Page:Federal Reporter, 1st Series, Volume 8.djvu/380

 366 PBDEEAL REPOETEB. �Tracey was without fault. There must be a decree for the libellant, with costs, and it is referred to a master, to be appointed by the court, (unless the parties agree upon the person,) to take proofs as to the libellant's damages, and report, with his opinion thereon, to the court. �As to the steam-boat Connecticut, as to which the libel was dis- missed upon the hearing of the cause, I think she was censurable, though not legally in fault, and is not entitled to costs. �Upon the trial of the qause a motion was made, upon the petition of one of the owners of the Sears, to limit the liability of the owners, which, by understanding between counsel for the parties, was to be consideredin connection with the proofs taken upon the trial of the cause, and decided if the main question should be found against the Sears. It appears from the proofs, and there are no allegations in thepetition inconsistent with the faot, that the Sears was employed in river navigation upon the Hudson river, and not elsewhere. The provisions of the statutes for limiting the liability of the owners of vesssels do not appy to the owners of any vessel used in rivers or inland navigation. Eev. St. § 4289. It was held by Judge Drum- mond (The War Eagle, 6 Biss. 364) that a vessel employed on the upper Mississippi was within the excepted class; and, while much might be said in favor of the position that section 4289 refers only to such rivers as are inland, as distinguished from public navigable waters, that decision must be recognized as controlling here, both because its reasoning is satisfactory and as an authority it is entitled to high respect. • ' �The prayer of the petition must be denied. ���The Julia Shbrwood. {District Court, E. D. New York. July 25, 1881.) �Exceptions to Libbl— Likn Undeii the Laws of New Yobk. �Exceptions being filed to a libel claiming a lien upon a yessel for repairs and supplies in the port of New York, under the statute of the state, alleging that no Jacts were stated snfHcient to constitute a cause of action, that no lien ex- istcd, and that the cause of action was not one of admiraltj' and maritime jurisdiotion: Held, that the exceptions were not well taken ; that the filing of specifications was not a necessary averment where it appeared that the vessel had not left the port ; and that the statement of the libel that the work was done on a domestlc vessel, in her home port, at the request of +he owner, and �.tfieclajm wassought to be enforced within a mon th. were sufflcient to create a lien under the statute of the state of New York which may be enforced in the admiralty. ��� �