THE MAINE.
303
vessels were witho:ut an efficient,fog-horn, sounded pya bellows ot other 'mechanical means, as requireq. by the interna,tional sailing regulations. 'I decided in, the recent case of The Catalonia, (not and also in two other cases, that neglecting to have on board the regulationfog-horn was a fault in it sailing ship ina collision in a fog, unless it was shown with certainty that the omission,could not have contributed to cause the collision. No such proof IS furnished here. Both vessels of sounded 'n common fog-horn, blown by the, breath; but the the Energy was not heard ataH on the Monmouth, and that of Monmouth was not heard on the Energy until just the moment the Monrtlout4 camein sight. 'It was plainly of the MopmOllth, having the right of way, to give notice of hei-presence to vessels ,approaching from the.southward, bythe ineaus prescribed by the sailing i:ules. "It ",as 'argUed for the Energy that, as' was bound, to keep out' the way of the Monmouth; ahd' the latter nadonly to' keep her course, should be excused for the omission. But I am bound to conclude that a regulation horn can be lreardfurtheroff,than a common horn, and that, if the lookout on the Monmouth had been sooner made aware of in his fright and confusion, the approach of the have luffed across her bows. The Energy should have shortened sail. The Energy is condemnedfor;nQt' going 'ata.)inoderate speed, and for not carrying the fog-hqrn. The Monmouth was in fault, not only for being withont ,the' reguliiionfog-horri{ but also for changing her course, and for not ,having a lookout., Decree for the libelants, damagag1:UFHedivlded,',' SO'brliered. "
or
c'
THE
VA'NWnietal.,1). ,'.' ';',; '\,;",:' :. ·.
THE, MAINE' et
al.
(Di8tri.ct Oourt, E. D.New YOTk.
Hay 10, 1890.) ' .'
CoLLISION-BETW.EBNSTlIkMIlIRS-"'"QVBRTUIl'iO: VESSEL-EvIDBNOE.
A be.twllenthll E. H. and tl1,eferry-boat M. 11) the East river. Bilthvessels had been lying bows fUrther up than the ferry-bOat. 'rhe que,sJ;ion in the case was whether 'thecoUision was caused by the ferry-boat moving up against the tug, or by the tug backing down upon the fern-boat.. HeW. that the Wllight of evidence showed the. collision to have been !ciLl1S1!d:by the backing ottho against the ferry-boat, and the tug's libel to recover her'damages was '. , .
In· Admiralty.
Oa71Jeriter Mosher; for libe1ants·.. , . lfilCox, Adams Macklin,
Action. to recoveJ; d,amages. for collision. .
,.':
BENi<;nICT, J. ThiS,.is an action' of 'Maine for the tug-boat Edwin· Hawley in acoUi$iop. .'. whicK happened on the oCc88ionof the naval dispw.yat the lReported by · ",0.;:.,;
J . . . ",', ..
of the New I, -", , .... (,,, . ,-
· ".,
304
FEDERAL REPORTER.
vol. 42.
exhibition of 1889. The two boats were lying near the foot of Wall street, between the steamer Despatch, which had the President and his Cabinet on board, and the New York shore, waiting to see the disembarkation Of the President from the Despatch. The tug-boat was lying ther up the river than the ferry-boat; both vessels lying bows up the river. .The case turns upon the question whether the collision was caused by the ferry-boat moving up the river against the stern of the tug, lying still. ahead of her, or by the tug backing down upon the bow of the Maine, lying still astern of her. Upon this question a great number of witnesses have been called by each side,-some 27 in all, I believe; and I cannot doubt that the clear weight .of the evidence is in favor of the position. wken by the ferry-boat, that the collision was caused by the baciking down of the tug upon the Maine, and not by the Maine's movingup against the tug. Let the libel be dismissed, with costs.
THE LAGONDA. 1 THE JAMES
A.
GARFrET,D·
. McOALDIN 11. THE LAGONDA. MATHISEN'tI. THE JAMES
GARFIELD.
(DLstrWt Oourt, E. D. New York. May 12,1890.) COLLISION-CROSSING COURSES-FAILURE TO HOLD COURSE.
The yachtL.was going down Buttermilk channel between Governor's Island and thlt Brooklyn shore, when the tug G. came around,the south shore of Governor's island, bound for the Atlantic basin. The :vesselsbeing thus on crossing courses, and the L. bound by rule to keep outofthe way, the G., after hearing a signal of one whistle from the L" and obServing that the yac1),t porting. starboarded her wheel, The vessels collided. the bow of the yacht striking the starboard side of the tug. Held that, under the circumstances, it was the duty of the G. to hold her course. and that she was responsible for the collision.
',tt,lJfedJf. Porter, Jr.,' and R. D. Benedict, for the Lagonda. Goodrich, Deady.& Goodrich, for the James A. Garfield·
In Admiralty.
Cross-actions for damages by collision.
. lJENEPlci, J. The vessels were on crossing courses. The yacht having the tug upon her starboard side, by the law it was the right of the yacht to choose her own method of avoiding the tug, and it was the duty of the tug to hold her course. The tug's testimony, if beshows that she undertook to designate a·course to the yacht by blowing two whistles, and she admits that after she had received a signal of one whistle from tile yacht, and saw that the yacht was porting, she st!1rbo1i.rded, and kept up her speed. . In this way she caused the coll'isioh:' It is plain that the tug' aloue is .responsible for the damage that ensued. Let a decree be entered accordingly. 1 Reported
by Edward G. BilDOOlct, Esq:. of t.he New York bar.