The Propeller Wenona, keel, as to be in substantial if not in strict conformity with the Act of Congress. If properly located and sufficiently secured in the fore-rigging, with the required side screens carefully adjusted on lines parallel to the vessel's keel, they may be quite as efficient as when carried upon the rail; but to sanction their location upon the pawl-post would, it is believed, be extremely injurious to the interests of commerce. The schooner should therefore be held in fault, unless the testimony in the case satisfactorily shows, that the improper location of her signal lights, did not in any manner contribute to the production of the collision. This point in the case has therefore been very deliberately considered. Notwithstanding the darkness, the haze upon the water, and the fine rain, which, together, prevented the colored lights of a vessel from being seen as far as in a dark night, with a clear atmosphere, the green light of the schooner, and the only one her heading and position required her to show to the propeller, was seen as soon as the first torch light went out, and at such distance that there was no difficulty whatever in the propeller's keeping out of the way of the schooner, by a decided change of helm, without stopping and reversing, or even stopping her engine. It is quite certain upon the testimony that from that time forward one or the other of the schooner's colored lights were or might have been seen, except while her flash light was exhibited the second time; there is no proof that both were at any time obscured by sails, bowsprit, boom or rail; and there is no reason to believe that those in charge of the Wenona, were in any way misled by the improper location or any other defect, of such colored lights ;—or that the proper colored light to indicate her heading, was not at all times visible from the Wenona. It will therefore be held that the improper location of the schooner's lights did not contribute to the collision. In the Matter of William Belden and George W. Hooker, Bankrupts. The reasons why the change of wheel made by the schooner, when a collision was inevitable, and it was apparent that the propeller was taking no sufficient measures to avoid it, should not be considered a fault contributing to the collision, have already been sufficiently given. On the whole case the propeller will be held in fault, and the schooner held to be without fault contributing to the collision. For libellant, B. H. Williams & John Ganson. Southern District of New York. JUNE, 1870. IN THE MATTER OF WILLIAM BELDEN AND GEORGE W. HOOKER, BANKRUPTS. EXTENDING TIME TO OPPOSE DISCHARGE.-EXAMINATION OF BANKRUPT.-STANDING IN COURT. Creditors of a bankrupt, against whose claim a protest had been filed by the bankrupt, applied to the register, on a petition making allegations of fraud in the bankrupt's proceedings, for an order directing the examination of the bankrupt, and of witnesses, and extending the time to show cause against the discharge till after such examination. The register declined to grant the order, because the creditors had no standing in court: Held, That the register, under § 26, should have made the order prayed for, and that the time to show cause against the discharge ought to be extended till the examination was concluded. A petition was presented to the register, in this case, by Harris C. Fahnestock, a member of the firm of BT. VOL. IV.-15 In the Matter of William Belden and George W. Hooker, Bankrupts. Jay Cooke & Co., creditors of the bankrupts, setting forth that the bankrupts, by collusion with some of their creditors, and by wrongfully protesting against the claims of others, including that of the petitioner's firm, had procured the election of an assignee who, also, was in collusion with them; that the schedules attached to the petition were false; that fraudulent preferences had been made by the bankrupts; and that the proceedings throughout had been fraudulently conducted, with intent to prevent honest creditors from investigating the affairs of the bankrupts, and preparing to oppose their discharge. The petition prayed for an order of examination of the bankrupts, the assignee, certain of the creditors, and some other persons, as witnesses, and, also, for an order extending the time to oppose the discharge of the bankrupts until such examination could be made. The register declined to grant the order, but certified the question to the Court, stating that he should grant the order of examination at once, were it not for decisions of the Court, to the effect, that, where the claim of a creditor has been protested against, such creditor has no standing in Court until the claim has been adjudicated on (citing Adams' Case, 36 How. Pr. R. 51; 6 I. R. R. 28, 127, 223; 2 Bank. Reg. 76, 109), following which, as he said, he held that the petitioner was not entitled to the order asked for, but would be the moment his claim was substantiated as a claim; and that the prayer of the petition for an extension of the time to show cause why the bankrupts should not be discharged, could only be heard on the return day of the order to show cause before the register. BLATCHFORD, J. On the petition, it is proper that the register, acting as the Court, should, under section 26, make the order prayed for, there being power to make such order at all times, "without any applica The Steamboat W. C. Redfield. tion ;" and the time for showing cause against the discharge ought to be extended from time to time by the register, until the examinations of the bankrupts and the other witnesses are concluded, the whole matter being subject to regulation by the register and the Court, as to the use of reasonable diligence. Charles D. Burrill, for the petitioner. JUNE, 1870. THE STEAMBOAT W. C. REDFIELD. COLLISION ON HUDSON RIVER. STEAMBOAT AND SCHOONER.-BEATING OUT TACK.-HOLDING VESSEL IN STAYS. A steamboat with two barges in tow, one on each side, and a schooner, were both bound down the Hudson river. The schooner was ahead of the steamer, and was beating down, the wind being about ahead, and the tide ebb. Just below the dock at West Camp, the steamer was on the west side of the river, but nearer the middle than the west shore, and the schooner was a short distance below, going to the westward, on her port tack. The steamer starboarded, so as to go under the stern of the schooner; but the schooner, when she had gone but a short distance beyond the line of the course of the steamboat, and without running as far to the west as she could have done, came about. The steamboat immediately stopped and reversed, but without being able to prevent a collision, by which the schooner was sunk : Held, That it was the duty of the steamboat to avoid the schooner, and of the schooner to continue her westward tack as far as was reasonably safe. That the schooner did not so continue her tack. That, even if she did, she was in fault, under the 20th article of the Rules for avoiding collisions, in that she was not held in stays long enough to allow the steamboat to pass. BLATCHFORD, J. The libellants, as owners of the schooner Sarah L. Merritt, bring this suit against the The Steamboat W. C. Redfield. steamboat W. C. Redfield, to recover the sum of $5,000, for the damages sustained by them through the sinking of the schooner by means of a collision which took place between the two vessels on the 9th of October, 1867, between five and six o'clock P. M., in the Hudson river, just below the dock at West Camp. Both vessels were bound down the river. The wind was south, and was about ahead to the schooner, and she was beating. The steamboat had two barges lashed to her, one on each side of her, which she was towing. The schooner was ahead of the steamboat. The tide was ebb, or with both vessels. The libel alleges, that the schooner had finished her tack to the westward, and gone about on her tack to the eastward, which was her starboard tack, and was sailing close hauled, when the steamboat struck her on her port side, a little aft of midships, and crushed it in, the bow of the steamboat running up on her deck, and that the steamboat remained in that position until the schooner sank from under her. The answer sets forth, that the channel, at the place in question, is about three-quarters of a mile wide, and extends close to the west shore; that the steamboat, which was a propeller, was on the west side of the river, but nearer the middle than the west shore; that the schooner stood across the river, and across the line of the direction of the steamboat, to the westward, on her port tack, a short distance below the steamboat; that, as the schooner was so standing across the river, on a course to the westward, the helm of the steamboat was put to starboard, for her to pass under the schooner's stern, which she would have done at a safe distance, if the schooner had run out her tack to the westward; that the schooner, instead thereof, continued on that tack only until she had passed less than her length to the westward of the line of direction of the steamboat and of the barge on the starboard side of the steamboat, and then came about and stood on her starboard tack to the |