THE BUCKEYB. 667 �lown the river, passing through the west draw of Main-street bridge. When in the draw her officers heard a single blast of a whistle from the Montauk, which was then coming up the river, indicatiug that the Montauk would keep on her starboard side, which was the west sifle of the river. The Bnckeye responded with one whistle, indicating that she would keep upon her starboard side, or the east side of the river going down. The Buckeye kept on down the river, and when just at the south line of Allen's slip, about 700 feet below the bridge, the bow of the steamer struck the port bow of the Mon- tauk about three feet from her stem, injuring her so severely that the Montauk was hauled into Allen's slip, where she sunk within half an hour. It is conceded that the Montauk had no lights displayed at the time of this collision, and it is contended on the part of the respondents that the negligence of the Montauk in not displaying the lights reqUired by law, and also the fact that the Montauk was not upon her side of the river, or not close enough to her own side of the river, caused the collision; and that those in charge of the Buckeye were not guilty of any such negligence as should make her liable. �The law requires vessels navigated by steam to carry the lights required by law in all weathers, between sunset and sunrise, Eule 2, § 4233, Rev. St. And it is clearly shown by the proof, in fact admitted, that the collision oecurred after sunset, and that the Mon- tauk had no lights. �But it is contended on the part of the libellants that the collision in this case did not occur by reason of the want of lights on the Montauk ; that it was still suJEciently light to enable those in charge of the Buckeye to see the Montauk plainly, and to have taken timely measures to have avoided the collision. And it is undoubtedly well settled that the mere fact that the lights were not burning on the Montauk, as required by law, is not a defence here, unless this fact caused or contributed to the collision. The Tillie, 13 Blatchf. 514; The Miranda, 6 McLean, 221; The Farragut, 10 Wall. 334; The Dexter, 23 Wall. 69; The Wanata, 95 U. S. 600. The position of libellants is that, even if it was after sunset when the collision oe- curred, it was still light enough so that those on the Buckeye could plainly see the Montauk, and should have seen her in time to avoid a collision ; and if they negligently failed to do so, they cannot suc- cessfully iuvoke tho fact that the Montauk was viola ting the statute law in regard to signal lights. In other words, the question in this case is, doea the tesiimony, when all considered, satisfy the mind that ��� �
