460
THE Tmil (Di8trict. (JOU1't, REVERE.
1). ¥aasachuseUs.
December 28,1886.)
t.
a.
The ferry"boat R. started out of her slip when the steamer V. was directly opposite. '.{'he speed of the steamer had been checked by the stopping of her engines,but her headway had not entirely ceased. Her ability to maneuver was further diminished by the presence, close aboard, of one or more vessels Which itwas her duty to keep olear of. When the ferry-boat started out of her slip, her bow was astern.of the steamer. When clear of the slip she proceeded to cross the steamer's pows in a course, at full speed, Witll the exception of the startin/S whistle of the ferry-boat, no signal was made by. either vessel. "Both vessels, when a collision became imminent, endeavored to avoid it by reversing'their engines. Hiitd, that the steamer had done all that devolved upon her under the circumstances; that, as the ferryboat was a following vessel when the situation first opened, the steamer was not boun.d to foresee that, by a violation .of the rules of the road, the ferryboatwou14.become a crossing vessel; and that no duty to signal the latter as a crossing' vessel devolved upon t)le former. SAME-STEAMER AND FERRy·BoAT.
AND FERRy·BOAT-CROllSING AND FOLLOWING VESSEl, DISTINGUISHED-FAILURE TO SIGNAL.
A ferry'boat must not cross a steamer's path, when the latter is abreast of her slip, an,d is hampered in her ability to maneuver. If, upon starting out of the slip, the ferry-boat's bow is astern of the steamer, and if she SUbsequently crosses the bGWS of the .latter vessel, she will be considered as a following, not as a crossing, vessel.
.
Collision. Cross libels. L. S. Dabney, for the Venetian. T. M. l!abson, for the Revere. NELSON, J. These cases were cross-libels for a collision between the British steam-ship Venetian, of the Leyland line, and the steam ferryboat Revere, owned by the city of Boston, and employed on the East Boston ferry, of which the cityis the proprietor. The Venetian arrived in Boston on: the morning of March 25, 1886, from Liverpool. At half past 6 A. M. she was proceeding up the channel, between Boston and East Boston, in charge of a pilot, on the way to her dock in CharlestoW!}. Her courfle lay on the starboard or East Boston side of the channel. Her speed through the water, against an ebb-tide, was then about four knots. When abreast of the Elevator dock, which isthethird dock below the ferry slip, on the.East Boston side, her engines were stopped, and, by the time she was opposite the ferry slip, she was moving slowly, though her motion ahead had not entirely ceased. Another ferry-boat had just before crossed her bow, coming from the Boston side. A ship also lay at anchor in the channel within a hundred feet of her, on her pqrt bow. While she was in this position, just opposite the East Boston ferry slip, the Revere started out of the slip on a trip across the
lReported by Theodore M. Etting, Esq., of the Philadelphia bar.
THE VENETIAN.
461
channel to Boston. headed down stream, with her bow pointing astern of the Venetian. As soon as she was clear of the slip, her wheel was put hard a-port, a full head of steam was let on, and she proceeded at full speed upstream, in a cireling course,dire<ltly acrOilS the bows of the Venetian. The instant those in charge of the Venetian saw what she was about, engines were reversed full speed. The, Revere also, when within a few feet of the Venetian, reversed. This was done, however, too late to prevent the accident. The forward port-guard of the Revere struck the Venetian on the starboard bow, and in th.e collision the guard and upper works of the forme1;,were torn away, and the iron plates of the latter's hull broken in. The weather was clear and still. The Venetian could not have been more than 500 feet from the ferry slip when the collision occurred, and was probably nearer. Neither vessel sounded any whistle, except that the Revere gave her starting whistle. Upon these facts, which are abundantly proved by the evidence, the culpability of the Revere is too obvious to require She ran into. the Venetian without the slightest necessity or excuse, when the latter was in a position where she had a right to be, and could do nothing to get out of the The master of the Revere states that he started out, the Venetian was opposite the Elevator dock, 900 feet below the slip, /tndseemedto be stopped; that as he proceeded he saw that she was moving slowly, but supposed he had sufficient room to pass herj,and that she suddenly increased her speed, and ran across his bows. Other witnessescalled'bytne Revere give the same account of the accident. That they are mistaken is showed by all the probabilities of the. case. The point off the Elevator dock, where the master ofthe Revere says he saw the Venetian apparently stopped, was at least 1,000 feet below the place of collision. The tide was about half ebb. The Venetia!) was a screw of 2,733 tons register, 435 feet long, and loaded with cargo. It is incredible that such a ship, in the situation described by this witness, could have increased her speed so as to pass over it space of 1,000 feet, against the tide, while the light side-wheel ferry-boat, quickly started and of high speed, under full steam, was going a distance of 500 feet across the tide. The extreme unlikelihood of this theory tends strongly to confirm the testimony of the master and pilot of the Venetian, and ofothel'Son board, who all agree that the steam-ship was going slowly past the ferry slip as the Revere came out. · The theory of the ferry-boat's defense is that she was a crossing vessel,and, being on the starboard side of the Venetian, had the right of way. Supposing this to be so, it would not afford an excUse for her not sooner stopping and reversing,though it would 'condemn the Venetian also. But the fact seems to be wholly different. The Revere was not a crossing vessel, but a following one, when the sitUation first opened . .The Venetian was not bound to .foresee that the Revere was about to qbange the.eituation in violation'ofthe sailing rules. She did see all that her position rendered it possible for her to do in reversing her engines. For the same reason the complaint of the Revere that the Venetian gave no signal is not well grounded.. Taere was no occasion fora signf!.l from
FEDERAL REPORTER.
the Veneiian, the Reverehs:Ving made the collision inevitable by her own misconduct. The Revere must be held solely responsible. The libel of the city of'BostOll will be dismissed, with costs; and, in that of the owner of the Venetian, an interlocutory decree will be entered for the libelant. Ordered accordingly·
'THE SWIFTBURE. t
CHAPMAN f1. THE SWIFTSURE.
(DiBtrict OOU'I't, B.D. New York.
June 2, 1888.)
SALVAGE-Bl'ECIFIO BuxAOREED vl'ON-DISl'UTE AS TO AMOUNT-UNREASONABLE AMOUNT-AWARD.
As the tug W. was cruising in the neighborhood of Bandy Hook she learned that the sieamer 8.was1ying disabled some 15 miles down the Jersey coast. and proceeded assiatan,ce. , The 8., with a valuable cargo on board, was lying some eight miles from the beach, unable to proceed; an accident having happened to her machinerY. The weather was lDtensely cold, both vessels were covered with ice, and, a,thjcll; fog prevailed. A bargain was made be,tween the mastersof t):le tug !lond the steam-ship to tow the latter to New York. The libel alleged 'that the agr,eed compensation was $4,000; the answer alleged that it was $400. The value 'Of' the tug was claimed to be ,ao,ooo; the value of the 8.$75,00001' and her freight about $11,000 or $12,000. Held, on the evidence, that the sum agreed on was $4,000; and, as this was not such an price for the salvage service as to require the court to ,set aside a contract deliberately made to pay that sum, the libelants,should recover,'$4,ooo, }),Ut without costs.
In
"
,
Goodrich, Deady It Goodr.,ich, for libelant. Butler, Stillman It H'/!-obard, for claimant. BENEDIOT,I. The clear weight of evidence is to the effect that the m!lster.of theSwiftsureagreed ;\"lith the master of the ,libelanVs tug that a salvage compensation,Qf $4,000 should be paid for the services of the tug.iq relieving the'steamer. ,The only question open to discussion is whether the price so agreed on was unreasonable. Upon the evidence, and taking into cQnsideration the value of the steamer and her condition, I am not prepared to say that $4,000, is a sum so out of proportion to the benefit received as to require the court to set aside a contract deliberately made to pay that sum. The libelants may therefore have a decree for $4,000. I give nOicosts,because I consider the snm awarded a very liberal salvage compensationfoHhe work and labor that the libelant's tug was called on to perform.';(: A diatribu'tion of the salvage will be made on application of the I
Reported by R. D.& W'yllys Benedict/ltsqs., of the New York bar.