THE BALTIMORE.

618

and differs from the account given by the other witnesses called on behalf of the claimant to testify to a failure on the part of the schooner to hold her course, and is highly improbable. In view of such an account given by the master of the tug, I have little hesitation in believing the account given by the master of the schooner. According to that account, no fault was committed in the management ofthe schooner. The decree must be for the libelant, with costs, and a reference to ascertain the amount of damages.

THE BALTIMORE.· THELACKAWANN.A. HOBOKEN LAND PENNSYLVANIA

&

IMP.

Co.

t1. TaE BAJ.TIMORE.

R. Co. v. THE

LACKAWANNA.

(DiatJrict Court. E. D.New York.

CoLLISION LAWS. BETWEEN STEAMERS -

December 9, 1887.)

19, NAVIGATION

'

DISOBEDIENCE 011' RULE

The ferry-boat Baltimore started from her New York slip, bound for Jerl!ey City, and took a course of S. W by S. She sheered one point further south, to pass under the stern of the ferry-boat Delaware. and this sheer hrough$ her, ()n a course crossing that of the ferry -boat Lackawanna. which :was coming up the river, and with the latter on her port hand. The Lackawanna ported, to pass under the stern of the Baltimore. but the latter again starboarded her wheel, and the two ferry-boats came in collision. Held, that the situation of the boats was such as to make rule 19 operative. which required the Baltimore to hold her course. Her second change of course. therefore, was in disobedience to this rule, and was the fault that caused the collision.

In Admiralty. Abbett &; Adler, fo1' the Lackawanna. Biddle &; Wg,rd, forthe.Baltimore. BENEDICT, An examination of these cases, aided by the briefs of the advocates, lately submitted, has confirmed me in the impression formed when the witnesses were examined last summer. As I view the cases, the cause of the disastrous collision out of which they arose was the failure of the pilot of the Baltimore to obey the nineteenth rule of the navigation laws. The Baltimore, on starting from New York, took the direct course from her slip; this was S. W. by S. When on this the ferry-boat Delaware, bound up the river ahead of the blew to the Baltimore, and the pilot of the Baltimore says, "1 hauled her down about S. S. W. first, to clear him." This brought the course of
·Affirmed on appeal, see post, 614Reported by Edward G. Benedict, Esq., of the New York bar.

f'lnthe1' to .the southward than before,. but left ,heruPQna the ,course of the Lackawanna, then coming llpbelowl llnlLhavingthe Baltimore on her starboard side. The proximity ,of the tw.o, vessels .attbat time was suoh as to make rule 19 operIttive,And, l'lJle madeit the duty of the Baltimore to hold her course, and the iduty ,of the Lackawanna to avoid her. The Lackawanna, in w#h, the rule, ,ported, and commenced to, sheer to the eastward. This she did before the Baltimore straightened her course down the river. After the Lackawanna commenced her sheer to eastward, the pilot ofthe Baltimore, as he himself says, blew two whistles, and straightened her course down the river. This second change of the Baltimore's course was made in 19, and it was the fault that caused the collision. It was' no fault in the Lackawanna to sheer to eastward when she did. She ,had the right so to sheer and allow the Baltimore to cross ahead of her, 'fat the course of the Lackawanna was then crossing the course of the Baltimore, and theBaltimore wason the Lackawanna's starboard side.' It wl1a 1'.0 fault in the Lackawanna to hold that sheer when once taken, for she had the right to suppose that the Baltimore, when she' saw the Lackawanna sWing to east in pursuance of the rule, would. of course pass down on the as could then have been done Without difficulty. This view cif the case renders it unnec.e!l,sarytp.considertLe other points discussed by. the advacates. In accordance with this view the libel of the Pennsylvania Railroad Company against the must be dismissed, with costs, and the Hoboken .Land & Improvement Company must recover of the ferry-boat Baltimore the danlages resultini from the collision in the pleadi,ngs mentioned.

THE BALTIMORE.1

THE LACKAWANNA.

HOBOKEN

LAND & IMP. Co. v. THE BALTDI0nBo

fl.

PENNSYLVANIA R. Co.

THE LAOKAWANNA..

(Oircuit Oourt, E. D. New York. July 12, 1888.)

In Admiralty·. On appeal from district court, ante, 613. Abbett & F'uller. for the Lackawanna. Biddl6 & Ward. for the Baltimore.
BLATCHFORD. Justice. The views and conclusions of the district judge In theSe cases areconcllrred in by me. Let there be a decree for the libelants in the suit brought against the Baltimore. for $2,194.38. with interest from April 6.1886·.and lor $1,200. With intel'estfrom the date of the Commissioner's rapot'ti,anll costs in the district cOUl't, taxed at $255.85. and for their costs intllis'cou.rt, to be taxed;.and let tht're be a decree dismissing the libel 'in the suit bl'oughtagainst tilt' Lackawanmt. with costs to th<l claimant in the district court. taxed at $37.85, and with its costs in this court, to be taxed.
I

Amrming ante, 618,