was playing on the deck. The child was placed out of harm'&; Way fore the libelant put her hand on the end of the bowsprit to ward it off; so that this act does not have the justification of any necessity in order to rescue the child. Nor was it such an act as persons of ordinary prudence under such circumstances would have committed. CoUins v. Davidson, 19 Fed. Rep. 86. It was really the thoughtless, instinctive act of a person seeking to avert a trifling damage, without thinking of the ineffectiveness of the attempt, or its manifE:st danger to herself. The libelant is therefore chargeable with contributory negligence. In aC.cordance with the recent decision of the supreme Gourt in the case of The Max Morris, 11 Sup. Ct. Rep. 29, affirming the judgment of this court, (24 Fed. Rep. 860,) the libelant, though not entitled to full 'damages, may ,Jet be allowed some com pensation for her actual pecuniary loss. She 'fas incapacitated from her usual work for about three months, duri[)g which .time sbe was obliged to procure assistanpe in per family dutie,ll, ,at the expense of board and wages. I charge to herself her pain :Rnd suJfflring and inconvenience, and allow her a decree for $125. This i\mqunt, though [!lmall, is much more, it must be remembered, than the qamage from the collision with the Yonkers would have been.
THE RELIANCE. JOSEPH EDWARD DREDGIN.G MISSISSIPPI
Co. v. THE NAUTIQUB.
'D. THE RELIANCE.
(District Oourt, E. D. New York.
December 26, 1890.)
A in deepening the channel of New York bay, on arrlval at her dredging ground found her pumps out of order. While repairing them, she made a oirouit: and, rAturning, swung into the channel under the bows of stealli'ship N., whicn was going to sea. The dredge had no lookout, and the man at the wheel did not &ee the N. until she was upon him. The place where the collision 'o«Qurred was buoyed as a place beilig dredged, and signals were flying on the dredge to show her oharacter. At the time of the collision, an incoming steamerwaa passing the N., and the attention of the latter's officers was given to her. Held. that Doth vessels'were in fliult in keeping insuffioient lookout. ' . ' ': ''
In Admiralty. Cross-suits for damage by collision. Sullivan &: CmmweU and Carpenter &: Mosher,-for the Reliance. Butler, Stillman &: Hubbard, for the Nautique.
BENEDICT, J. These actions arise out of a collision that occurred in broad daylight in the lower bay of New York, near buoy No between the steam-ship Nautique and the dredging steamer Reliance, on
Reported by Edward G. Benediot, Esq., of the New York bar.
the 16th day of January,1888. The Reliance was engaged in dredging out a cut on the eastside of the main ship channel, and on the morning in question had proceeded to the cut, to begin work. Upon arrival there, she found her pumps out of order, and, while putting them in order, she made a circle around, with the object of coming back to her place in the cut as soon as the difficulty in the pumps was removed. Before she arrived back at her position, upon the completion of her turn, she was struck a glancing blow upon her starboard side by the steamer Nautique, then proceeding to sea, and at the time in the act of passing the steam·ship Umbria, which was coming up upon the wel>tern side of the ohannel· . The contention of the Reliance is that she made her circle within the boundaries of the channel, and within the portion marked off by buoys as the place where she was at work, and it was the duty of the Nautique to avoid her. The weight of the evidence upon this point, however, is that, in making her turn, the Reliance passed out of the channel to eastward a considerable distance, and then rounded to upon a starboard helm, to regain her position. in the cut. She passed from the shoalwater to the east of the cha11nel out into the channel, directly ahead of the Nautique, then engaged in passing the Umbria, where there was none too much room for that purpose. Considering the situation of the Umbria, the Nautique, and the Reliance, it was, in my opinion, a fault on the part of the Reliance to swing herself into the channel under the bows of the Nautique, as she did. The reason she did this undoubtedly was because she had no lookout. Her master was below, repairing the pumps, and the man at the wheel did not see the Nautique until she was upon him. I hold, therefore, the dredge guilty of fault conducing to the collision in omitting to keep a proper lookout. I also hold the Nautique in fault for omitting to keep a proper lookout. The place where she was navigating at the time of the collisic)ll was buoyed, as a place being dredged, and the Reliance had signals showing that she was a dredging-boat. Had proper lookout been kept on the Nautique, the Reliance would have been observed to be swinging into the channel in time to have avoided collision by slightly on the part of the .Nautique, or by stopping a little sooner than she did. The reason she omitted these precautions was because her attention was directed to the Umbria,and she therefore omitted to watch, as she ought to have done, the movements of the Reliance. Both vessels being found guilty of fault, the damages will be apportioned.
UNITED STATES V. DIXON.
(Dl8trlct Vourt, N. D. California. December 11, tROO.)
FEDERAL COURTS-WA.SHINGTON DISTRICT COURT-GRAND JURY.
Act Congo April 5, 1890, entitled" An act to provide for the time and place to hold terms of the United States courts in the state of Washington) " provides that "the state of Washington shall constitute one judicial district" uniformly refers to the court as the "district court for the district of Washington," and t though "for the purpose of holding terms by the district court," the district is aivided into four specified "divisions," known as "Northern," "Southern," "Eastern," and "Western," the provisions respecting the times and places of holding court refer in terms "to civil snits not of a local character, "and no mention is made of criminal offenses." Beld, that under Const. U. S. Amend. 6, providing that in all criminal prosecutions the accused shall be tried by a jury of the" state and district wherein the crime shall have been committed," an indictment purporting to have been found "by the grand jurol'S of the United States 01 America for the northern diVision of the district of Washington, sworn * * * to inquire of all offenses * * * committed within the northern division of the district of Washington, "was void, as the state constitutes but one district, and the jury must be drawll from and have power to inquire into offenses in the whole thereof.
At Law. Oharles A. Garter, U. S. Atty. WiUiam Hoff Cook, for defendant.
HOFFMAN, J., (oraUy.) The defendant having been committed hythe commissioner to answer for an offense triable in the distriet of Washington, application is now made for the usual ordtlr of removal to the district where his offense is justiceable. The only evidence tending to show his guilt was a certified copy of an indictment found against him. It purports to have been found "by the grand jurors of the United States of America for the northern division of the district of Waehington, sworn and charged to inquire of all offenses against the laws of the United States, committed within the northern divisionof the district of Washington." It was evidently considered by the pleader that grand jurors should be summoned in and for the body of each of the divisione: of the district of Washington which are mentioned in the act of April 5, 1890, and that their inquiries into offenses against the laws of the United States should be limited to ofl"enses committed within the division of the district from which they are snmmoned. This method of procedure was evidently supposed to be authorized, if not required, by the third section of the act of April 5, 1890. That act is entitled" An act to provide for the time and place to hold terms of the United States courts in the state of Washington." The third section provides "that for the purpose of holding terms by the district court said district shall be divided into four divisions, to be known as the' Eastern,' 'Southern,' 'Northern,' and 'Westl'rn' divisions. I " It then proceeds to designate the counties of the state which shall constitute each division. On recurring to the other provisions of the act, it will be seen that the intention of congress was to
lThe western division is called the" Western District," evidently a misprint or clerical error.