"the Jiill:bil'e1'8." Both are to be togethel·. iWherrthUIl read, they ·contain a promise by the, insurers that they will cover loS!! when' 'using and navigating the ports and water's enumeraffM in the original. poliey, (and, when using the port and harbor 'of Qharleston,lIsrifar as the Jetties, but will not cover loss on trips eit4er way between Norfolk and Charleston. The district judge, iu,his opinion, points out a sufficient reason for thus excepting a .trip,betweeri the two, places named, although part of that trip might lie thro'ngh wateL"S otherwise covered :
. involved in the preparation and the equipment of the tug for of n. trip between Norfolk and Charleston would neceSsarily be quite different' from her equipment for river or harbor or Inland buslnejls. The liability of the tug to accidents while prosecuting such a trip migAt,.pe 'greater, not merely when on the high seas, but at aU stages of the .
We concUr with the district judge in the conclusion that the in' the rider is clear and unambiguous; and, as the on the excepted trip, the libel was properly dismissed. Decree of district court affirmed, with costs.
THE FAIR WIND.
YORK, N. & H. STEAMSHIP CO" Limited.
DE!Cember 3, 1894.) No. 21.
(Circuit Oourt of Appeals, Second Circuit.
ADMlRALU-COLLISION-EvIDENCE. Testimony of experts as to the angle at which a eolllsion between two vessels must, have occurred, based upon examinations of the vessels made after theao<!ident, is not sufficient. to warrant a reversal of a finding of the trial judge based upon testimony of eyewitnesses of the collision.
. Appeal fr()Iq.!he Distclct Court of the United States for the Eastern District of·New York. This was a lil;>el by the New York, Newfoundland & Halifax Steamship Companya,gainst 'the schooner Fair Wind (Edward P. Reed, claimant) fordaIllages for collision between said schooner and libelant's steamer Portia. The district court rendered a decree for the libelant. ,Ol$p.ant appeals. Willian1' ·W. Goodrich, for appellant. Wilhelmus'Mynderse, for appellee. Before WALLACE, LACOMBE, and SHIPMAN, Oircuit Judges. LACOMBE, Circuit Judge. The collision happened between 10 and 11 o'clock on the night of July 30, 1892, in Long Island Sound, near Eatoti's>Neck. The Portia, a steamer of 731 tons, and 220 feet long, was eastward bound, on a course E. by N. 1/2 N. The Fair
vVind, a schooner of about 90 tons, and 100 feet long, was sailing on a W. by S. course, with her booms to starboard. The wind was about E., or E. by N., and the night dark and overcast, with occasional rain squalls. The district judge has discussed the evidence at some length, and held the schooner responsible on the ground that she did not hold her course, and we see no reason to reverse his decision. The testimony is verJ' conflic'ting, and no theory will. reconcile the statements of the witnesses from both sides. The schooner's bmvsprit brought up on the port bow of the steamer, and the angle at which the vessels came together is the material point in the case. If they came together at right angles, the conclusion reached by the district judge--namely, that, to get into such relative positions from their former headings, the schooner must have luffedis fair and reasonable. His finding that they struck at right angles controlled his decision of the ca....;e, and the libelant has sought, by new proofs taken in this court, to secure a rpl'ersal of that finding. Such new proofs comprise a photograph and a drawing of the schooner's broken bowsprit, made long after the collision, and the opinion of a ship carpenter as to the indications which its appearance affords. The libelant has sought to meet this by calling a witness who surveyed the hole stove in the steamer's bow, to describe it and give his opinion as to the angle of the blow which made it. Such evidence, however, is hardly of a character to warrant a reversal of the findings of the district judge, when several of the eyewitnesses of the collision, including the mate of the schooner, testify that the vessels came together substantially at right angles, and no witness from either vessel testifies to the contrary. Although the night was dark and rainy, the atmospheric conditions were not such as to require the steamer, navigating in the wide water where she was, to reduce speed, under the rules as they then stood. She was running 81' knots an hour. Lights were not visible as far as they might be on a clear night, but still, so far as the proof shows, they could be seen at sufficient distance to avoid them when running at that rate of speed. The decree of the district court is affirmed, with interest and costs.
THE HELENA. AYER v. 'l'HE WALLEDA. ELDERKIN et at v. THE HELENA. (District Court, S. D. New York. December 18. 1894.)
COLLISION-SAlL VESSELS-NEGLIGENT LOOKOUT ON BOTH--WIND FREE-CoNFLICT-WnOKGFUL LUFF BY EACH.
The schooner W., sailing W., and the H., sailing E. oy N. N.. came in collision about 10 p. m. in Long Island Sound in a fresh bre ze, the wind being not far from N., and the night clear. The evidence showed thl\t the lookout on the W. was very inattentive. and that the H. was not seen until a few lengths away on the 'V.'s port bow, whereupon the