Page:Federal Reporter, 1st Series, Volume 5.djvu/396

 384 FEDEEAL REPORTER. �Hill, Wing a Shoudy, for the libellants. �Beebe, Wilcox e Hobbs, for the ferry-boat. �E. D. McCarihy, for the tug. �Bbnediot, D. J. I am of the opinion that the damage to the bark Kings County, sued for in this action, must, upon the evidence, be found to have been caused by the negligence of those navigating the tug E. S. Conoter, which, at the time of the collision, was engaged in towing the bark. This negli- gence consisted in straightening up on the hawser attached to the bark 's starboard bow when the situation of the tug was such that the power so applied to the bark, in her then posi- tion, and at that state of the tide, caused the bark to move astern and into the side of the ferry-boat then under her etern. The character of the blow shows that the ferry-boat was substantially still in the water, and that the bark was, by the. action of the tug, backed against the ferry-boat. The ferry-boat was not in fault for stopping and reversing as she did. Such action was necessary to avoid a sloop, and she was entitled to suppose that the bark would remain where she was, or at least would not baok. Nor was the ferry-boat in fault for not continuing to back. When the ferry-boat stopped back- ing, the bark was upon her; if she had continued backing she would not have escaped the bark, and, by stopping her engine, she diminished the damages. If the bark had been moved ahead by the tug, instead of astern, or if she had been turned without going astern, there would not have been any collision. It was entirely possible for the tug so to tow the bark as to prevent her from going astern and across the river, and her failure to do this caused the damage in question. �The libel as against the ferry-boat is, therefore, dismissed, and the libellant awarded a decree against the tug for the damage in question, with a reference to ascertaiu the amount. ����