,aifulr'they andJ:lisw,atcbm.an came to the bulkhead; and had.not ,theOhampiQ,D. removed the':oo&,t8i tht\iYwould,no dOlibt, have been attended the owners, who cotftdhave i:nadeilse,if necessarY,ofasman tug; which was not far distant. It is the policy of the law, however, to encourage prOliirpilitude' and readiness to rescue property f!oom d.anger by giving 8i sqitBble, but notexeessive reward, ,according to the circumstances of each case. The value of the boats in this case seems to have,been quite small, not above $250 each; tb.e eoafori ,board of one of the value of about $400. One liundred'dollars for the boat that was light, and $150 for the other boat and cargo will, 1 think, be a sufficient this case. " ,',', , ,' 'Phe,coIJlplaints made of,the' 'haste of 1jb,e :tiling his few tiikento Twenty-Eighth ,eyen ,to, the. oftha ,boats where the boats'iwa:re. known his claim, or en· to adjust it, founded, and must prevent the a¥owance of costs., pecree aecordlDgly. '
NICKERSON v. THE RIVERBDALE. LAING v. THE ALLEN GREEN. (J?lstrtct Court, S.D. New York. November 23, 1892.)
offered.· She thereafter backed and blew alarm whistles. but the'sILiH'tI$" vessel,b:v reallon of having no lookout. did not appreciate the steaPlBr'sdisabled condition in time to, avoid her. as she might have done. For the resulting collision, held, that both vessels were in fault.
A'lte.mei'·mBstlnlf a salling vessel. put her wheel over to avoid her. wben ireI,' fuqqer;c,hain. belDg defective" broke. No expl!matlon of her insufficient
In Admiralty. Libel by A. L. Nickerson against the steamer Riv· ersdale, to recover damages fora coiji$ion with the schooner Allen Green, and.,cro!i'ls libel by Arthur Laing against the,schooner. :Decree for , ,q: .. damages. Gray & Sturge$, for the Riversdale. Robinson, Biddle & Ward, for the Allen Green.
BROWN, District Judge. At about half past 2 o'clock in the afternooD.'0f 'May24, 1892; as the steamer the Riversdalewas steaming slowly npthe npperbay a short diStance below Bedloe's island, the starboard'b6w,about 20 feet aft of the Eltem, came in collision with the bowsprit of the schooner Allen Green,which was going down, and both"l'eceived some damage, for which the above libel and cross libel were 'filed. The wind was about southwest-a fresh breeze, with oCNtsioiial lulls. The schooner, when nearly ahead of the
THE; i lUVERSDALlii.
steawer, was observed to be heading somewhat towards Bay Ridge, as. if to haul over to the' east side of the channel way. The pllot:ofthe steamer thereupon gave the order to starboard; but in thea,ttem.pt to execute that rudder chain broke, :and the steamer consequently lost the use <Yfher helm. Thereupon she shortly her engfnes, and reversed; and many witnesses in her behaUl,contend that she was actually going asterp. through the water at ,the time of the collision. The tug on her starboard side, fastened only by her bowline,had her stem swung out by the reversal of the This fact would seem to confirm ·the witnesses of -the steamer that she was actually going astern before collision. She. was previously ,nndera -slow. bell,_ and :the· testimony indica.tes that there was ample time for her to have acquired sternway. Ber witnesses contend that collision was brought about by the luffing of the schooner to .the west,ward, and because th.e ,schooner paid no attention to'thEd'epeated souhding of danger signals, both from the RiversdaJ'e?ltnd be:rtug,from the time that the rudder chain broke. I think this collision arose from the fault of both vessels. The pr: mary cause was the breaking of the rudder chain. A link of the bro ken chain· was produced in court, and showed that it had lost one third otJts area through long wear.. The iron Was of medium quality. At the time when it broke, there could not have been any unusual strain upon it. There being' no other explanation, I must hold the vessel as for insufficient appliances and equipmerit,and neglect to keep her in a proper state of efficiency and repair. See The Exe, 52 Fed. Rep. 155. I can hardly treat as an additional fault the fact that the steamer did not reverse instantly, but only after the lapse of one or two minutes, that being from five to ten minutes before collision. She repeatedly sounded danger signals; and this, together with her evident reversal, ought, I think, to have been reasonably understood by the schooner, as an indication of disability, or of somethingunusual,--enough to put the schooner on her guard, and to keep out of the way. The efi.dence shows that no lookout was maintained on the schooner. She had been just before dropped by a tug, and after the hawser wal5 hauled in, her foretopsail was ordered set. The master was at the wheel, and the mate was seeing to the execution of this order. ,Hut the men refused to obeY,andwent aft to confer with the captain; and in the mean time no one was on the lookout. The captain heard only one danger signal, and that shortly before collision, which shows that the various previous signals were not noticed. The mate, who was claimed to have been acting as lookout, was not only performing other duties, but himself states that, after noticing the steamer while they were hauling in the hawser, he did not observe her until the "next occasion," when "the captain called out to him to know what the steamer was blowing for,-blowing her whistles," which, asjust observed, is shown to have been only very shortly before collision. The schooner claimed that the tide was slack low water, and tJia,t there was .almost no wind, so that the schooner had no headway of her own.', !.am not persnaded of the correctness of either of these points. 'The other witnesses say that the tide was ebb, meaning that
'\'Wts,ebb. AcoordiIlg' to the almitnM it"ivas lii.ghwatel' 7P.'M. 'Tlie;ebb current there continues; tOI'UD three: hours of high water at Go-vel'ftor's islaridNtIbe'Dtt'lMg Holberg, 36 Rep. 917, note, div. 3;) ,on this ocabout 4: o'clock-an hour and a 'half after the oollliriron.' 'TM Wind,:m.oreo"Ver, is shown to have' been 'fresh, yiz.: frOm.121lo,jt4l1mbts; and though there were some lulls,these did not go Mlo1v'/'tJ trlCrts;So that if a proper lookout had been 'kept, there WRs iabU!IlOl1t' opPortunity, for the steamer's disabllity'w'have been recognized:; and ample wind and space for the SChooner to have kept out of 'her DeCrOOs!.may be enterM accordingly on each libel for, one half the .,
. Th ll Sandy HOok from thellastward, drawing towards the ang Island coast dn a course of W. N. W She was capable ot 9t to 10 knots an hour, but was running about 4 knots. She heard the Umbria's w;histle ,abollt two, points on her port bow, and was immediately put two. ,poin,tsto st.arboard.blowing a short whistle. She was kept on this course, though the whistle was heard three or four tim.es with increasing distinctneslPGn· her port bow, until the Umbria was seen. 900 feet away. and about ,ftvc'pdints on her port hand. Her engines werllthen put full speed ahead t() Ilr()ss Ule UmbJ;h,/s course, but she. was unable, to escape, and was hit at an angle of siX or. seven points, her stern being cut completely off. Held that, in view of the Umbria's' apparently rapid approach on a crossing course, it,1Was the Iberia's1mperative duty to stop until she could obtain a clear unllerstanding of the Umbria'S course. and she. too, was at fault in failing ,to.doso. and the case was one for divided damages. Shipman, J .. . dissenthtg.· 40 Fed. Rep. 898, reversed. 8.SAME-DAlIIAGES-ToTAL LOSS-SUBSEQUENT FREIGHT. In case of destruction of a vessel by collision the recovery is limited to her . value. with interest from the time of the loss, and freight which would have <mthe particular voyage, and there can be no recovery of net been freight wlii'ch would have been earned on a subseqqent voyage from the port of immediate destination. and for which the vessel was already engaged. 46 .)3'ed. Rep. 801, reversed. 4. SAME-BOUNTIES. In case of destruction by collision. the fact that the vessel would have been able to earn a bounty under the law of her nationality is an elem.ent of value proper to be considered, but 1)0 allowance can be made for loss of bounty.
v. STEAMSHIP CO., Limited. a.reult Court of. Appeals, Second Circuit. Octobllr4- 1892.) No. 45. 1. UOLLtsroN.....BETWEEN STEAlIISHlPS.,-FOG. 'The illte.JXH!hip Umllrl. , cllpable of 19t knots per hoqr.bound from New YO,rk tQ,:l,.iwrpQol. havlIlg passed Sandy Hook and discharged her pilot, was ona c6ui'SeE. by S. t So, about six miles oft Rockaway beach, Long Island. runhing'fullspeild ina dense fog, sounding her whistle every minute or two. A faibt'w4istlll was heard, which seemed to be two or three points on her starboard bow." She was then slow,ed a few 1D,0ments to IlIbout 13 or 14 knots, wheJ;l thll wblstle was againpeard, more. distinctly, and in about the same direction. The master thereupon orderedfu1l' 'speed ahead. In about two minu·tes the steamer Iberia loomed into sight about two lengths ahead. The were immediately reversed, and her helm ported. but she struck. cuttipg her in two. Held, that the "\,hnbria was guilty of rec\dell's naVigation in dlsreg-arding the rnle requiring steamers to slow in a fog;andinll.ssuming that she was clear of the Iberia's course. 40 Fed. Rep. 893. .. ':'.' .
SAJ,IF). " ',' " ," ,