» rmt wonvmzrou. 45
both vessels. Libelants claimed that the Wolverton was steering diagon-
ally across the East river, so as to just clear the Battery in rounding it; and
that she caused the collision by improperly attempting to cross the bows of the
Packer, which was coming up the East river close to the shore. Respondents
claimed that the Wolverton was proceeding down the East river close to the
shore, being on the port side of the Packer, or nearer to the New York shore;
that the Packer blew two whistles, to which the Wolverton did not reply, be-
cause the Packer immediately put her wheel to starboard and attempted to
go across the Wolverton’s bows, and that this latter movement caused the
collision.
E. D. McCarthy and Morton P. Henry, for libelant.
Alfred Driver, J. Warren Ooulstcm, and H . R. Edmunds, for respond-
ents.
Burma, D. J`. The burden of proof is on libelant. He must
showi that the vessels were approaching in the manner he describes,
or submit to an adverse decree. If they were not thus approaching »
-if the respondent was not distinctly to sta1·board—the Packer could
not expect her to pass on that side, and she was blameless in going
where she did. Under such circumstances the Packefs signal was
unimportant, and required no answer. Looking at the evidence on
both sides it seems impossible to say that the vessels were approach-
ing as the libelant asserts. It is quite as probable fthe respondent
wasdirectly ahead, or a littlelto port. I incline to think the weight
of the evidence justiies a belief that she was, and that thecollision
resulted from the Packer’s desire to run further in, onaccount of the
tide, and improperly undertaking to do so. It is sufficient, however,
that the libelant’s position is not proved. As this viewdisposes of
the case it would be unprofitable to discuss it further. ` i