48 _ FEDERAL REPORTER.
seen during the time the Pegasus was on her north-east course,
which covered three quarters of a mile; and in the absence of any fact
to explain why they were not seen, there can be no other rational
conclusion except that it was owing to some relaxation of vigilance
on the part of the Pegasus. . Precisely where this negligence should
be located is not important; it suffices that there was failure to see
them when they were plainly visible to those in charge of the steamer,
if they had used due diligence. `
Agreeing with the district judge that the tug was in fault, and that
the conduct of her captain was grossly negligent in keeping under his
, starboard wheel when the green light of the Pegasus had been closed
upon him for so long a distance, and in attempting to keep his course
when his signals had not been answered, and when he had reason to
know that the Pegasus was making for her usual landing, neverthe-
less the collision was not attributable solely to the tug. As the district
V judge states in his opinion: "It is manifest that if the Pegasus had
seen or ought to have seen the lights of the tug and barge, her man-
agement was negligent, and she was in fault." In such a case the
damages must be apportioned between the offending vessels. Even
gross fault committed by one of two vessels approaching each other
from opposite directions does not excuse theother from observing
every proper precaution to prevent a collision; and when, if such
precaution had been observed the collision would have been avoided,
the loss should be divided. The Maria Martin, 12 Wall. 31.
A decree is accordingly ordered dividing the loss, with a reference
to a master to ascertain the amount. No costs are allowed to either
party as against the other in the court below, but costs of the appeal
are awarded to the libelant.