhaps-was not the immediate cause of the loss that ensued, and did not render the respondent liable for the loss. For this conclusion the decision of the supreme court of the United States in Railroad Co. v. Reeves, 10 Wall. 176, is authority. The libel must be dismissed, with costs.
THE' BOLIVIA. l
et al. v. THE BOLIVIA.
SIPILA v. SAME.
(District Oourt, E. D. New York. April 25, 1890.)
COLLISION-STEAM AND SAIL-FOG-HoRN.
When collision occurred in a dense fog between a steamer and a schooner, and the proof showed that the steamer was navig'ating cautiously i that the schooner was seen as asit was possible that she could be seen, when It was too late to avoid . collision, and her signals were not heard before she was seen j and. that ,the schooner was using an ordinary 'not the mechanical horn provided for by statute,-it was held, that the schooner's failure to comply with the statute was the cause of the collision, and her libel against the steamer was therefore dismissed.
In Admiralty. Actions to recover damages caused by collision. Owen, Gray &- Sturges, for the libelants, Adams and Sipila. Wing, Shoudy &- Putnam, for. the Bolivia.. BENEDICT, J. These actions ll,l'e to recover damages caused by the sinking ofthe schooner Eva I. Smith by the steamt;hip Bolivia. The accident occurred on the Qpen sea in a dense fog. The proof shows that all possible precaution was taken on board the steamer to hear any fog signal that might be blown from a;lother vessel. No fog signal was hear<!''frotft this schooner until she was seen, then close at hand, on a course: crossing the steamer's bow, sailing free. The steamer at once ported to go under the schooner's stern, and reversed her engines; but the vessels Clime violently in contact, and the schooner shortly sunk. The witnesses from the schooner l3aythat they heard the fog-whistle of the steamer, and blew their own fog-horn; that the steamer was known to be approaching, but could not be seen until right upon them. The fog-horn blown by: the sqbooner WIlS, an ordinary tin horn. No mechanical horn, as' required by the statute, was used by the schooner; nor did she ,have any such hom on board. On the part of the schooner the contention is, first, that
by Edward U.Benedict, Esq., of the New York bar·. , .'
steamer 10:hea'rthescbooner's'horn waswltnt of the, '!>I'Opflili from th,e steamerhave:convinced Die noth); fault in, the, matter of lookdut.. The next th/!-t the' wa.a 'going at an unlawful rate of speed. LdQ;rl:ot .&eebow it.cap.be 1Mi!' that this collision was caused by the speed of:.thesteamer. The Jog was dense. The proof is clear that the .schoOllel'W,as seen as soon as it Was possible to see her, and was not heard before'iSha was. sel::n.· '. When she was seen the distance then intervening between ,the two vessels was so short that it would have been steamer to av,:oidthe schooner even ,had the speed of the steamer been much less than it was. But going as the steamer was, and able to do what she did when the schooner was st::en, renders it quite clear that, if the presence of the schooner had been known somewhat sooner than it was, the steamer would have avoided the schooner. For some reason the schooner could not, by the horn she blew, make her presence known until she was seen by the steamer. Had she been somewhat sdoner, there would have able to make her been no collision. The presumption is that a mechanical horn would have I\ccomplished what the tlri horn used failed to do. The schooner did but a horn blown by not use a mechani?al horp to wake heradf so doing she violated the law, and this failure to comthe mouth. ply with the law must be, held,tobe a fault conducing to the collision thafensued.' The Pennsylvania, :1,.9 Wall. 135,136. That this omission 'Was the sole cause of the collision seems to me proved by the testimony. The libels must be disQj.is,sed"and with costs.
THE 'NEW' BRUNSWICK. l
,. . . ... ,j ;.,
. , "
: ' , ."
(Dtmiet O,ourt"E. D.New York. July 24, 1800.)
, . .
;., .. Suit was '6rougbt againstLa. to recover damages alleged to bave lleen caused1W aCMlaI.boat,wbile:lollodiilgllt a dodk, by tbeswell of' tbesteamer. It a leak and sank,. and that tl1e was dis,covered about the W-me the steamer passed. The capt&ln of the .canail.:hoat' atid1l:i'is wife teStified that they felt a jar on'tbe boat which the captain .. f.9.. tl,Js'Jwellof the men engaged in loading canaHoat .,. '4'4 not'nbtlce ally swell; lleUZ, tnat It was, not proveil. that the dll,mage sued for. 'N, :waa by tile: sWell ol-11he' ateamal\ and the libel should be dismissed:. ' 'I · ..;,,.J .i,.:
i, ' ,
,to daniages. alleged to halVe i ,beencailsed to acanail-boat b)cthlt.J1llwellaIOJthe' steam.boat; New Brunswick. for. libelantS."" ·.,
Reported by Edward G.oBenedict;
ol;th6 NewYark bar.