Page:Federal Reporter, 1st Series, Volume 8.djvu/190

176 FEDERAL REPORTER. �In regard to tie averment of the libel that shortly after the mast- head light of the steamer was seen, all three of the lights were pre- sented to view, and she was coming for the stern part of the starboard quarter of the bark, I do not see that it is neoessarily inconsistent with the fact that prier to the time when the bark was seen by the steamer the steamer was approaching within the range of the bark's green light. But if this allegation of the libel be irreeoncilable with the statement in the answery the steamer surely bas no cause to eom- plain if the case be determined upon a theory in harmony with the statements of the answer rather than those of the libel. ■ The concluBioti I have arrived at, that the bark's green light was viaibife to those on the steamer at a sufficient distance to enable the steainer to avoid th«bark, and that the want of a proper and constant lookout on bo'ard the steamer was the cause of her omission to see the bark's light a& soon as it beoame visible, and her consequent failure to avoid the barkj renders it unnecessary to determine whether there was a f urther f ault' on the part of the steamer in putting her helm hard a-port at the instant of seeing the light^ upon the assumption that the light was that of a steamer passing them to port, instead of utsi determining the character of the light. �The views already expressed, of course, dispose of the point taken against the bark that she was in fault fornot displaying a light over her stem towards the steamer seen to be approaching. If, as I have found, the want of a proper and constant lookout on the steamer was the only reason why the bark's green light was not seen in time to avoid her, the display of an additional light from the bark would have been o' no avail; and, moreover, as I have found, the respective courses of the vessels were such as to render the bark's green light visible to the steamer; and if, as the witnesses for the steamer said, the night was such as to enable that light to be seen at a distance of two miles, there was nothing to lead those on board the bark to suppose the light they were displaying to the steamer would not be seen by those on board the steamer, and they were justified, therefore, in assuming that the collision would be avoided by timely action on the part of the steamer. �I find no fault, therefore, on the part of the bark, and I am of the opinion that the steamer is wholly responsible for the sinking of the bark. The libellant must, therefore, have a decree for the amount of his damages, with an order of reference to ascertain the amount. ��� �