TliE ROBERT B. KING.
infringement of letters patent, by reason of' the uSe of the property. Wanzer v. Truly, 17 How. 584, 585; Krumbhaar v. Birch, 88 Pa. St. 426; Geist v. Stier, 134Pa. St. 216, 19 At!. Rep. 505. Finally, the general allegations, without further specification, that the plaintiff" has not com plied with its contract," and that the defendant" has already been put to great delay and exposure and damages to the amount of ten thousand dollars," are altogether too vague, indefinite, and uncertain, as the authorities cited at the 0:eening of this opinion demonstrate. The court below was entirely right in holding that the affida\Tit of defense was insufficient, and in entering judgment for the plaintiff. Judgment affirmed.
THE MARY LYMBURNER.
(Dtstr!ct Oourt, D. Massachusetts.
May 81, 1899.)
CoLLISION-SAIL VEBSELS BEATING-DUTY TO RUN OUT TACit.
Two sQllooners were sailing in the same general direction, olosehauled on the .port tack. The swifter vessel, the K., passed the other, the L., to leeward, and.tben came about on the starboard tack, and was struck before she had fairly gathered headway. There was sea room enough for the K. to have continued further on her port tack. HeW, that the L. had the right to assume that the other vessel would beat out her tack, and that for her failure to do so the K. was liable. .
In Admiralty. Cross libels for collision. Frederic Dodge and Edward S. Dodge, for the Mary Lymburner. Thomas J. Morrison, for the Robert B. King. NELSON, District Judge. These cases are cross libels for collision between the schooner Robert B. King and the schooner Mary Lymburner. The collision occurred on the afternoon of December 12, 1891, near Bishop and Clerks light, on Nantucket shoals. The weather was fine. They were both small coasting schooners, laden with lumber, with high deck loads, and were bound to the westward. They were running in the same general direction, with all lower sails set, c1osehauledon the port tack, and were beating into Hyannis harbor against a head wind for shelter, the King being to the leeward. The Lymburner was going nbout five knots. The King was sailing faster than the Lymburner, and having passed her to leeward, came in stays to go about on the opposite tack, thereby ranging across the bows of the Lymburner and getting directly in her course. After she began to fill away and beforeshEl' had fairly gathered headway, she was struck by the Lymburner with a square blow at the main rigging on the port side. Upon these facts the conclusion is inevitable that the collision was caused by tile King's luffing across the bows of the Lymhurrier in such close proximity as to render it imllossible for the Lymburner to avoid the collision by any change ofcourse.
Dlile ,before ta,<;k., , circumstances of the The-evidence on the is that the:pqm,inK in stays by the King was im,and her helm was pU,t hard up. and her mllinilheet let go, in the hope of causing her whichw8$ the only possible way of lessening the blow, and though the off,sqmewpat, yet ,(bere was nO,t time or room to go clear. I am satisfied t,hisjBl!o of what and that the claim of the King that there was sufficient room,is wrong. The King further claims that she was then getting into shoal water, and was obliged to go about for her own safety. This belief of her master was undoubtedly the reason of his going about when he did, but he was mistaken. There was ample room for her to proceed much further towards the shore without-danger. Her master lacked in experience and was unacquainted with the navigation at this po,int, and this accounts for the disaster. The men onithe 'Lymburner 'were lamiliar with the locality, that the, Ki,ng would run out her course. and had the right to The change by the latter was sudden and unexpected, and was without is dismif'sed with and excuse. The libel is to be a deuree tor the liuelants. ·
THE LENA.' THE
DltMARIS 1t;' THE GENERAL
(O!rtmlt Court Qf".4ppellls,
May 24, 1899.)
, Two'steam the L.aild,the M., each wIth. a tow, approached each othel'nearly head on, by rliglil.:tn the Delaware river, and each disllovered the approach of the otlier When ab91ltn mile apart. , l::Jlgnals of Qne whistle were eXllhanged when the vessels were a.ho,lt one-half a,mile apart, and both ported their helms, The court ,', ffound, On ,conilleting evidence. that the M.was on the proper side of the channel, ,COUld not gone further inshore, ow;ing to the presence of anchored i , the L. either had gone too far towards, the sDore before portlDg her . helm, 01' thatshe'l1:id' not port it sUflklently.-lind hence heLd that for the collision the two tows ,the L. was faUlt.,
BTUB qP CHASNEL.
:,Appeal frorq ,the District 90urt of the United States for the Eastern District of Pt'nnaylvnnia. , . ;, ,In Admiralty. Charles of the tug Laura B., of the barge: ;Ltlpa WlUpel',cargo, against the tug Gtluera! G.