Page:Federal Reporter, 1st Series, Volume 8.djvu/360

346 PEDEUAIi REPORTER. �that caused the damage. There is great doubt on the testimony as to the size aud weight of the tug's anchor. ihe libellant testilies that he Hinself handled it alone and threw it overboard, and he estimates its weight at 75 pounds. On the point of his handling it alone he is seriously contradicted, and I am unable to find this fact proved on his uncorroborated testimony. On the other hand, the testimony of those on the tug is that it weighed from three to four hundred pounds. The proof is, however, that though the holding ground there is good, it was insufficient to hold the tug and this partly-loaded canal-boat. I should have little difficulty in finding this an insufficient equip- ment for a tug towing canal-boats in the sound, if this want of a heavier anchor had anything to do -with the subsequent disaster; but I think it had not. For the reasons given above, even if the anchor had beld, the tug could not safely have let her steam run down in that situation, nor have safely remained there after her fuel ■was 80 far exhausted that she could not proceed under steam to New Haven, the nearest port of safety. She certainly did not go out from under t)uck island because she could not anchor there. She had no difficulty in. steaming round and keeping under the lee of the island, and might have continued to do so, if she had had fuel enough, till the next day. While she did so she and her tow were safe. �Coming, then, to the question why the tug left the shelter of Duck island at the time and under the circumstances in -which she did, the effect of the evidence in the case clearly is that she left then be- cause her supply of coal was so nearly exhausted that she could not remain there longer without incurring the danger of her coal giving out before she could reach New Haven, which was the nearest place at which coal could be obtained. The only other theory advanced on this point is that urged by the counsel for the claimants, that she went out because there were indications that the wind was hauling more to the southward, and if it had done so the west side of Duck island would have ceased to furnish a lee, and that it was therefore unsafe to remain longer. There is no evidence whatever to sustain this the- ory, except the testimony of Captain Meyers, the master of the tug. The testimony of this witnesa is to be received with great caution. Not only is he interested to justify his conduct, but it appears that ever since the disaster, in November, 1880, till the time of the trial, in February, 1881, he had been employed by lUe owaer of the tug in preparing the defence, in the case, and he manifested upon the trial, a great deal of earnestness in behalf of the defence. So vital a point ��� �