WOBTH V. STBAM-TDG WM. IIUETAGH. 193 �the same being under water, without a buoy or otKer means of' indicating her presence,^ — ran upon the ^reck and sus- tained damages, to recovei? which she brings this action against the tug vrhich bad the canal-boat in tow at the tim4S' Bhe sank. The evidence shows that the oanal-boat bad a master on board and in comtiiand of her during the voyage described; that -when the canal-boat went down the tug left and paid no further attention to her, and that she was after- wards raised by her owners. On the part of the libellant it ifl oontended that the evidence also shows the canal-boat to have been unseaworthy at the time she was taken in tow by the tug; and it is insisted that it was a fault on the part of the tug to attempt to tow such a beat aoross the hafbor of New York; that the sinking of the boat must be attributed to the fault of the tug in attempting to take an unseaworthy boat across the bay, and that consequently the tug becamei subject to an obligation to remove the wreck, or so buoy it as to nstify othervessels navigating the channelof the existence of this hidden danger. �In disposing of this case I assume that the sinking of the' boat arose from her unseaworthy condition ; and I also as- sume — without intending so to decide on the present • occa' sion — that it was negligence on the part of the tug to attempt to tow' such a boat across the harbor of New York, and that such negligence was one cause of the boat's sinking. I con-; aider the case as turning upon the question, whether, with these assumptions, the tug bas been shown to have been under the obligation to remove the wreck, or so buoy it as to give notice of its presence. Upon this question my opinion is adverse to the libellant. • �The evidence shows beyond dispute that the oanal-boat went down in spite of ail reasonable exertions on the part of the tug to get the canal-boat to a, place where she could sink and be out of the channel; that after the canal-boat sunk the tug proceeded on her way with the remainder of the towj without any objection on the part'of the master of the canal- boat. The damage sued for occurred on the eighth of April, after ail connection between the tug and the canal-boat had �v.6,no.2— 13 ��� �
