100 FEDERAL REPORTER. �The defendants' counsel requested the court to charge "that if the jury find that the accident would not have happened but for the projecting timbers on the bridge, and that such projecting timbers were unknown to the defendants, they are not liable." The court refused so to charge, except in con- nection with the additional inquiry -whether, as navigators, the defendants, or their agents, ought not to have known of the existence of the said timbers. To this refusai the defendants excepted. This last exception seems not to have been argued upon the motion for a new trial. It does not appear what the court had chargea as to the liability of the defendants in con- nection with the question whether, as navigators, the defend- ants, or their agents, ought not to have known of the existence of the timbers except as above stated; nor what evidence there was, in that case, of the defendants' opportunities of discov- ering the danger. The case made up for the motion for a new trial does not give ail the evidence, nor state that the whole of the charge is set out. The ruling is not, therefore, of that unqualiaed character and certainty that I feel bound to regard it as a conclusive precedent against my clear con- viction that the tug is not chargeable, on the facts proved in this case, with negligence in not knowing of this danger. �Libel dismissed, with costs. ���Fabwell and others v. The Steamboat John H. Staein. �Thobndike V, The Samb. �Staein V. The Schoones Joseph Fabwell. �(District Court, S. D. Nm York. March 27, 1880.) �Admtraitt — Collision. — In a collision between a steamboat and a schooner, the steamboat is alone in fault where it was clearly proved that the schooner kept her course on her port tack for at least a mile, until the collision, showing her port liglit, and that the steamboat, without observiugit, changed her course at least twice after shecameln ����
