Page:Federal Reporter, 1st Series, Volume 4.djvu/852

 838 TEDERAL EBPOBTER. �Long Dock, Jersey City. The tide was ebb. The Bowen and the scow proceeded down the East river to the Battery, and rounded the Battery. At a point about opposite pier 1, North river, and about 300 yards distant from the New York ahore, the bow of the boat Centennial, which was being towed by the steam-tug L. P. Dayton on the starboard side of the Day- ton, and was going down the North river, came into collision with the bow of the said scow Number Four, and the effect was that the Centennial sank. �On the foregoing facts I find, as a conclusion of law, that, as the libel alleges that the scow was in fault in partioulara specified in the libel, and as the answer of the claimant of the scow denies each and every allegation in the libel charg- ing or imputing any fault or negligence to the scow or the Bowen, or those in charge thereof, and as no facts are proved in the case as against the scow except the foregoing facts admitted by said answer, and the libellant has proved no negligence or fault on the part of the scow, the libel must ba dismissed as to the scow, with eosts to her in this court, and with $23.25 costs to her in the district court against the libellant. �The answer of the Dayton alleges that this collision was wholly caused by the fault of those on board and in charge of the Bowen and the scow, "as alleged in the libel." This admission by the Dayton certainly can bave no effect to throw on the Dayton, as between her and the libellant, any burden of showing fault in the Bowen and the scow. The libellant and the Dayton agree that there was fault in the Bowen and the scow. But when it comas to making proof of such fault, which proof must be made as against the Bowen and the scow to condemn them, they having denied the libel- lant's allegation of fault in them, and the libellant having initiated such allegation of fault in them, the libellant must go forward and prove such allegation, or else his libel must be diamissed as to the Bowen and the scow. It is of no con- sequence that such allegation is admitted in the answer of the Dayton. So, also, the allegation in the answer of the ����