Page:Federal Reporter, 1st Series, Volume 6.djvu/217

 rAWCETT V. BTEAM TOW-BOAT I/. VI. MOEGAN. 205 �suit against the present libellants in the court of oommon pleas No. 1, of Allegheny county, to recover damages sus- tained by them in consequence, as they alleged, of the libel- lants having negligently and unlawfuUy obstructed the tow- boat channel, in which suit there was a verdict for the defendants and a judgment in their favor, which was affirmed by the supreme court of Pennsylvania. And it is claimed that this judgment is conclusive against the owners of the- Morgan to the extent of fixing upon them at leaat contribu- tory negligence. But the verdict in that suit was a general one, and it does not appear upon what ground the jury based their finding. It was contended, on behalf of the defendants there, (the libellants here,) that they were justified in tem- porarily mooring their barges off McKee's rocks in their then circumstances of distress. That defence was submitted to the jury, as will appear from the following extract from the charge of the learned judge who tried the case : "But if you flhould think" (he instructed the jury) "that the weight of the evidence doos not make out that the defendants, under ail the circumstances, were negligent; that, intending to continue their voyage, they did what ordinarily prudent and skilful pilots would do under the circuinstances, — -you should find for the defendants." It is highly probable that the jury— takin^. a' charitable view of the conduct of the defendants — found a verdict in their favor based upon the conclusion that in the emergency a reasonable necessity existed for placing their barges where they did. But, assuredly, there was no abso- lute necessity for so doing ; and when the libellants chose to put their barges in a place of manifest danger, — in the way of unmanageable tows which they knew were coming out on that rise with pilots ignorant of the facts, — the libellants tnust be held to have taken the consequent risks of collisions. Obviously the case is not one for the application of the rule which requires a steamer to steer clear of a vessel at anchor. The Petrel, 18 Law Eep. (8 N. S.) 185. It may be added that it was most unfortunate that the barges were not suf- fered to remain as at first placed along the shore, two abreast ; ��� �