318 FEDERAL REPORTBR. �the pleadings of another as to take a course of action which otherwise he would not have taken, and the first party seea fit to amend, thuB throwing the other party upon a riew line of defence, then costs ought to be imposed upon the party amending ; for non constat, if the original pleading had been the same as the amended one, that the defendant might have defended at ail, or taken a less troublesome and expen- sive line of defence, We do not see that the respondent has been damnified by the amendmcnt to the libel to such an extent as to entitle him to costs. AU the evidence shows that there was no wrongful presentation of the case as regards its substantial merits in the libel as filed originally. Leaving out of view minor questions of date and form, to which extent the amendments to the libel only went, never- theless the master refused to pay the wages of his seamen, which he admitted had been earned by their faithful and contanuous labor for a period of over six months, if not for- feited for other causes. Thus it will be seen that the objec- tion to amending the libel is not one going to the merits of the action. He is not entitled to have costs by reason of the amendment, and they must be denied. ���The Ben Hooley.* �{District Court, SI. D. Pennsylvania. February 21, 1881.) �. ADMniALTT— TowiNO Vebsbl peom Pier in Order to Moyb An- OTHBK Vessel — Rbbponsibility oi- Tua FOR Collision Causjsd bt Dbfbctive Hawser. �A tug which, In order to move a vessel from a pier, movea another vessel into the stream against the protest of her offlcers, is responsible for a collisioii caused by the defective condition of the latter vesael's hawser, with which the towing is done. �. Same— Extent of Tua's Doty— Whbn not Rblibvbd bt Neglect OE Vessel in Tow. �Two schooners were lying at a pier. A tug was employed to tow one of them out, and, in order to do so, undertook to tow the other �*Reported by Frank P. Priohard, Esq. , of the Philadelphia bar. ��� �
