probability would have suffered no injury. But the tug attempted to get her off by hauling her head round towards the northerly bank, and, not succeeding in accomplishing this, finally left her with her stern fast where it first touched, and her head projecting into the channel, where the water was slightly deeper. As the tide receded the schooner was left lying across the edge of the channel, where the bottom was sufficiently uneven to cause her to strain and break. It seems to me that this was negligence in the tug. The fault was not in the grounding of the schooner, but in the unwise measures taken to pull her off after she had grounded.
It appeared that it is usual for vessels to lie aground in the river at this and other points, but always with the stream, in which direction the bottom is smooth and even, and never across the channel, as in this case. The tug was bound to know the nature of the bottom as well as the depth of the water, and it was through her ignorance of both, or her carelessness, that the schooner was left in her position, where she was sure to sustain injury.
It also appeared that the schooner was slightly injured in passing through one of the draw-bridges on her way up the river. The respondents admitted their liability for this injury, and it is to be included in the assessment of damages.
Interlocutory decree for libellant.
