SïiefiACUDI ». MAPItS. 'tii �fipondent, "wbo an^^ers that ïie left tKe vesseî'in ft place of fiàfety, and that he was discharged' by the îna'ster. But if tKat discharge was procured by an untrue statement, though with no wrongful intent on the part of the pilot, in respect to a matter touching the . safety of the ship, as to which the master had a right to rely on, and did rely on, his advice and representations, then the discharge cannot avail him. In the present case the danger to which the vessel was exposed in her anchorage was obvious and well knowû to the pilot. Ice of considerable thickness, and in quantities large enough to do damage to vessels at anchor, was afloat in the river, and Only kept locked upon the New York shore by a high westerly wind, and other large masses of heavy river ice were liable to be dislodgedand brought downwith the tide. The continued security of the vessel during the night depended on this wind continuing, and on this alone. Nothing could be more un- certain ôf continuance. This peril, though khown 'to the piloti'is presumed to be unknowh to the master, ^nd the co^- trary is not shown. When', th'eM'ore, the niàster asked if the anchoràge-was safe, it was the duty of the pilot to'inform him of this possible and not improbable peril. If h© had done 80, and the master had seen fit totake the risk and dis- miss the pilot, the pilot's duty would have been fully per> forme(^., I think the pilot had, no. wjrongful intent,- .as charged in the libel, but he allowed the master to take risks from anchorage in this place upon his assurances of its safety, of which the master was entitled to be informed by him. Thia was negligence. Probably the pilot thought there was little ■chance of the wind changing in the course of the night; or, if it did, that bo heavy a flow of ice would come down the river with the next ebb tide. But the relation of the parties was such as to call for a fuU statement of the danger, suoh as it was, before leaving the vessej or accepting his discharge, «speeially as he was directly interrogated on the point by the master. The damage that resulted was, I think, an injury resulting from this negligence of the pilot with sufficient directness to be attributed to it as a cause. If the master lad been informed of the peril he could have req[uired the ����
