rms rmeasns. ( 47 ‘ .
as was her uniform custom when there was aiiood tide, to make a sheer on a
north-east course to facilitate her landing on the south side of her pier. (3) At
this time the Whipple lost the green light of the Pegasus and saw. only her
port light, but blew two whistles to_inform the Pegasus that she wanted to
go on her starboard side, and, without getting any reply, continued under a
starboard wheel without giving any further signal. The Pegasus continued
on her north—easterly sheer until she was about a fourth of a mile from her ,
landing, place, when she starboarded her helm and swung tothe westward,
as she usually did, in order to make her customary landing. t She did not see
the tug or barge until too late to avoid acollision. (4) Thecollision occurred
at a point about 300 yards south-west of the upper bath—house·on the battery.
The barge was seriously injured by the bl`ow of the Pegasus. (5) The Pe-—
gasus was going at the speed of about 12 miles an hour until she starboarded
her helm, when she slowed down to four 01 five miles an hour. The speed “
of the tug was about three miles an hour all the time. (6) The Pegasus did
not hear the signal of the tug, nor did she see the lights of the tug at any
time until the collision. (7) The captain of the tug knew the course the
Pegasus was accustomed to take in order to make her landing, but assumed
that as he had signaled, her that he was going on her starboard side, she
would conform her movements accordingly. ( A
(As conclusions of law, I find: ‘ i ~
(1) That both vessels were in fault,——the tug for going to starboard and l
keeping on that course when she lost the green light of the Pegasus, Wil`>l1·
out any signal from the Pegasus assenting to that course; and the Pegasus
for failing to see the lights of the tug and not adopting necessaryprecau-
tions accordingly. (2) That the damages should be divided between the
parties. » i y ‘ A `
Beebe, Wilcoafd: Hobbs, for libelant. . r x
  MacP'arl¢tne.<é Adams, for claimant. · . ( , . .
l Winmon, J. The proofs in.:this case fully sustain the conclusions
of the court below, as expressed in the opinion of thedistriot judge,
[except as to his finding that there was no fault or negligence on the
part of those in charge of the Pegasus in not seeing the tug and
barge until too late to avoid a collision. The learned district judge ‘
states in his opnion that he cannot find why the two vertical white
lights on the flag-staff of the tug and barge were not visible tothe
steamer, although they were burning brightly. The reason why the
the red and green lights on the tug were not seen, is obviously, as he
finds, because they were hidden by the barge from the time the tug
swung under her starboard wheel for the East river, thus bringing
the barge between her and the Pegasus. The two vertical white ,
lights were suspended on the flag-staff of the tug, one about a foot
above the other, and the lower light was 21 feet above the water.
It is possible that these lights may have been somewhat obscured
from the Pegasus by the pilot-house of the barge at times while the
vessels were approaching each other, but in the constanstly shifting
positions of the vessels they could not have been hidden continually;
and those in charge of the Pegasus do not rely upon any such theory,
but insist that there were no lights on the tug, and that none were to
»be seen when the vessels collided. These lights ought to have been