THE CIAMPA AMELIA.
block toengttge with holes in the bar. has taken the Wollensak method· of locking by means of a bolt attaohed to and moving with the sliding block, and has improved it, substituting a pin for the more clumsy bolt, but the infringement is manifest. The second claim of No. 191,088 apparently demands the presence of cords to act upon the spring bolt in the described manner, and is therefore not infringed. Let the bill No. 585 be dismissed. In No. 587 let there be a decree for an injunction against the infringement ofthe first claim of No. 191,083, and for an accounting,
THE CrAMPA AMELIA.1
CIAMPA .". THEF.
W· VOSBURGH.·' January 28,18110.)
(L>i8t'rlct Oourt, E. D. NetDYOT1c.
OOLLIIIION-Tow AND DREDGB AT ANOHOR-CHANGB OJ' CoURSB;
The ship C. A., while towed by the tug V. up the Delaware river, OD a clear night, brought up on the hawser of a dredge at anchor in the middle of the river, and was thereby sheered suddenly into the dredge, and sustained damage, to recover which she brought this suit against the tug. The evidence indicated that theaecident was caused by an attempt on the part of the tug to pass from the east to the west side of the dredge, when so near the latter that t·hf> ship, in following the tug, brought up 1'S above Btated.. . that the tug was liable for the damage.
In Admiralty. Action for dftmage by collision. Wjng, Shoudy «Putnam. for libelant. Hyland Zabriskie, for respondent.
«
J ..... This was an action brought by the owner ofthe Italian Ciampa Amelia to recover of the tug F. W. Vosburgh for damages sustained by that ship by coming into collision with the dredge Arizona, is little dispute. while in tow of the tug. As to most.af the facts The ship was being towed up the Delaware river by the Vosburgh, on a hawser from 40 to 45 fathoms in length. The tide was 'strongflood, the wind fresh from the south-south-east, the night clear starlight. The dredge Arizona was anchored ,by spuds on Mifflin bar, in the middle of the river, with 250 yards of water, 20 feet deep, on each side. The tug approached the dredge from below, and passed the dredge to the west,.; ward. The ship in tow, as I think the evidence plainly shows, brought up upon one of the hawsers of the dredge, which ran from her stern to an anchor. When the ship caught on the hawser, she was thereby caused to sheer suddenly to the starboard, and dragged by the tug into collision with the dredge, the bluff of her port bow striking the lower easterly Cler oUhe dredge a violent blow. The case turns upon the question whether the ship followed the tug. and was towed by the tug so .near the dredge as to bring her upon the BENEDICT,
bY!E4ward G. Ben!'l4ict, EsQ.., Qfthl! New York baJ,".
FEDEItA.LRElPdMER',)V61.41.
1fli\VBer,tahd sbdiagged dpdn'the dredge,otwhether the ship, assheapproached the dredgEl'otr a':course to westwaTd,'suddenly, and of her own accord, and there'bt brought herself in contact with the dredge. Upon this questioll the weight of the evidence seems fume to be in favor of the ship. Inmy (\pinion, the collision arose from the attempt of the Vosburgh topassfrmn:theeast to the we$t side of the dredge, when so near tliedredge that the ship, while following the tug, brotigllt; up upon the hawser leading aft from the dredge. ,The case contains much testimony' going to show that for a mile or more below the dredge the course of the tug was to the west of the dredge, but estimates of distances in the night are nlways nnc-erttrin, and there is testimony in the case which, in my opinion, overcomes any evidence as to this distance, and warrants the tAat, thepollision was caused by the tug's changing her course from the eastern side to the western side of the dredge when she thee while following the tug. caught upon the dredge's hawser, and so was brought in collision with the fUedge. Tbmmust' bEi"a/deoree for thE!' libelant, for an order ofreference to ';:'
BJlIPPING-DAloIAGE TO CARGO-LIABILITY oplVEIlSEL OR OWNER.
Respondent chartered his vessel to M., who subchartered to libelants. Both charthat the v,esselshould no.t be r:esponsible for deUvery of cargo in bad : ': dorlditiotl, 'a:ba.'-'eitilmpted the ftom: liability fo·r the act of God, and all other a'ncl' by/sea; rivers,. ,\\ndnavigation. Tbe charterers furtlJ,e!". agreed to indemniti the 'owners from all consequences arising from the captain',s signing" billli 'of lading. 'The 've8seHv&li Jloli.ded with fruit, under a bill ofladiIig wbich as,follows:" ",Loss Qr resulting from. the following I;lerils excepted, jiz.:' B,i!lk'of or fire at sea, 'in or on shore, bOllerS, ,steam) or 1I16bhln'ery, or from consequences of any damage or 1111ury thereto; however ... "..l;n proceeding to .her the ves;.such ,aamail!' Ql' inj,ury IlllilY', IIe1'sdanm ' , )k.e.:t.and. w.hiletfIat'g ' in shaft was ofof the se.s, the. carg o·.8.hJfted, .and Shaft=br. lli'appeared lYi,. n .. t.h.e trOUgh. the best material ana workmanwas / the ship, , nodefeots, and that there was , tlie pan ownet;aot Beta, that neither the ,'" 'vassel nor her'owners;were.llll.ble for the to the eatgo·
.In Admiralty. ', .: , , , . ; ,
damages., On appeal from districtconrt. :.' ·FINDINGS OF, FA()T.
Dennj$totl'{(urrder histil'inname of peter Deu,rai:stoh &Co.,)undera charter of affreightment, on June 16, 1885; to·theMerritt Fruit Gom.. subchartered it9 tne libelants on September 1885. these' charters'isha had made the voyage hereinafter referred to. (2) Both charters contained the following written clame, "StealIier not r-esponsiblefordeliYery of cargo in
{lJ The Bnti$bstell.l:rl-ship Rover was chartered ,by her owner, Peter