FABB V. STBÀMSHIP FABNLET. 687 �that the steamer's head was falling off, but he does not ex- plain how it was that he continued to see the schooner's light right ahead of the steamer until just before she came into them. �AU the witnesses on both vessels agree that the schooner maintained her course until just prier to the collision, when she put her helm hard starboard, and went o£E to the east- ward. �In my view of the case, it now only remains to be consid- ered whether this starboarding her helm was a fault on the part of the schooner. Those on board of her testify that when this order was executed the collision was unavoid- able; and her master says that he thought then, and stiU thinks, that if she had continued her course she would have struck the steamer a more direct blow, and would have sunk both vessels, and that it was a proper maneuver to lessen the force of the blow. I am inclined to think from the evidence that this was probably a mistake, and that if the schooner had ported her helm she might have passed under the steam- er's stern; but this mistake of judgment — if, indeed, it was a mistake — is not, I think to be visited upon the schooner. It was the steamer whieh had brought about the peril, and ail that could then be required of those in command of the schooner was to act with reasonable skill and judgment, in the face of an impending and unexpected disaster, and I do not think it has been shown that the master of the schooner did not so act. The Lucille, 15 Wall. 679; The Carroll, 8 Wall. 302; The Western Metropolis, 6 Blatch. 210; Leavitt v. Jewett, 11 Blatch. 419; The City of Paris, 9 Wall. 638; The Falcon, 19 Wall. 75. �I find the steamship to be solely to blame for this collision, and pronounce in favor of the libellants. ��� �
