DDNCAN V. THE C. H. FOSTEB. 733 �have safely passed. The effect of her backing, in so close proximity to the tow, was to raise a swell which dashed tke canal-boats together with such violence that several of them, including the libellant's beat, were seriousiy damaged. There was no proof to sustain the averments of the answer that libellant's boat was unsound and unaeaworthy. �The Saratoga is clearly liable for the damages sustained. The 0. H. Northam, 13 Bl. 31. �The suggestion that the law of the state required the tow to keep on the western side of the channel is not material in the present case, since^ the tow being in the wrong place, if ehe was so, would not justify the steamboat in violating her plain duty to keep out of her way, having her in fuU sight, and being able to do so. �The position of the tow was not the cause of the injury. �Decree for the libellant, with costs, and a reference to com- pute the damages. ���Thb C. h. Foster (William K. Dunoan v.) �Gboege N. Coombs V. William K. Dhncan. �Thk c. h. Foster (Granville E. Caeleton v.) �{Circuit Court, D. Massachusetts. April 17, 1880.) �Collision — Contribution pok Cargo Odt of Damages Due for Losa �OP VESSBL — PlEADING — AmBNDMENT — CONFOHftATION OF DeCREE TO �Facts Arising aptbr Libbl has been Filed. �In Admiralty. �John C. Dodge and Frederic Dodge, for the C. H. Foster. �Frank Goodwin, for the Helen Mar. �LowELii, J. These three cases arose out of a collision be- tween the schooners Heien Mar and C. H. Foster, by which the Helen Mar and her cargo were totally lost ; and some damage was suffered by the C. H. Foster, but none by the cargo which was on board of that vessel. The cases were tried together, and both vessels were deolared blameworthy, and the dam- ages have been assessed. No exception has been taken to any of the findings of law or fact excepting one, which was ruled ��� �
