Page:Federal Reporter, 1st Series, Volume 4.djvu/587

 JOHANSBBK V. BAKK £IiOINA. 678 �JOHANSSEN V. ThB BaEK ElOINA, ©to. �{District Court, E. D. Neia York. , 1880.) �1. Dahaoe bt CoLLiaroN — Demtjseagb and Intebest. — Where a vesael at anchor in New York bay was damaged by collision with another one drifting, and recovered theref or, hdd, that the evidence warranted the conclusion that the anchor was lost by being slipped to avoid the collision, and the inference was fair that to recover it would cost ail it was worth, the claimant making no attempt to repel it ; that inter- est on demurrage is not to be allowed under the practice of this court. ' �Exception to Eeport of Commîssîoner. �Butler, Stillman & Hubhard, for libellant. �Coudert Bros,, for claimant. �Bbnedict, Ï). J. The evidence seems to require the con- clusion that 45 fathoms of chain were lost, if any was lost. The evidence as to the value of the chain does not appear to be objected to, and it may be deemed sufficient to warrant the conclusion that the value of 45 fathoms of chain and the anchor was $694.54. As to the demurrage, the allowance of two days is ail that the evidence will support. The charge of $10 for a translation of the log was properly disallowed. It was not a disbursement necessarily fesulting from the col- lision. The charge for the protest is different, because the law of Norway makes it the duty of the master, in every case of collision, to take the testimony of his crew, and embody it in a protest. �The evidence warranta the conclusion that the slipping of the anchor was caused by the collision, and the circumstancea gave no time to buoy it. It having been proved that the anchor and chain were slipped when the vessel lay out in the bay where the water is deep, the fair inference, in the ab- sence of any other evidence, is that it would not be possible to recover it, except by an expenditure equal to its value. If Buch be not the fact, it was easy for the claimant to show it. The proposition that in ail cases where property is sunk, in order to entitle a libellant to recover for its loss, direct evi- dence that it cannot be raised must be given, is not supported ����