OARTER
,t1.
S'EEAI\1-BOAT MORRISANIA..
925
and this case furnishes an apt illustration of what maritime principles require. From various causes a steam-boat may have to procure additional mariners in different stages of her ronte, instead of an entire crew for the whole voyage; yet the same rule must apply ta;eaah:. , It is very easy for officers to state to a mariner definitely what his employment is to be, whether to be discharged at the port' ofarriml or otherwise, if they wish to limit his term of service or reserve a right to discharge him before his return to the port of shipment. B1'own v. Lull, 2 Sum. 441, 449; In re Glocester, 2 Pet. 403, 405; In re Rovena, 1 Ware, 309; The Exeter, 2 Rob. Adm. 261; Bea'Cer, 3 Rob.' Adm. 92; Sulliva,n v. Morgan, 11 Johns. (66) 67; Hoyt v. Wildfire, 3 Johns. 518, 520; 28 Mo. 280; ld. 338; Rice v. Polly If Kitty, 2 Pet. Adm. 420, 423; The Union, Blatchf. & II. 568; Farrell v. French, ld. 275; Emerson v. Howland, 1 Mason, 45; Nevitt v. Clarke, Ole. 816; Jones v. Sear8, 2 Sprague, 43; Brunent v. Taber, 1 Sprague, 243; Hutchinson v. Coombs, 1 Ware, 65; Sheffield v. Page, 1 Sprague, 285, 288; Sheffield v. Page, 2 Curt. C. C. 377; Hunt v. Colburn, 1 Sprague, 215; Nimrod, 1 Ware, 9; Ander80n v. Solon, Crabbe. Adm. 17; The Gazelle, 1 Sprague; 378; Burke v. Buttmann, 1 Lowell, 191; The Elizabeth, 2 Dodson, 402, 412; Brooks v.' DOTT, 2 Mass. 39 ; The John Martin, 2 Abb. U. S. Rep. 172, 181; The B. F. Bruce, Newberry, 539; The C1·usader, 1 Ware, 437;' White v. Atkins, 8 Cush. 367; Rossiter v. Cooper, 23 Vt. 522; Heim t E. D. Smith, 70.
v.
CARTER and others v. 'l'RE t;TEAM-BoAT MORRISANIA. (District Caul't, E. D. New York. July 23, 1880.
1.
COLLISION-VEBSELIN Tow OF TUG-FAILURE TO ANSWER STEAMER'S
WmSTLEs.-A·steamer crossing the bows of a towed schooner at flood tide, at Hell Gate, just below Flood rock, and midway between Flood rock and Long Island shore, is justified in assuming that the schooner is proceeding under wind and tide alone, when the tUi is not visible, and has failed to respond to the steamer's whistles.
Scudder <f Carter, for libellants. T. C. Cronin, for respondents. BENEDICT, D. J. This action is brought by the owners of the E!chooner Jennie M. Carter to recover of the steam-boat Marrisania the damages caused by a collision between those two vessels that occurred at Hell Gate on the twenty-first day of December, 1870. The following facts are either undisputed or proved by the weight of the evidence: The time of the collision was early in the morning, while it was still dark. The place of the collision was just below Flood rock, and about midway between Flood rock and the Long Island shore. The tide was flood, and the wind was light. The Morrisania was a passenger steam-boat, proceeding upon her regular trip from Harlem to New York, touching at One Hundred and Nineteenth street, and at Astoria dock. At the time of the collision she was crossing the river from One Hundred and Nineteenth street to Astoria dock. The schooner was proceeding towards the sound in tow of the tug Trojan, running at a speed of from five to six knots per hour. The tug was on the starboard side of the schooner, and aft. The spanker of the schooner was set, and her mainsail partly up, being in the act of hoisting it, so that the tug was not visible to one approaohing from the port. The schooner's red light was seen by those in charge of the Morrisania when the steam-boat was in the neighborhood of Little Mill rock; bnt there w!ts nothing then visible to the Morrisania to enable her to determine whether the schooner was .)roceeding by wind and tide or by steam. Two whistles were then blown to her from the Morrisania, and the boat slowed. No answer to the signals being received by the Morrisania, she started again, upon the supposition that the schooner was proceeding by wind and tide, and with the intention of crossing ahead of the schooner. As the vessels approached near to each other the schooner was discovered to be proceeding by steam, but it was then too late to avoid collision. The Morrisania succeeded in getting partway across the course of the schooner, when she was struck by the schooner in the starboard wheel. If the schooner had. been
OARTERt'. STEAM-BOAT MORRISAlUA.
927
proceeding by wind and tide, the Morrisania could have gone _ahead of the schooner without risk of collision. Proceeding as the schooner was, it was not possible for the Morris.. ania to cross her bows in lIafety, Ilorwas it possible in that locality, with a flood tide, for the steam-boat to stop after she had cause to suspect that the schooner was moving by steam, and before she reached the schooner. From these facts the conclusion. follows that the collision was not caused by any fau:t on the part of the Morrisania. The schooner was at Hell Gate in a flood tide, with sails up. The locality was dangerous. The Morrisania was upon a well-known course, which crossed the course the schooner was taking. Schooners pass the gate sometimes by wind and tide,: and sometimes they are towed. The schooner's red light was seen in time by the Morrisania, and she was then entitled, upon inquiry, to be informed whether the schooner was proceeding by wind and tide, or by steam. That inquiry was put by the .two whistles blown on the Morrisania. Receiving no signal in return was, under the circumstances, equivalent to an answer that the schooner was proceeding by wind and tide. The Morrisania had the right to presume that, if a tug was towing the schooner, the signal given by the Morrisania would be replied to. When no reply was received she was justified in assuming that the schooner was proceeding by wind and tide. Under such ci!'cumstances it was no fault in the Morrisania to attempt. to pass ahead of the sailing vessel. '1'he fault that caused the collision was the omission to reply to the signals which the Morrisania gave, in time, for it cannot be doubted that if these signals had been replied to by the tug the collision would not have occurred. The case is not that of a steamer pressing on while in doubt. The schooner's light was in plain sight and the schooner within easy hearing distance. The signals were loudly blown on the Morrisania, and the lights were plainly visible to the schooner. When, under such circumstances, no reply was made to her signals, the Morrisania was not called on to doubt, but was
,928
PEDERAL REPORTER.
justified in assuming that the schooner was proceeding under wind and tide, and in acting; upon that assumption, as she did. The libel must be dismissed and with costs.
BURT v. 1.
THE
STEAM-BoAT NEVADA.
(District Oourt, E. D. New York. July 16,1880.) COLLISION-NEGLIGENCE.
Oscar Frisbie, for libellant. Beebe, Wilcox cI; Hobbs, for claimant.
BENEDICT, D. J. The evidence shows that the lighter Martin, beating in the East river with a fresh breeze from the eastward and an ebb tide, stood over tow.ards the New York shore across the course of the ferry-boat Nevada; then coming down the river not far from the middle thereof. After having crossed the course of the Nevada, the lighter went about at a considerable distance from the New York shore, and so close to the Nevada as to make it impossible for a collision to be avoided by any manceuvre on the part of the Nevada. The excuse given in behalf of the lighter, for going about when she did, is the existence at the time of an eddy along the New York shore, which, it is contended, made it imprudent for her to continue her tack towards the New York shore. The excuse is not sufficient. There was an eddy along the New York shore, but it was not such as to render the lighter unmanageable. She could have gone on in the eddy and have made her tack nearer the New York shore in safety. This it was her duty to do under the circumstances, and considering her proximity to the ferry-boat then approaching in plain sight. The failure of the lighter to keep on further towards the New York shore, as she might have done with safety, and not any fault on the {lart of the ferry-boat, was the cause of the collision. Libel dismissed, with costs. [END OF CASES IN VOL.
3.]