The following text may have been generated by Optical Character Recognition, with varying degrees of accuracy. Reader beware!

VOL. XV. Maritime Law. COLLISION—VESSELS MEETING IN FOG—DUTY TO STOP ON HEARING FOG SIGNALS NEAR AT HAND, U.S. District Court, Southern District of New York. The freight and passenger steamboat S. A, Jonks when nearing New York on the Hudson River, ran into a fog so thick that vessels could not be seen more than 150 feet; she therefore hauled in toward shore to keep in sight of the piers. The Midland, a ferryboat, followed her usnal course in thick fog—of keeping the line of the New York shore to 60th St. and crossing from there. | Each vessel heard the fog signals of the other near at | hand, and both stopped their engines, but neither re- versed until the other was seen. Held, that under the | circumstances the navigation of the boats near the shore was not a fault, but on such a dense fog, with whistles sounding near at hand and ahead, it was the duty of both to come to a standstill on the water by re- versing until their respective positions were ascertained. As each was in this respect chargeable with the same fault, the damages were divided. Browr, J., November 20th, 1891. District Court, 8. D. New York. January 14, 1892. Cost and Fees—Marshal's Commission—Rev. St. §— Possessory Suit.—In a suit to recover poseession of a vessel, where the marshal seizes and takes possession of the vessel, and, on settlement of the suit, delivers up possession of the property subject to his fees, he is en- titled to his regular commissions on the value of the vessel, under Rey. St § 829, besides keeper's fees, though the claim was not for a money demand. District Court, E. D. Pennsylvania. January 5, 1892. Shipping—Liability for Personal Injuries—Seamen Un- loading Cargo.—Libelant, a seaman engaged in unload- ing wood from a vessel, was hurt by the fall of a tier of wood, caused by the mate’s withdrawal of a cleat. The removal of the cleat was necessary in order to unload the vessel, and was affected in the ordinary and proper manner, and after repeated warnings, which were heeded by all the men at work except the libelant. Held, that no negligence could be imputed to the mate, as he was justified in believing that libelant would heed the warn- ings. Circuit Court of Appeals, Second Circuit. Nov. 14, 1891. 1. Collision—Steam and Sail—Lookout.—A sailing ves- sel is entitled to assume that a steam vessel, approaching her, is being navigated with a proper lookout, and with reasonable attention to the obligations laid upon her. 2. Same—Duty of Sail Vessel—Beating Out Tack.—A sailing vessel, beating in the vicinity of a steam vessel, is not obliged to run out her tacks, provided her going about is not calculated to mislead or embarrass the steam vessel. 3, Same—Statement of Case—A tug was going up about the middle of the North river on a clear morning, and was gradually overtaking a sloop, which was beat- ing up the stream. The tug had no lookout, other than her master at the wheel. The sloop went from one track to another, when about 1,000 feet from shore, and the tug soon after struck and sank her. The tug claimed that the change of course was the cause of the collision. The court found that the tug bad ample time to have avoided the sloop after her going about. and accordingly held, that the tug was solely in fault for keeping a de- fective lookout. Circuit Court of Appeals, Second Circuit. Dec. 14, 1891. 1. Collision—Fog Signals by Sailing Vessel—Mechanical Fog Horn,—By a collision, during a fog, between a steam ship and a schooner, the latter received injuries from which she sank. The schooner had no mechanical fog horn, and, though the horn which she had was sounded, it was not heard by those in charge of the steam ship. Held, that the failure of the schooner to have and use an efficient fog horn, to be sounded by mechanical means, as required by statute, was at least a contributing cause of the collision. ce 2. Same—Reducing Rate of Speed of Steam Ship.—A steam ship, failieg fo reduce her speed, when going through a fog in one of the main lines of ocean travel between New York and Europe, to such a rate as will admit of her being brought to a stand still within the distance at which, in the condition of the fog, she can discover another vessel, is guilty of a fault pyedenne her responsible for damages in case of a collision whic might have been avoided if her speed had been less. 3. Same—Mutual Fault—Division of Damages.— Where the loss of a schooner by collision with steam ship in a fog is caused by an improper rate of speed on the part of the steam ship, and the want of a proper fog horn on the part of the schooner, the damages must be divided. Circuit Court of Appeals, Ninth Cireuit. Jan. 19, 1892. ision—Duty of Steamer on Meeting Sail Vessel. aa aot April 7th, 1886, the steam Bip te of California was bound for San Francisco, and, a short distance outside the heads, sighted the ntine Portland, two points off her starboard bow, | near two miles distant, bound for the same place. | | abaft her beam, and both were seriously injured. lights were observed on the barkentine, and the CLEVELAND, OHIO, MARCH 31, master of the steamer, supposing that the courses of | had swung half rou ihe vessels were nearly parallel, neither reversed his en- gine nor slackened his speed, but steamed on his course at the rate of 13 knots an hour. The night was dark, but clear, and the courses of the vessels were, in fact, nearly at aright angle. The barkentine was on the star- | board tack, sailing close-hauled upon the wind, and con- | tinued her course until the steamer was within 300 yards of her, and apparently about to strike her amidships, when she was luffed into the wind, thus slackening her speed, and turning her bow to starboard and away from the steamer, The latter, without changing her course | or abating her speed, undertook to steam across the | bows of the barkentine, when they collided, the bow of | the barkentine coming in contact with the steamer just | The | lights were burning on the barkentine, but the proof was | not satisfactory that they were sufficient, and such as | required by law. Held, that the steamer was in fault, on sighting the sail, in not reversing her engines, or | slackening her speed, until the course of the barkentine could be certainly ascertained, and then it was her duty | to keep out of the way; and therefore the damage occa- sioned by the collision ought to be divided. 2. Flare Up, When Shown by Sail Vessel.—Section 4234 | of the Revised Statutes, requiring a sail vessel to show a torch on the quarter on which a steam vessel is ap- proaching her, is superseded by article 11 of the “Inter- national Regulations,” so far as the high seas and the coast waters are concerned. 3. Finding of Fact by the Circuit Court.—The law limiting the Supreme Court, on an appeal in admiralty, to a review of the findings of the Circuit Court, on questions of law merely. does not apply to this court. About 4 o’clock on the morning of April 7th, 1886, a collision occurred between the steam ship State of Cali- | fornia and the barkentine Portland, a short distance out— side the heads of the San Francisco bay. The material findings of the Circuit Court are to the effect that the lights on the steamer were in good condi- tion, and were seen by the men on the barkentine half an hour before the collision; that the red light of the | latter was not displayed, or was burning dimly; that the sail of the Portland was seen by the master and lookout of the steamer 4 or 5 minutes before the collision, while she was about a mile and a half distant, and “the ab- sence of the red light led the master of the steamer to believe that the two vessels were sailing on nearly the same course, and therefore he did not reverse his engine, | or slaken speed;” that the steamer was running at the | rate of 18 knots an hour, was 315 feet in length, and could have been stopped in five times her length; that if, on first sighting the Portland, the engines of the Cali- fornia had been reversed, the collision would not haye occurred, but she neither reversed her engines, slackened her speed, nor changed her course; that the Portland had a torch on board, but did not exhibit it, nor was it satis. | factorily shown that the-lights of the Portland were | such as were required by the United States Statutes; and | that, about five minutes before the collision, the Portland was, by order of the mate, luffed in the wind, “thereby arresting her headway, and throwing her more into the track of the steamer;” and concluded that the collision | resulted from the neglect of the Portland to show a pro- per and suflicient red iight. Upon these findings the steamer must be held in serious fault, in not reversing her engines or slackening, | her speed when the lookout reported “a sail on the star- board bow.” ‘The master had no right to suppose that the vessel was on the same course with the steamer, and therefore there was no danger of collision. Seeing no light at all, he had noright to indulge in any supposition. It was his duty to stop at once, or slacken his speed, so as to simply hold his way until the course of the barkentine was ascertained. The mate, Peterson, testifies that, about 5 minutes be- fure the collision, he gave the order to put the vessel close to the wind. It is possible he is mistaken about the time, and that the order was given less than 5 minutes before the collis- ion. It was given when the steamship was about 300 yards distant from the barkentine, and apparently about to strike her amid-ships ; but the longer before the col- lision the better for the case of the barkentine. The putting her more against the wind had a tendency to stop her headway, and probably did reduce her speed to 2 or 3 miles an hour. At the moment of the collision her sails were aback or fluttering. This slackening of speed gave the steamer more time to cross her bows, and reduce the force of the impact, when they came together; and so far from the lufling throwing the barkentine more into the track of the steamer, the contrary is true. Her bow swung to the starboard—to the right—and if she 1892, NO. 14 nd in the same direction she would have been parallel to the steamer and no collision would have occurred. It was the general duty of the barken- tine to hold her course; but when the mate saw the steamer was crossing her bow, and likely to collide with the barkentine, it was his right and duty to do whatever seemed most likely to avert or diminish the impending calamity. Notwithstanding, the steamer forged ahead on her course, at the rate of 13 knots an hour, when a slight deviation to port would have sent her clear of the bark- entine, and prevented the coilision. As to the lights on the barkentine, the weight of the testimony is to the effect that they were in place and burning ; but the testimony is not satisfactory as to their condition or quality. The libellants were practically chal- lenged, on the hearing, to bring the red light into court for inspection. They failed to do so, and the reasonable inference is that it would have been found insufiicient. The case is one of mutual fault, and the damages must, be divided, by requiring half the difference of the respec- tive losses, if any, to be paid by the one sustaining the lesser loss to the other. Z'he Oregon, 14 Sawy. 466, 42 Fed. Rep. 78, and 45 Fed. Rep. 62. MOTION FOR A MODIFICATION OF THE DECREE. (January 25, 1892.) Derapy, District Judge. The order for a decree is modified as follows : The decree of this court will be that the decrees in the cases of The Portland and The State of California are both reversed, and that they both be remanded to the district court,!and there consolidated and tried as one case, upon the question of the amount of damages sus- tained by the Portland and State of California, respec- | tively, by reason of the collision; and that, if either is shown to have sustained more damage than the other the lesser sum, with the costs of libellant in such case, shall be deducted from the greater sum, wiih costs, and the party sustaining the greater loss shall have a decree for the one-half of the remainder. a ee ee NOTICE TO MARINERS. UNITED 8TATES OF AMERICA—NORTHERN AND NORTH- WESTERN LAKES. Grosse Pointe Fog Signai Notice is hereby given that on April 9, 1892, the first- class steam siren now used during thick or foggy weather at Grosse Pointe Light Station, Lake Michigan, Illinois, will be discontinued, and there-after the fog signal at this station will be a 10-inch steam whistle, giving blasts of five seconds’ duration, separated by alternate intervals of 20 and 40 seconds, thus: Blast, interval Blast, interval, 5 sec. 20sec. 5 sec. 40 sec. By order of the Lighthouse Board: James A. GREER, Commodore U.S, Navy, Chairman. Onfiice of the Light- house Board, Washington, D. C., March 24, 1892. The following additions to, and changes inthe buoyage of the 9th. Light House District, will be made on the opening of navigation, 1892. STRAITS OF MACKINAC. The iron buoys near Simmons’ Reef, White Shoal and Gray’s Reef will not be replaced. A spar buoy painted red and black will be placed at the south-west end of White Shoal. Light Ship No, 56 marks the north-east end. Waugoshance 19-foot shoal will be marked by a second-class nun buoy painted red and biack. Vienna Shoal will be marked by a second-class can buoy painted red and black.. CHANNEL NORTH OF BEAVER ISLANDS. The 18-foot shoal north of Garden Island will be marked by a spar buoy painted red and black. A second-class nun buoy painted black will be placed in 21 feet of water off the north end of Squaw island Shoal. ‘There is a shoal patch near the buoy to the south- ward, GREEN Bay. Peninsular Point buoy will be moved a short distance to the south, as the low water makes it hazardous to go near this buoy as at present located, especially while a sea is running. ‘The Horse Shoe Shoal Buoy will be placed half a mile east ae its former position, and painted red instead of black. A spar buoy painted red will be placed one mile northwest of Kagie Bluff lighthouse to mark the north- eastern edge of Strawberry Shoal. A spar buoy painted red will be placed one mile and a quarter southwest by south from Kagle Biuff lighthouse to mark the southeast end of Strawberry shoal. The channel is here quite narrow and the buoy must be Jeft close to on the starboord hand when bound south. . By order of the Lighthouse Board; Nicon, LupLow Commander U. 8, Navy, Insur. of the L. H. District.