THB BAT Ollt. 47 �The allegation that the libellant requested to be taken ont, after being run in, and be lef t below, in the river, is improb- able on its face, and is not sustained by the evidence. �The respondent cannot complain of the smallness of the crew. It would have been sufficient for the barge's manage- ment if she had been placed in the canal. That it was not snffioient to extricate her from the position in which she was improperly left, is not important. The circumstance that it ■was 80 small, of itself tends, forcibly, to prove that the libel- lant did not contract to be left out in the river, where his crew would be inadequate to the management of his boat. I do not find anything in the case which should relieve the respondent from liability for the loss. That the libellant should bave made an effort to get into the canal, under the «ircumstances existing, after he was left, seems clear. He «ertainly is not blamable for doing so. �It is proper to say that the alleged declarations of the master of the barge, made after quitting the command and the libellant's service, have not been considered. I have re- garded them as inadmissible as evidence. ���Thb Bat City. �{District Court, E. D. Miehigan. June 28, 1880.) �1. Admihaltt— DocKBT Fbbb.— The docket fee of $20 la taxable wlieiii- ever a trial at common law Is begun by the swearing of a jary, or by the introduction of testimony at the opening of argument upon a final hearing in equity or admiralty, on appeal from the clerk's taxation of costs. �In Admiralty. �This was a suit brought by the owners of the barge Boaco- lîel against the owners of the tug Bay City, to reeover for the loss of the barge through the alleged negligence of the tug. On the day assigned for trial the case was called and the mas- ter of the barge put upon the stand. Upon the conclusion of ����
