The Schooner Wanata.

doubtedly often convenient, and even necessary, for a vessel which desires to take a pilot from a pilot boat which is under way at sea, to approach so near to the pilot boat as to require the exercise of caution to prevent a collision between the two. Such approach may be made at night, and, for the pilot boat to carry and exhibit the lights prescribed by article 8, so as to distinguish her from other sailing vessels, would seem to be reasonable and useful, not only to indicate her character, but to guard against collision with her. But, a pilot boat at anchor is presumptively not in the course of present service, not seeking employment for her pilots, and not to be approached by a vessel seeking a pilot. Hence, there is no necessity that she should, when at anchor, show a different light from that shown by every other vessel at anchor.

As to the question, whether, in fact, the pilot boat in this case exhibited, at and before the time of the collision, such a light as is prescribed by article 7, the clear weight of the evidence is that she did. In addition to all the other evidence, the witness Miller, who had been on deck on the pilot boat continuously for an hour and ten minutes before the collision, and had gone below for his coat a moment before the collision, testified, that the light was burning brightly in the main peak halyard when he so went below, and that it had been so burning during the hour and ten minutes. Moreover, the light was seen before the collision, by those on board of the schooner, but at too late a moment to avoid the collision. It was in a proper place, 15 or 16 feet above the deck, and about 15 feet abaft the mainmast, the sails being all furled. Placed as it was, and with the pilot boat heading to the wind, it ought to have been seen by the approaching schooner. All the discrepancy, in the testimony, as to the position in which some of the witnesses saw the light after the collision, is owing to the fact that some of them looked at it from the higher posi

The Schooner Wanata.

tion of the deck or bulwarks of the schooner, the pilot boat being lower in the water, and to the further fact, that its position was lowered by the canting aft of the mainmast, owing to the injury it received by the blow from the schooner.

It is clear, on the proofs, that the schooner had no proper lookout, and that the collision was due to her negligence in that respect. A lookout stationed forward upon her, engaged diligently in searching for lights and vessels ahead, with his attention not distracted by other duties, would, undoubtedly, have seen the pilot boat's light in season to have enabled the schooner, by a change of helm, to avoid her, anchored as she was. Especially was this duty of keeping a vigilant watch, of the character indicated, incumbent upon the schooner on such a night, and in her existing predicament. The wind was so violent that she was unable to keep her own side lights burning, and she was running in, under shortened sail, to anchor under Barnegat. Still, her speed was considerable, and, having no lights to indicate to those on other vessels her approach, it was especially incumbent on her to watch closely for such other vessels.

In view of the fact that the pilot boat was at anchor, and exhibited a proper light, and that the schooner had no lights to indicate her approach, it cannot be regarded as a fault on the part of the pilot boat, contributing to the collision, that no one of her company was on deck or on watch at and just before the collision.

There having been no fault on the part of the pilot boat, and the collision being caused by the fault of the schooner, there must be a decree for the libellants, with costs, with a reference to a Commissioner to ascertain and report the damages sustained by the libellants.

Beebe, Donohue, & Cooke, for the libellants.

J. H. Choate, for the claimants.

The Steam-tug George Farrell,

OCTOBER, 1870.

THE STEAM-TUG GEORGE FARRELL.

TOW-BOAT AND TOW.

A tow-boat took severai vessels in tow to tow them through Hell Gate from New York. The tide was flood, and the weather fair. After passing through the Gate, one of the vessels struck some obstruction under water, causing her to leak, and making it necessary to run her ashore. Her owner filed a libel against the tug, claiming that the tug had taken in tow more vessels than she could manage, and that the vessel was allowed to be carried by the tide out of the channel, and to strike a rock on the shore. The tug claimed, on the other hand, that the vessel struck a sunken wreck in the channel:

Held, That, on the evidence, the tug had taken in tow more vessels than she had power to manage.

That, therefore, the burden was upon her to prove that the object which the vessel struck was one, the presence of which the tug was not bound to have known.

That she had failed to show this, and was, therefore, liable for the damages.

BLATCHFORD, J. This is a libel filed by the owner of the schooner Niger against the steam-tug George Farrell, to recover for the damages sustained by the schooner and her cargo, while she was being towed through Hell Gate by the tug, on the morning of the 6th of August, 1869. The schooner was bound from New York to Weymouth, Massachusetts. The weather was fine, and the tide was flood. The tug had two schooners lashed alongside of her on her port side, and two on her starboard side. The Niger and another schooner called the Delaware were towed astern, a hawser from the tug running to each of them, the Niger being on the port side of the Delaware. The tug, with the six schooners, proceeded up the East river, and between Blackwell's Island and the Long Is

The Steam-tug George Farrell.

land shore, and, at or near Astoria, the tug took in tow, in addition, a sloop, which was placed on the starboard side of the Delaware, at the end of a third hawser running from the tug. The Niger, the Delaware, and the sloop were properly secured to each other. In this manner the tug and the seven vessels proceeded in safety until the Niger had reached a place nearly off the point of the sunken meadow, opposite the middle ground, and to the eastward of Ward's Island, when the Niger, in consequence of her having struck some object under water on her port side, was found to be making water fast, and to be sinking. She was cut loose and run ashore, where she sank. The libel charges that the acci dent was due to the fault of the tug in taking in tow more vessels than she could manage. The answer avers, that, by the fault of those in charge of the Niger, or of those in charge of the sloop that was in tow, or of both of them, and not by the fault of the tug, the Niger and the sloop were allowed to sheer beyond the line of the direction of the tug; that thereby the Niger ran upon a rock or a sunken wreck or some obstruction, which was not, and could not be, known to the tug; that those in charge of the tug hailed the said vessels to sheer in and follow the course of the tug, but they failed to do so; and that the injury to the Niger was caused by negligence on the part of the said two vessels, or of one of them.

Without discussing the evidence, which is voluminous, I am satisfied that the weight of it is decidedly in favor of the conclusion that the accident happened through the fault of the tug, and not through any fault on the part of the Niger. The tug undertook to tow more vessels than she could properly manage, with the tide as it was, and with three of the vessels towed at the ends of hawsers. She lacked the power to give the vessels astern such way through the water, running, as they were, with a strong flood tide, that their helms, properly

The Steam-tug George Farrell.

managed, could keep them from being drifted and set by the tide upon the shore where the Niger struck. The evidence is very clear, that the helms of all three vessels astern were put and kept to port, as the tide set them upon the shore on their port side, and that, notwithstanding this, the tug failed to draw them clear of that shore. What the witnesses on board of the tug call the sheering of the vessels astern, was their drifting with the set of the tide. The tug having, on this state of facts, and through negligence, suffered the Niger to strike, the burden of proof is on the tug to show that the Niger struck on some object, the presence of which ought not to have been known to the tug. The tug fails to show this. Indeed, the weight of the evidence is, that the Niger went so near to the shore as to strike a rock.

There must be a decree for the libellant, with costs, with a reference to a Commissioner to ascertain the damages sustained by the libellant.

Beebe, Donohue, & Cooke, for the libellant.

R. D. Benedict, for the claimant.