688 .. . FEDEBflf BPEOET^H.. , �■which tke testimony. supports, and I am also of opinion that the auxaa allowed by hirp for the clothing and personal efPecta of the master and crew have been sufficiently proved. �The libellants epepted to the master's report because the sum allowed for the fish was not, in their judgment, sufficient, and also because the master disallowed their claim for the probable "catch" which with reasonable certainty they would have taken if they had been permitted to fish for the remain- der of the season. The master reports that the testimony shows that there remained 30 days of the fishing season, in which with reasonable certainty those on the Briha might have taken 15,000 fish, additional to the ■ cargo then onbctard. I think the master properly rejected this claim. It is clearly to be excluded, under the rule hereinbefore adverted to. �Th« probable earnings of a vessel have sometimes been considered in cases of partial loss in collisions, when there was no other meana of ascertaining the loss to theowner by the detention of his vessel while being repaired ; but, in cases of total loss, interest from the datie of destruction is given in lieu of the profit whieh might have been gained by the owner^ by the subseç[uent use of his vessel,: ���CooKS and others v. Steameb Tonawanda and Stbam-ïoo �Pawtucket. �{District Court, I>. Bhode laland. ,1880.) �CoLusiorr— NuaLiGEN CE . �In Admiralty. Libel in case of collision. �W. W. e S. T. Douglas, for libellants. �Thurston, Bipley & Co., for steam-tug Pawtucket. �Browne de Van Slyck, for steamer Tonawanda. �Knowles, D. J. Within the hour following sunset on the twenty-fifth of October, 1876, the steamer Tonawanda left her dock, north-easterly from Fox Point wharf and 630 feet therefrom, for Philadelphia ; and the steam-tug Pawtucket, ����
