848 FEDERAL REPORTER. �The Isaac Bell drew, loaded, 14 feet of water, and the Norfolk about the same. Both vessels passed the White Shoal light very nearly in the same track. It is in the highest degree improbable that both vessels would have deviated largely from their oMinary course in the same night, and in the same direction, from no assignable caise. Those on board of each testify that they were upon their usual track, and that the Eepplier was "in the channel," or "near the channel." Two witnesses from the light-house, who saw the schooners anchor, (to whose testimony, however, standing alone, I Bhould net ascribe mnch weight,) also say that they were right in the channel. �From all this testimony it secrns perl'octly clear that the Eepplier could not have been anchored so far from the channel as legally to dispense with the maintenance of the ordinary anchor light. Her position was certainly near the track of steamers. The depth of water there at half tide, when the Isaac Bell passed, must have been at least three feet in excess of her draiight. It was in the navigable part of the river, and had an anchor light been exhibited by the Eep- plier there is no reason to suppose she would not have been avoided as the Alexandria was avoided; nor should I be warranted in hold- ing, upon evidence so discrepant, that both the Isaac Bell and the Nor- folk were so far out of their ordinary track as to be in a part of the river where they had no lawful right to navigate, so as to constitute ipso facto negligence contributing to the collision. �It is not necessary to consider the point raised by the claimant, whether the absence of an anchor watch, [The Clara, 13 Blatchf. 509 ; 102 U. S. 200,) or the failure to exhibit a torch-light, as provided by section 4234 of the Revised Statutes, would of themselves be a bar to the libellant's reeovery. The Samuel H. Crawford, 6 Fed. Rep. 906; Brainard v. The Steamer Narraffansett, 3 Fed. Rep. 251; The Leopard, 2Low. 238; The Eleanora, 17 Bleitchi.SS. There are other contra- dictions and irreconcilable discrepancies in the evidence as to other points in the case, on both sides, to which I do not think it necessary to refer, as the two points above decided are safficient to dispose of the case. There was ample room for the Repplier to have proceeded further to the south for anchorage, and no difficulty in her doing so upon raiaing the center-board, wholly or in part; and the collision must be deemed to have arisen wholly from her fault in unneces- sarily anohoring in, or too near, the channel, and when thus anchored in not maintaining a suitable anchor light, �The libel must, therefore, be dismissed, with costs. ��� �
