Page:Federal Reporter, 1st Series, Volume 8.djvu/731

 THE COLUMBIA. 717 �ferry-boat. The ferry-boat kept her course towards her slip.- )!The tug kept her course, rather drawing nearer to the New York piers, until the boats were close together, when she dropped the hawser by which she was towing the bark, and sheered sharply to starboard; By this movement she was brought into the ferry-slip, and when in the slip sho was struck by the ferry-boat on the starboard side, sustaining the dam- age sued for by the libellant Gahill in the second of the above-men- tioned actions. At the time the fcrry-boat came in contact with the tug the headway of the ferry-boat had been about stopped by the reverse action of her engine, and by the continued action of her engine the ferry-boat was carried back a short distance. She then moved ahead again, when the Laura, having been east adrift by thei tug, but still moving ahead, brought up on the ferry-boat'siS'tem, and did some slight damage to the ferry-boat, besides sustaining some damage herself. To recover this. damage to the Laura the libellant Baysea brings the first of the abOve-mentioned actions against butb'the fersy-boat and the tug. The ferry-boat, shortly after she was atiuek by the bark, brought up with her bow against the lighiet Waisoni then lying at the end of pier 2, a pier'Iorming the east sid& of th« fersyrslip, and did some slight damage to the Hghter^foi* the.reeovery wbereof the third of the above-mentioned actions is braught against the ferry-boat alone. . . ^j �The testimony, although not free from oontradictionsi in somepaij- ticulars, leaves little room for doubt in regard .to; the- contrdiipg facts.  -■■ ■ ■'■ ■■■: ;■ ■ ' •: '.■■■::'■. �It plainly appears that, as thevessels were approaching eaoh other, the tug had the ferry-boat upon her starboard side^and the Tessels were on courses erossing each other. According to the rule of navi- gation it was, therefore, the duty of the tug toavoid'tho ferry-boat, and the duty of the ferry-boat to hold her course.' The ferry-boat did hold her course, and the tug did not avoid her;; The tug would faave avoided the ferry-boat if she had stopped when she saw the approach of the ferry-boat. She claims, by way of excuse for not sto'pping, that, having the bark in tow, it was not possible for her tb stop with- out incurring the danger of being run over by the bark. But I am not satisfied with this excuse. As I view the evidence the tug could have stopped, and even backed away, without being run over hy^ the bark. �The tug would also have avoided the ferry-boat, if, when the feriiy- boat was seen to be approaching, the tug had ported her helm and gone out towards the middle of the river. She claims, by way of ��� �