Page:Federal Reporter, 1st Series, Volume 7.djvu/267

 THEJIABIA. & BLIZlBBiTH 256 �its non-ro'bservance' upon the vessel -whlch disobeys the. mie, nnlesa It be clearly proved that her misconduct in no way cpntributed to the injAiry." �See alBO The Bloeteotn, la. 188 ; The Argus, la. SOi. �But the proctor for the respondent invokes the benefit of sailing rule 16, (Rev. St. § 4233,) and insists that the testi' mony shows that .the two vessela were meeting end on, or neatjy end on, involving the risk of collision, and that the helm Of both sbould have been ported, sothat each might pass on the port side of the other. The Maria & Blizabeth, acting under thifl rule, put her helm hard a-port, and all her witnesses a}lege that the damage arose from the Achorn holding her course, rather than portitog her helm as required. �When two of these rules thus corne in conflict, it is the duty of the dourt, as far as possible, to reconcile them, or so to interpret them that both shall stand. That can only be done in the present case by making sailing rule 16 apply to the meeting of two Tcssels where one is not free and the other not close-hauled. By both porting their helms under snch circumstances each would pass on the larboard; side pf the other. But the seventeenth rule provides "that when two sail vessels are crossing so as to involve risk of collision, then, if they have the wind on different sides, the vessel with the wind on the port side shall keep out of the way of the vessel on the starboard side." If the rule stopped there, the blame of the collision in the present case would fall upon the Achorn, which had the wind on her port side ; but the rule continues, "except in the case in which the vessel with the wind on the port side is close-hauled and the other vessel free, in which case the latter vessel shall keep out of the way." The "latter vessel" here was the Maria & Eliza- beth ; and if she must keep out of the way, then the Achorn, by the twenty-third rule, was required to keep her course. �It was strongly contended at the hearing, by the proctor for the respondent, that the Achorn must have starboarded her helm and brought the injury on herself. If the evidence sus- tained such contention, the decision of the supreme court in ��� �