Page:Federal Reporter, 1st Series, Volume 8.djvu/537

 IH£ A. i. CBANMER. 523 �The a. p. Cranmer. �(Circuit Court, B. D. New York. August 12, 1881.) �1. Collision— Stbam-Vbssel — Satl-Vebbhl — Kbv. St. \ 4233. �In an action by the owner of a canal-boat, which was one of seventeen com- prising the tow of two tugs, to recover damages for an injury to his boat received in a collision with a schooner, whose apparent course, as se.en by the tugs, was suct, up to within so short a time of the collision that it could not be prevented, as to cause them no reasonablo apprehension of a collision, but ■whose apparent course was afiected greatly by the leeway which she was making, of which her master was aware, but not those on the tugs, lield, that the efiect of the leeway on the legal relations of the tugs and tow to the schooner was the same, so far as the rights of one cognizant of the fact were concerned, as that of a direct change of course. Hdd, further, that when the apparent course of a sail-vessel, as seen by a steam-vessel, is such as to cause the latter no reasonable apprehension of a collision, it is not incumbent on such steam-vessel, under section 4233 of the Revlsed btatute^j, to taliu'precautions to keep out of the way �In Admiralty. H. T. Wing, for libellant. R. D. Benedict, for the schooner. T. A. Wilcox, for the tugs. �Blatchford, C. J. In this case the district court found the facts to be as follows : �On the twenty-fourth of July, 1877, the schooner A. P. Cranmer and the caiial-boat John A. Ileister came in collision in the bay of New York, and the canal-boat was sunk. At the time of the collision the schooner was sailing down the bay upon the starboavd tack, and was between Bedlow's island and the Can buoy on Kobbins' reef. The canal-boat was the outside boat on the port side of the head tier of a tow of 17 canal-boats then being towed from Amboy to New York by two steam-tugs, the W. 0. Nichols and the Sammie. The tugs were towing one aheiid of the other, the Nichols being the leading boat, and were pulling the tow at the speed of about two and a half miles an hour. It was a clear day. A working breeze was blowing and no other ves- sels were moving in the vicinity. The schooner passed the two tugs in safety, ■ to the westward. Just about as she passed the Sammie, in order to avoid running into the canal-boats, she hove her wheel down, but, as she swung, one of the towing hawsers caught under her tuck and threw her ofE from the wind again, so that she ran head on into the libellant's boat, causing her to sink instantly. These facts are shown by the evidence. �The district court found the canal-boat and the tugs to be free from fault, and the schooner to be in fault. It held that if the canal-boats and the tugs together were to be deemed a single vessel, within the sailing rules, such com- bined vessel could not be deemed a steam-vessel under steam, within rule 20 of the steering and sailing rules in section 4233 of the Revised Statutes, and so required to keep out of the way of the ssliooaer; that the provisions of ��� �