NEW YORK, L. E. & W. R.
thought she was far enough out in the river for him to go inside of her, and so he changed his course to pass between her and the Hunter's Point sidE), He immediately discovered his mistake, but it was too late to enable him to swing the other way before reaching the Quickstep. His fault consisted in changing his course, instead of stopping his boat as soon as the Quickstep was discerned, and this fault caused the collision. Let a decree be entered for the libelant, with an order of reference.
YORK, L. E. & 'V. R. CO. v. THE BREAKWATER. DO},-II:-UON STEAM-SHIP Co. v. THE PAVONIA.
May 23, 1889.)
(District Court, E. D. New York.
COLI,ISlON-BETWEEN STEAMERS-DELAY DI BACKING.
A steam-vessel. which is bound to keep out of the way of another steamboat, will be held in fault if collision happen through her delay in backing, where the circumstances of wind and tide and signals exchanged were snfficient to have shown her that such backing could not be delayed without risk of collision.
In Admiralty. Cross-libels for damages by collision. The steam-ship Breakwater was coming into the :Korth river from sea, and as she approached her dock hauled in somewhat to the New York piers. The tide was ebb, and a strong north-west wind was blowing. When the Breakwater was still several piers below the Pavonia ferry-slip, the ferry-boat Pavonia was seen coming out of her slip on the New York shore. The ferry-boat immediately blew one whistle to the Breakwater, indicating that she would cross the latter's bow, to which signal the Breakwater agreed by one whistle, and stopped, but did not back until the ferry-boat had again signaled once, when the steamer reversed. But the tide and wind carried the ferry-boat somewhat down stream, and the boats came in collision, the stem of the steamer striking the port side of the ferry-boat. Cross-libels were filed for the resulting damages. Wilcox, Adams & Macklin, for the Pavonia. Owen & Gray, for the Breakwater. BENEDICT, J. It is proved that the Breakwater, although she stopped her engine, did not then reverse it. It is also proved that if the engine of the Breakwater had been reversed as soon as possible after it was stopped there would have been no collision. The Breakwat having r, the ferry-boat on her starboard side, and upon a crossing course, was bound to do all in her power to avoid striking the ferry-boat as she crossed. It was in her power to reverse the engine sooner than "he did, and by so doing to have avoided striking the ferry-boat as she did. The
lReported by Edward G. Benedict, Esq" of the New York bar.
FEDERAL REPORTER, vol. 39.
circ\lmstances of wind and tide and the signals exchanged were sufficient to show to those in charge of the Breakwater that reversing the engines of the Breakwater could not be delayed without risk of collision. The delay that occurred in reversing the engines of the Breakwater was therefore a fault, and renders the Breakwater responsible for the collision that occurred. The ferry-boat was guilty of no fault.
SACQUEJ,AND et al. v. THE METEOR.
(Circuit Court, E. D. New York. June 8, 1889.)
SEAMEN- W AGES-CUAHACTER OF SERVICE,
Libelant testified that he was hired by the master of a steam-yacht as mate, at $50 per month. The master testified that he was only hired as a deck-hand. at $30. There was no other mate than libelant. During the previous season he had been promoted from a deck-hand, at $30, to a mate, at $5ll, and as such served until the end of the season. During the season in controversy it appeared that until about three weeks before his discharge he wore a mate's uniform when visitors were around, bought for him by the master, who explained it by saying that it was necessary to have some one to act as mate to receive guests. Letters to libelant from the master, authorizing him to employ men, and to keep the work Il;oing, were introduced. When libelant left he did not apply for mate's wages. Held, that he was only entitled to the wages of a deck-haud,
In Admiralty. On appeal from the district court, 36 Fed. Rep. 566. In the circuit court new evidence was introduced to show that libelant only wore a mate's uniform when visitors were around, and that when he left he did not apply for extra wages. Wilcox, Adams & Macklin, for appellant. Noah Tebbetts, for appellees. BLATCHFORD, J. I think that, in view ofthe new proofs taken in this court, and of the whole case, the claim of Sacqueland for a mate's wages must be disallowed, but that the claim of each of the five persons to whom the district court allowed $6.75 for board money must be allowed. As the claimant has succeeded as to the claim of Sacqueland for a mate's wages, he must recover against Sacqueland the costs of this court; and, although the claim of Sacqueland, which is disallowed for a mate's wages, was coupled with the allowed claims for board money, it seems equitable that costs in the district court should be allowed to those who recover for board money.