Page:Federal Reporter, 1st Series, Volume 8.djvu/937

 THE ANN. 923 �after the tug grounded, by any reasonable effort on her part. On the contrary, in my opinion, the grounding of the canal-boat was the immediate and necessary resuit of the grounding of the tug. �This being the f act, the liability of the tug seems to follow, for it can hardly be doubted that the grounding of the tug must be attrib- uted to carelessness on the part of those in charge of the tug. The first duty of the tug towing a canal-boat in such a ohannel was to keep herself off from the banks. The sole reason why the tug grounded on this occasion was that she held on too long towards the right bank, The bank was plainly to be seen, the tug was bound to know how near the bank she could go, and with her eyes open, there being no wind, tide, or other vessel to interfere with her, she kept on bearing to starboard until she brought up on the bank. Such navi- gation must be deemed faulty, and it rendered the tug liable for the damage that ensued. �There must be a decree for the libellant and an order of reference to ascertain the amount. ���The Ann. �{Disirict Court, D. MarylavA. June 6,1881.) �1. CoNBTiTUTiONAL Law— Martland Otstbk Law oi 1880— Seizueb op Vbssm, — Notice. �Under the Maryland oyster law of 1880, an oyster schooner, found dredging in the Chesapeake bay without a license, was seized, and with her master and crew carried into Annapolis by the state oyster police. The master and crew were tried before a justice of the peace and flned, and upon noa-payment of the fine the vessel was forfeited and sold. �HelA, that the lorfeiture and sale were valid ; that the law was not repugnant to the State constitutiona! provision that in all criminal prosecutions every man shall be entitled to trial by jury. �Held, also, that the law was not repugnant to the provision of the federal constitution that no stato shall deprive any person of his property without due process of law. �Hdd, that the seizure of the vessel was notice to the owner, and that, as the law provided for au appeal \iy the owner from the decree of forfeiture, he could make himself a party to the case and defend his rights. �In Admiralty. �George W. Wayson, tor libellant. Robert H. Smith, for respondents. AtVy Gen. Gwynn, for the State. �MoREis, D. J^ This controversy was commenced in this court by a libel filed by seamen for wages against the schooner Ann, a small ��� �