BUNGE V. BTBAMBHIP XJTOPU. 911 �moreover, I do not see that the statute re(juired the statement of the circumstances Of the collision to be made in any case before the receiverof wreoks, and the reqnirement of any such statement seems to be limited to vesselsthat fall intodistress upon or near the coasts of the United Kingdom. See stat- utes above cited. See, also, Nothard t. Pepper, 17 C. B. (N. S.) 39; The Henry Coxon, L. E. 3 P. D. 156; The Little lÀzm, B. L. E. 13 Ad. Eec, 56. �But, conceding ail thia, the statement is still competent evidence to contradict the testimony of the master, and to show that he has made statements of the circumstances of the coUision conflicting, on the most vital points, with his tes- timony given upon the trial. �In thia view this document destroys entirely his testimony as to the distance of the two vessels apart when first seen. Upon the whole evidence, I have had no difficulty in reaching the conclusion that the vessels were not more than a quarter of a mile apart when they first made each other dimly through the fog. It is unnecessary to refer in detail to ail the evidence relied on and discussed by counsel as bearing on this question. On the part of the steamer it is claimed that both vessels swung further on their changes of -virheel than is consistent with this view. But there is much the same element of uncertainty in these estimates of the numbei of pointa a vessel swings to port or starboard — either th& vessel on which the witness stands or the vessel he is watch- ing — that there la about the judgment of distances and periods of time. �The evidence relied on ia mostly of this unceriain charao- ter. The attempt to fix with certainty the number of points that the steamer swung to starboard under her hard a-port wheel, and to port under her hard a-starboard wheel, by the evidence of the wheelsman, is a good deal weakened by the fact that he could not give the heading of the steamer after either change, but only had a recollection of the number of pointa she changed, At any rate, I think his testimony is not Bufficient to outweigh the great preponderance of the; proof, otherwise in favor of the bark. The movementa of ��� �
