The following text may have been generated by Optical Character Recognition, with varying degrees of accuracy. Reader beware!

12 : MARINE REVIEW. Owners and masters of harbor tugs will be interested in the decision of Judge Jenkins of the United States district court, Milwaukee, in the case of the owners of the schooner Butcher Boy against the tugs Nelson and Spaulding, here given in full : On September 29, 1889, the schooner Butcher Boy was proceed- ing up Lake Michigan, and was some three miles to the south- ward of the east entrance of the Sturgeon bay canal, intending to pass through the canal. The tugs Jessie Spaulding and George Nelson, of about equal speed, were lying moored to the dock near the east mouth of the canal. Both started in pursuit of the tow. 'The Spaulding got away first, immediately fol- lowed by the Nelson. Withina half mile the gap was closed, and the tugs proceeded abreast, at a speed of 12 miles an hour, within 50 feet of each other, the Nelson being on the starboard side of the Spaulding. 'They thus proceeded at full speed until they arrived abreast of or a little to the southward of the Butcher Boy, on the port side; the Spaulding being about 1,000 feet away, the Nelson 50 feet further away and a half length in the lead. At this point, and almost simultaneously, the tugs began to round to alongside the Butcher Boy. The Spaulding, having a shorter turn to make, forged ahead of the Nelson about a quarter of her length, and had come around so that her bow was headed about north-east to the forward quarter of the schooner, and was still swinging with her wheel hard astar- board, and but for the collision would have swung clear of the Butcher Boy. The Nelson swung in towards the Spaulding, was caught in her suction, and they collided ; the Nelson strik- ing the Spaulding on her after starboard quarter, abreast of her engine room door. Both tugs at this time were under full speed. The blow caused the Spaulding to list over on her port side, changing her course to easterly, and heading her directly to- wards the schooner. Both tugs reversed their engines, but were unable to stop their headway in time. The bow of the Spauld- F. W. WHEELER, President. E. T. CARRINCTON, Vice-President. ing was driven violently against the schooner, striking her on the port side about amidships, causing damage. The Nelson was at fault. She was the overtaking vessel, and was bound to keep out of the way of the Spaulding. It is a mistaken idea . that, because at the moment of turning the Nelson was in the lead by half a length, she ceased to be the overtaking vessel. She retained that character until she had completely passed the Spaulding. Here both vessels had a common object, to attain which on the part of the Nelson it was necessary for her, being to starboard, to cross the course of the Spaulding to her port side, in order to first reach the schooner. The Spaulding, as the leading vessel, was entitled to hold her course. The Nelson remained the overtaking vessel until she had so far passed the Spaulding that she could safely cross the latter s course, on safely intervene between her and the schooner. 'The Nelson had full knowledge of the position and course of the Spaulding. The Spaulding was not at fault. She had the right, if she could, to maintain the lead, so long as she did not improperly interfere with the Nelson. ach had the right to move at full speed, navigating properly to avoid collision. But for the Nel- son's faulty management the Spaulding would have cleared the schooner. Immediately upon the collision she reversed her engine and took all possible action to avoid striking the schooner. 'The decree is for the libelants, owners of the damaged schooner, and the Spaulding is dismissed, with costs against the owners of the Nelson. United States District Judge Nelson of Massachusetts decided a case a few days ago in which the causes for action were similar to conditions often arising on the lakes. A schooner drawing tr feet 8 inches, loaded with coal owned by and consigned to the defendants under a bill of lading guarantying to her gener- ally 12 feet of water, arrived at the defendant's dock. One of the defendants was present at the schooner's arrival, but said nothing to the master. The latter was unacquainted with the condition of the channel. 'The schooner struck a ledge of rock, on which at average water there was but 12 feet. Defendants did not own the bed of the river but dredged it and used the wharf to berth vessels. The court held that the master had a right to rely on the defendant who was present, and his silence amounted to an express invitation to enter. Defendants were therefore liable. The title of the case is Hall et al. vs. Shep- pard et al. F. L. CILBERT, Secretary. ® Builders of all kinds of METAL AND WOODEN SHIPS. e