.4-1 FEDERAL REPORTER.
the libelant now, by a new proctor, brings up the case, and in support
of the libel offers the same deposition objected to on the former hear-
ing. Having submitted to the objection at the hrst hearing, he can-
not at this late date, and when, as it may be presumed, the witnesses
for the other side are scattered, be permitted to question the validity ~
of the objection once submitted to. The same result would follow if,
as the libelant contends, the objection taken at the first trial was sus-
tained by the court, but wrongfully. For it would be unjust to the
claimant, who has acted upon the ruling of the court, to permit the
libelant, after this long delay, to reopen the question raised by the
objection to the deposition, and passed on at the first hearing.
There being no evidence for the libelant except that contained in
the deposition referred to, the libel must be dismissed, and with costs.
Tm; Bnscuu. _
· (D5.etrz'ot Court, W. D. Pennsylvania. April 16, 1885.)
1. COLLIBION—TUG AND TOW—DESCENDING AND Asonnnmo Bons IN Nsnnow
¤ CHANNEL.
A tow-boat, incumbered with a coal-tow, descending the Ohio river, and
passing through a narrow channel, has the right of way, and it is the duty of
an ascending boat to remain below the channel until the descending tow has
€ID€I`g€d bllC1`Cl·I`OII1.
2. SAMn—Du·rY on Pmor or DnscaNmNo Bon.
The pilot of the descending tow-boat was not culpable in not warning the
ascending boat against entering the channel, both boats being plainly in sight
of each other. Each of two approaching vessels may assume that the other
will reasonably perform its duty under the laws of navigation.
_ In Admiralty. -
Barton ot Son, for libelant.
. Knox et Reed, for respondents.
. Acunsorr, J. In the mass of testimony in this case are to be found
the contradictions between witnesses as respects both matters of fact
and of opinion usual in controversies of this nature. By the pre-
, ponderance of the proofs, however, the following material facts are
established to my satisfaction. On the forenoon of November 30,
1883, the libelant’s tow-boat Eugene, having in charge a tow of or-
dinary size, consisting of two coal-boats and three iiats, all loaded
with coal, was proceeding down the Ohio river upon a stage of about
six feetof water, and passing through what is known as "Glass-house
Ripple," a chute which, for a descending tow-boat with such a tow
as the Eugene then had, is a narrow channel and one very dinicult
to navigate. The respondents' tow-boat Rescue, having in tow one
flat partly loaded with stone, was then coming up the river. When