XKDNEB V. ORECO. 411 �ihe waters of the bay of New York, and not snch that the master of the canal-boat could successfully plead that his judgment was controlled or overborne by any superior knowl- «dge or judgment on the part of the pilot of the tug. I think it is so obviously dangerous to attempt to cross the bay with such a wind and sea as there are shown to have been on that day, that the peril about to be encountered was within the «ommon knowledge of ail canal-boatmen of any experience, and therefore that the libellant's want of ordinary care in allowing his boat to be taken ont — a matter entirely within his own control — must be held to be contributory negligence. By the rule of liability which obtains in the admiralty, where both parties are chargeable with negligence which causes the loss, the damage is equally apportioned between the parties. In conformity with this rule, the libellant is entitled to a decrea for half his damages. �Decree for the libellant for one-half his damages, with «osts, and a reference to compute the damages. ���Endkeb V. Gbboo. {Bitiriet Court, 8. D. Nm York. June 14, 1880.) �1. JuRiSDiCTios— DoMESTio Vbbsbi.— Repaikb.— A sult in periOTum for �repairs furnished to a domestio vessel is within the jurisdiction of tha admiralty. �2. Mabitime Contraot— Bcow— Bbpaikb. — A contract for the repair of �a seow, used in carrying ballast to or from vessels, and propelled by steam-tugs, and having neither steam-power, nor salis, nor rudder, ia maritime. �F. A. Wïleox, for libellant. �B. E. Valentine, for defendant. �Choatb, D. J. This is a libel in personam to recover the cost of certain repairs upon four scows belonging to the defendant. It is objected that the court has no jurisdiction of the subject-matter of the suit. The points made against ����
