.616 FBDEEAL EEPOBTER. �to throw her stern towarda the berme bank to clear the Gib- son, then the City of Syracuse, if she waa stretched out straight behind the City of Milwaukee, as the master and wheelsman of the City of Milwaukee say she was, was further out than the stern of the City of Milwaukee towards the tow-path side, and in very great danger of coming in collision with her, sincc at that time those two boats were only 100 feet apart, and approaching at a combined rate of three and a half miles an hour. These facts show conclusively that the City of Mil- waukee did not turn out soon enough to enable the City of Syracuse to clear the Gibson and fix the liability for the col- lision on the two steamboats, which were under one command, unless the Gibson is shown to bave contributed to the disas- ter by encroaching on the other boats, or by sheering out after passing the City of Milwaukee, as alleged in the answer. But the evidence is, I think, very satisfactory that the Gibson was on the tow-path side when she was struck. �The City of Syracuse is a very sharp beat, and her stern struck and broke into the bow of the Gibson about two feet from her stern, on the starboard side, breaking two of the heavy iron wales, and her planking and timbers, causing her to sink within a vôry short time. The blow was nearly head on, and I see no force in the argument, upon the proofs in the case, that the blow pushed the bow of the Gibson in any doser than she was before to the tow-path. It is clear that if the City of Syracuse had been going straight along on the berme bank side, as is claimed for her, and the Gibson quar- tering towards that side as is also claimed, and so far over as to be struck where she was, her bow would not be thrown by the blow towards the tow-path, nor would she bave sunk, as the proof is that she did sink, with her bow aground, close by that side. To those on the two steamboats proceeding at an angle towards the berme bank, as is above shown, the Gibson may bave seemed to be sheering out upon their course, although in faot she was going straight, and this explains the contradiction in the testimony on that point. �Great stress bas been laid by the claimants upon the fact testified to by some of their witnessos that in pulling out tha ��� �
