taken by the witness Lansing from the tug to have it understood that he does not swear to a light on the barge is perhaps \'e. Still further, none of the witnesses frotU.,the ferry-boat who saw the tug and barge as the ferpo-boat approache\fspellk of a red light displayed on the barge. The red light pf the. tug was burning, and it is easy to 'believe that the absence of the unusual. featul"e of a second .red light on the barge would not be remarked, it seems to me that the presence of a nid light there, if burning, would have be,en remarked, .and the omission of any witness, to n1ention that two red lights, were displayed on the tow at the :time the barge was struck indicl\tes that the two red lights were not both burning at.that time. But, whatever may have ,been the cause of the disapPearance of the only red light qisplayed to the ferry-boat as she approached, the fact of its disappearanpe is proved, and the evidence shQwingthat the tug's red light would be made to dis·ilPpear by change of coU.rse on the tug, whether the reU. light on the barge gone out, or been temporarily obstructed by some intervening object, the cause of its disappearance is immaterial. The .a'nce of the red light being proved, the navigation of the ferry-boat cannot be held to be faulty ,and her liability for the collisip? has not been . . The libel must therefore be dismissed as against the ferry-boat, and .as against the tug, which was brought in by: petitioD; the evidence being that the barge and the tug bdonged to the' same owners.
& Co. v.
(District Court. E. D. New York. May 22, 1891.)
'COLLISION-STEAM-VESSELS CRO'SSING-VESSEL BACKING OUT OF SLIP. Where a steam-tug was moving at 11 high rate of speed near the piers
in the Kill von Kull, and struck and sunk a vessel which was backing out of a slip, giVing a long whistle as she backed, it was held that the collision was due to inattention on the part of the passing vessel, which rendered her liable for the collision.
In Admiralty. Suit to recover damages caused by collision. Cnrpenter &- Mosher, for claimant. Goodrich, Deady & Goodrich, for libelant.
BENEDICT, J. This is an action to recover of the propeller R. H. Williams the damage done to the tug Little Nellie in It· collision that oc,curred on the 13th of March, 1889, at 6 P. M., just off pier 4, the Seaboard Refinery dock, at Bayonne, N. J. As the Little Nellie was coming out of the slip on the east end of the pier the R. H. Williams was
Reported by Edward G. Benedict, Esq., of the New York bar.
THE ROBERT BURNETT.
coming down the Kills to the eastward, and close in upon the piers. When the had emerged but a shdrt distance froni the slip she was struck 'onlier starboard side by the R. H. Williams, and sunk. , The question of liability turns upon the question whether the Little Nellie blew a long blast of her whistle as she drew near to the end oithe pier, while passing out of the If she did blow such a whistle, and the same was not heard by those directing the Williams, it must have been owing to inattention on their part; and inattention in such a particular; under the circumstances, was great negligence, for the Williams was running rapidly across the mouths of the slips, by no means as far out as she would htive it believed, 'but very near to the ends of the piers. If, on the other band, the whistle of the Little Nellie was he.ard by those directing the Williams, she was, in fault for not stopping and staying out into the stream. , The proof is that the Williams kept up her speed until the Little Nellie appeared oursideof the ends of the pier; and the man at her wheel says he heard no long whistle from the Little Nellie. As to the fact of a long whistle having been blown by the Little Nellie as she passed up the slip nearing the end of the pier, it is proved by the great weight of the evidence, and that it could have been heard by the Williams with ordinary attention. The libelant is therefore entitled to a decree with an order of reference to ascertain the amount of the damage.
THE ROBERT BURNETT. THE DASOHI.
TRANSPOHTATION Co. v. TIlE MAYOR, ETC., OF CITY OF AND THE ROBERT IkRNETT.
YORK t ,
(District Court, S. D. Netv York.
Tows 'PASSING-LEEWAY-!NATTENT[0N. Atow of four boats on a200-foot hawser astern of the tu/!; B. met a tow consiBtlng of the tug D., w'ith two' scows on a hawser. A heavy north-west gale was blowing at thetlme, and though the tugs passed each other at what woulil have been a sufficient distance in ordinary weather, the wind caused the tow of the B. to make much leeway as headway, so that Qne of the boats on her tow struck one of the scows, and was sunk 'l'he evidence showed that neither tug paid much atteIltjon to the tows after the tugs had passed each other. Held, that for such lack of attention to their tows, botp.,tugs were responsible for libelant's damage.
In Admiralty: Suit to recove'r damage caused by collision. , Wilcox, Macklin &- 'Adams, for libelant. JameS M;Ward, Asst. 'Corp. Counsel, for mayor. Carpenter &- Mosher, for the Burnett.
by Edward G. Benedict, Esq., of the New York bar.