Page:Federal Reporter, 1st Series, Volume 2.djvu/824

 WEAVEB V. 8CH00NEB ONMST. 817 �the Mary Weaver bear to the right, and keep on her course without change down to the moment of collision? 2. Did the Onmst keep on her course, without any culpable or ma- terial change, until a collision became inevitable? Thesa are the agreed principal issues. As bearing upon them, many subordinate points or questions •were raised and con- tested, having relation to the position of the two vessels wlien they first descried each other; the state of the wind and weather; the maneuverings of the vessels previous to the col- lision; the number and special occupations of the several persons on the decks of the two vessels at, before and after the collision; the state of the tide, and the importance or non -importance of it as a factor in estimating the speed of a vessel on or through the water ; the relative speed of the two vessels; the time required to change the course of a vessel four or five points, under supposed circumstances ; the non- production by the libellants of any deposition of the wheel- man of the Mary Weaver; the alleged impossihilities of the conflicting theories of the collision, each party branding as erroneous, or wllfully untrue, the bther's theory, and as deeep- tive and unreliable the plats or diagrams purporting to embody those theories ; the alleged stealthy departure of the Onmst from the scene of the collision after the lapse of about two hours, her captain having promised to lay by the crippled Mary Weaver until daylight ; the credibility and honesty, or the opposite, of the witnesses in mass, and singly, considered ; the value of experts' testimony in general, and especially the value of the testimony of the thirteen whose depositions were exhibited in evidence, to refrain from further enumer- ations. �Of the evidence submitted by the parties it seems sufficient here to say it was very voluminous, remarkably contradictory, and wholly irreeoncilable. It was embodied in depositions, which were read, and in great part repeatedly reread, at the hearing, and was the subject of exhaustive comment by the learned, astute and zealous counsel of the parties. To that evidence and those comments I gave undivided attention, throughout a hearing prolongea almost beyond precedent — v.2,no.9— 52 ����