vol. ov.'p.ro.as.t., .. a
derived frOm lilrtld from the trial of thM, gJ¥Y in, hl;\zy weatb.eF ahead, eJ}" pI' distance ofl .At this time, there ,of,the weather. It without 'Pr' stars. Such nights:. a ,clear wopldnpt objects at a ",(:fhe 5 247; The &i.ratoga;S7fed·.Rep. . Tpe testim<?Af,;of the experts, 8\1GI}, ,a.night the 100m ;of ayessel ahead, be, perceived at least a :<J.,u!i,rti&ro,fa: mile distatlt" aq<;:()rds with frequent of a similar effect in other of that was morethan 8ufficient.toepable:the, 'llteamer to :a:V6id this The if npt satisfied vlf, pautical experts, shoulq. , other tp;rebut thltt testimony. I cannot haye disregard it. .The ,had a Jight b,u,rn4Ig in her. cabin; be seen amjle astern, through and. ther,e,was evidence that the cabill:;windows, and had dillta.npe py the in Bchoonel'out;o( ten$ part of ,tance been ell9J;lgh warning to avoid the I must hold the steamer alSo. to blame. ' Decree for the. foroqe4W!.of .' ,. ..
.
ne ,(litypj lfw York.1,gift'. S,4. ,Whell the ,b!>9. t ,. Ill.oAPo.· ,.0.t . rs,t'b.ey\ . . .. ;only, ,of put the
aula
TIm .WALLACE.! LUCKENBACH' etatv·.THE .W
.'·(Df8trict
Oourt, E. D. NmJ,Yor1c. Maroh 28;1890. .,
1.
OoLLDION-VIt88ELS A.T ANOJlOR-FoUL BBRTJI.
The barge W. went in!5ide the Delaware breakwater ina storm, ,and anohored near the barge P. After someho\irs the W. to drag her and fetohed up very near the,P., and in such a position that it was certainthat"she would collide'with the P. t wbentbetide cbanged. It 'Was in :her power to bave changed berposition. She dtd not dd so, and on the turn'of the tide oollided with the P. Beld, that the w. . . , . . B.A.RGlil 'IN " '. , ."
..
After the collision, a tug held the W, 'wblle the ancllors the latter were being , . raised. a.nd then towe.d her furtqer. up the, brea.kwal.er.Tbe .Be.rv.·ice OC(lupied five . or six hou!:s·.. The sea was rough, and there was danger, of the W. '8 going ashore. Held, that the service was a salvage aervice, and 1250 a COIUpellSati"n, theretor. . .. , " . ,," ,
In Admiralty.. " . Action' by-the owners of the barge Plymouth and the tug Luckenbaoh. to recover; in,Qoe action, damages to their barge 'Plymouth from collis."!'i'·"
ii
;", ;
Edward G. Benedict, Esq., of the New
895 ion. with the. barge Wallace, and salVage for the services '01 their tug Luckenbach ,rendered to the sattle barge Wallaca. Peter S.Gbrter, for libelant. Owen,Gray&: Sflurges, for:claimant.
,BENEDICT, J. The barge'Plymouth, in tow of the tag Luckenbach, went into the Delaware breakwater for refuge, and was anchored three or lour hundred feet to the west of the eastern entrance;,·' The Luckenbach hung on to her stem: by a hawser of 150 feet in length. On the nig.htof;November· 20th, between 7 and8o'clockp. M.,the barge Wallace,bound ona Philadelphia to Boston,' in tow of the tug HEirculesi1wenHnto the;]i}elaware breakwater, andanohored in the'middIe of the breakwater. On the morningof,tbe 21st sbemoved up. to.,the west end, and anchored about 200 yards away from the breakwater, and about two or three hundred yards to the north of the Plymouth, already there, and, as above stated, at anchor. About half past 7 in the evening the Wallace began to drag in a strong north-east wind. After dragging about a half of an hQUl,',. up on her anchor at a point some 70 or 80 feet from tIle P(ymoth, then right astern of her. On the part of the libelant ,the ,claim is.that, b9fore the turn,.ed, the Wallace dragged down upon'the Plymouth, doing the damage 'complained of. On the part of the. theclaiql is that she was l1eld by her anchor some 70 or 80 feet from the Plymouth; and that when the tide changed the Plymouth swung before the Wallace did, and so came in collision with the Wallaee, doing. the. damage in question. be the true account,the Wallace is liable for the damages caused by .the collisbetween her and the. Plymoutb" for the reason thatshe,wasanqhored so near the Plymouth as to make collision certain when the tide changed, owing to the fact that the Plymouth would swing before the Wallace did upon the change of the tide. It is said in behalf of the WaHace that, after the Wallace brought up on her two anchors, those on the Wallace asked the ,Plymouth to move, in order to avoid collision between the two vessels when the tide turned; and the satne testimony shows that it was known to those on the Wallace that the Plymouth would 8wiDg on the tide sooner than: the Wallace did, and that if she did so swing there would surely be a collision. The fact that the Plymouth declined to move as requested does not render the Plymouth responsible for the damages that ensued. What causedtheco:llision was the fault of the Wallace in remaining so near the Plymouth asto,make collision inevitable on the change of tide when it was within ,her power to change her position. It is ,plain, therefore, that theWalJaceis liable tothe owner of the Plymouth for the damage 'C3usedby the collision. The case contairisalso an'other claim by the owner of.the Plytnouth, who was also owner of the Luckenbach, fora service rendered by the Luckenbach,to the 'Wallace after the collision. The salvage consisted. in holding the Wallace up after the collision with the Plymouth, :while' her anchors were being raised, and then towing her 200 or 300 yards further up the breakwater. This service occupied five 'Oz8tt' hours·. ,For
896
FEDERAL RF.PORTER',
vol. 41.
t1>-is service the Qwner of the Luckenbach asked'$l,OOO,'but expressed. himself willing to take,$500,if paid without suit. The service rendered was a salvage service. The sea was rough. .The Wallace was in some danger of going asbore, and considerable damage to ,both vesBE\ls was to be apprehended if tbey were not separated. The sea was rough, but not so 1;lad but that a small boat came frClmtbe rEivenue cutter al<ing-side oftbe Wa1lace, while in collision with the Plymouth. Tbere: were other tugs in the immediate vicinity who could have been, called upon by the Wallace, and CQuld have done for her all that the Luckenbach did. Ithink, under the circumstances, tbat the sum of &250Jssufficient compensation for the Luckenbach. Let a reference be had to ascertain the amount of ,the damages caused by the collision. For which amount, with &250 fona!vage, the libelant may have a decree.
THESm GARNET WOLSELEY.1 . r· .
BowDJeN
THE SmGAltNET
(Dt8trloc Court, E. D. New YoT1G. Match 98; 1800.) !
BtiKBN.....PImSOlUL INJl1lUBS-UNOOVBuD HATOH-CoNTRIBtrfORY NBGLIGllINOB.
Libelant, a night-watob;man on a steamer, undertook ,to sit down upon a bunker hatCh Without looking to seewhether theoover was on. The proof showed that the hatch,waliloovered, or not, as the neceuity of the ship On this occasion it W3ll unCovered, and libelant fell through to the hold. Bela, that the was due to libelant's negligence, and alibel for his injuries agamaUhevessel shoUld be diimtSsed. ' ,
In Admiralty. Action to recover daml:l-ges for personal injuries. M. L. for libelant. E. B. Oonver8, for claimant. BENEDICT, J. Tbis is an action for personalinjuries sustained by the libelant by, reason of his fallingthrough'a hatdh of the steam-ship Sir Garnet Wolseley. The libelant was: a night-watchman on the At about 9 o'clock in the evening he undertook to sit down upon a bunker hatch upon the main deck, assuming the hatch cover to be on, and without looking to see whether the cover was on or not. The cover was not ani and the man, on sitting down, of course fell back· ward into the hold. The' eviden{)eshows that this hatch was sometimes without cover, and sometimes covered, as the necessity ,of the ship ra-quired. The accident was caused by the libelant's own negligence in not'looking to asoertainwhether therewas a cover there before he under. took to sit down upon it. The libel is dismissed,
'Reported byllldw8ll'd G. :Benedict, Esq., of the NewYork blll'.,