THE SARAH THORP'.:':
into the harbor against a head wind, for'shelter, the weather outside being squally and threatening. As they entered the channel leading up to Shelburn, both were close hauled on the starboard tack, the Essex being the following vessel, and her position being to the leeward of the Blake. The Essex, being the faster vessel, passed the Blake, and when near the western shore of the channel came about on the port tack, and soon afterwards ran into the Blake, striking her on the port side at about a right angle, the latter having kept on her course, and not having as yet changed her tack. It is claimed on the part of the Essex that the Blake ran across her bow before she had gathered headway after tacking. This is disproved, not only by the testimony of the men on the Blake, but also by the extent of the injury inflicted on the Blake. She was cut down to below the water Hne, and her whole side broken in, so that she filled rapidly, and was beached to save her from sinking. The preponderance of the evidence is strongly in favor of the contention of the Blake that the collision occurred near the mid-channel, and after the Essex had recovered her headway and was going at a considerable speed. ,The Blake, being on the starboard tack, then had the right of way, and it was incumbent on the Essex, being close hauled on the port tack, to avoid her. The weather was clear, and the lights ofthe Blake could be seen plainly, and her presence was in fact known to those in charge of the Essex. No excuse for the collision is shown on the part of the Essex. Decree for the libelant.
THE SARAH THORP. THE AMERICA. THAMES TOWBOAT CO. ALLEN
THE SARAH THORP.
et al. v.
(Circuit Court of Appeals, Second Circuit. February 16, 1899.)
The steamer S. T. and the tug A. met at night in Long Island Sound. The A. alleged that she sawall the lights of the steamer about a mile away, and ported; that, not losing the steamer's green light, she blew one whistle, llnd again ported; that, hearing thereafter two whistles from the steamer, she blew alarm whistles, and reversed. The steamer alleged that she saw only the green light of the tug; that ShA starboarded to pass under the stern of a sailing vessel; that thereafter she heard two whistles from the tug, and further starboarded, and her two whistles were repeated ; that, though she shortly afterwards saw that the A. was QOming to port, she kept on at full speed, her only cllauce to avoid collision, by that time, beinA'to get across tlle bows of the tag. The latter llit the steamer on her starboard side about amidships.. The court finding, on evidence, that the vessels were meeting end on, or nearly so, held, that the failure of the stellJller to appreciate the' relative positions of the vessels, and her consequent starbClarding, were the causes of the collision, .for Which, therefore, the steamer was in fault. 44 Fed. Rep. 68t, aftirmed.
In Admiralty. Appeals from of the district court of States for the district of Connecticut, sustaining the libel of the owners
against the Sarah Thorp, and dislilissing the libel of the of the Sarah Thorp against the America. 44 Fed. Rep. 637. of the Sarah Thorp appealed from both decrees to this court. The Affirmed. , Jariwa Parker, for the Sarah Thorp. Sam."w, Park. for the America. Before WALLACE and LACOMBE, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM. We agree with the conclusions of the district judge that the vessels were meeting end on, or nearly so, and that the Thorp failed to nppreciate the situation by reason of her effort to avoid the sailing a maneuver which placed her in danger of collision with the Amerka. The new testimony as to the usual courses of boats such as the Ampl'ica.1 when coming up the Sound under like conditions of wind and tidt:l,40es. not seem to us to warrant the rejection of her positive tesHmopyt4at she passed near Stratford point. The course sworn to by her'master isuot unreasonable, harmonizes with subsequent events, and would pring the vessels into view of each other, end on or nearly SOj the testimony from the America is corroborated by the independent witness from the barge in tow. The decree oithe district court is affirmed, with costs.
THE SOUTH BROOKLYN. CASTLE
THE SOUTH BROOKLYN.
April 25, 1892.)
(District OOUrt, S. D. NflW York.
COLLISION-VESSELS AT PIERS-OBSTRUCTING FERRY SLIP-SAGGING.
Where the e,vidence indicawd that libelant's canal boat was projecting some 80 feet across the mouth of a'ferry slip, contrary to the city ordinances. and the lights of the canal boat were hidden bya tug until the ferryboat was within 100 feet, and that the approach of the ferryboat was cal'efnl, and, after the lights of the canal boat were seen, the best that the ferryboat conld do, in view of the locality and the was to go ahead, and not stop and back outside of the slip, it was held that tlie ferryboat was not in fault for entering her slip, nor for the collision whioh ensued by the sagging of her quarter against the enoroaohing boats.
In ,Libelfor collision. Hyland &:Z<ibriakie, for libelant. Burrill, Zabriakie &: Bur-riU, for claimants. BROWN,District Judge. After dark on the 29th of October, 1891, a o'clockp. M., as the ferryboat South Brooklyu was going into her slip between piers 2 and 3, East river, her stern was carried by flood tide against a tier of five canal boats which had made a landing a few minutes before at the end of pier 3, whereby the stem of the libelant's boat, which was the outer boat in the head tier, was damagqdby tile braces of the ferryboat beneath her guards. The Wl\8 filed to recover the damage.