THE NELUE CLARK.
were unable to stop their headway in time. The bow of the Spaulding was driven violently against the schooner, etriking her on the port side about amidships, causing damage. The Nelson was at fault. She was the overtaking vessel, and was bound to keep out of the way of the Spaulding. Rev. St. § 4233, Sailing Rule 22. It is a mistaken idea that, because at the moment of turning the Nelson was in the lead by half a length, she ceased to be the overtakingvessel. She retained that character until she had completely passed the Spaulding. The object of the rule is to avoid collision. Here both ve"sels had a common object, to attain which on the part of the Nelson it was necessary for her, being to starboard, to cross the course of the Spaulding to her port side in order to first reach the schooner. The Spaulding, as the leading vessel, was entitled to hold her course. The Nelson remained the overtaking vessel until she had so far passed the Spaulding that she could safely cross the latter's course, or safely intervene between her and the schooner. The Nelson had full knowledge of the position and course of the Spaulding. Attempting to pass, or to croSs her course, or to intervene between her and the schooner, the Nelson must assume the peril, and is responsible for the consequences. The Rhode Island, Olcott, 505; Kennedy v. Steamboat Co., 12 R. I. 23; The Bay Queen, 27 Fed. Rep. 813; The City of-Brockton, 37 Fed. Rep. 897; The Spaulding was not at fault. She had the right, if she could, to maintain the lead, so long as she did not improperly interfere with the Nelson. Each had the right to move at full speed, navigating properly to avoid collision. Sturgis v. Clough, 21 How. 451, 453. The Spaulding in no way interfered with the course of the Nelson. Her speed was in no proper sense the cause of collision. But for the Nelson's faulty management, the Spaulding would have cleared the schooner. She had no reason to anticipate the wrongful act of the Nelson. Immediately upon the collision she reversed her engine and took all possible action to avoid striking the schooner. She did no act that in any legal view contributed to the injury. Decree for libelants as to the Nelson, and dismissing the Spaulding, with costs against the owner of the Nelson.
THE NEI,LIE CLARK. FINLEY
THE NELLIE CLARK.
(District Court, D. Massachusetts. May 80, 1892.)
COLLISION-VESSELS AT REST-NEGLIGENT LOOKOUT.
On the evidence in this case. the court found that libelant's boat, which claimant averred was closehauled on the port tack at the time of collision, while his boat, the N. C., was closehauled on the starboard tack. was in reality at rest, attached to a trawl, and in sight of the N. C., which admittedly had no lookout. Beld, that the N. C. was l1able for the co1llsiou.
!for collision. Decree for libelant. C. T.&:T. If. RU88ell; for the Freddie. Carver &: Blodgett, for The Nellie Clark. NELSO:N. DistriotJudge. This isa libel filed by John R. Finley, owner. of tbel<>blSter boat Freddie, against the schooner Nellie Clark for collision. The collision occurred in. iBroad sound, in Boston harbor, on the afternoon of June 21, 1891. Bytbe collision the Freddie was completely destroyed, with her outfit. The weather was fine, and the wind light. The Nellie Clark.wasbound out, and was sailing closehauled on the starboard tack. Her contention is that the Freddie was underway, on the port tack, and .that she therefore had the right of way, 1:J,n.d,theFreddie was·bound to keep clear of her.· The claim ofthe libelant is that his boatwas at rest, attached to a trawl anchored to the bottom.. :l'hiais the only issue in the case, and I find it in favor of the libelant.,' Tbat his boat was fast to the trawl is sworn to by the libelant, Rnd bytbe man who wllS with him in the boat, and they are confirmed by a witness who was in.a; boat a short distance away. It is admitted that there was nolookout on the Nellie Clark, and I am convinced that the l\.<:lClidenthappened through the failure of the men in charge of her to seethe boat in lle8S(!1ll to avoid her. The boat was in plain sight, and there was no excuse for not seeing her. The value of the boat and .fittingBwas provedto be $200, and the libelant is entitled to a deetee for that amount. .Decree for the libelant for $200 and costs.
D. MasBachusetts. Hay 26. 18llS.)
OOLL1810l(--S.ULVESSELS BIIATING-STARBo.lRD AND PORT TACltS.
Two schooners, 1;l;ie ,:Q·. ,a,qtH,he E., were clQse hauled Qn the starboard taok. The time was night, the weather clear, and lights could be seen plainly. The E. went about on the port tack. and afterwards collided with the B. Her claim was that the B. had run across her bow Defore she had recovered headway after tacking. HeW, on the evidence, that the E. had reIJovered her headway. and, being on the port tack, was bound to avoid the B. on the starbOard tack, and hence was liable for the collision.
In Admiralty. Libel for, collision. O. T. &: T. H. Russell, for libelant. Edward S. Dodge, claimant.
Decree for libelant.
NELSON, District This is a libel filed by the master of the schooner Edward Blake' of Lockport, Nova Scotia, in behalf of the owners of the .. and cargo, against. the fishing schooner Essex, of Glouce,ster, tn .this in a CR\lSe of collision. The collision occurredon the 12th ofOotober , 1890, at about 8 o'clock P. M., near the entrance Snelburn harb/W, in Nova,ScQ#a,. Bothvefjsels were beating