THE FEANK u. FOWLEB. 363 �vation of thetn, and no particular reason for taking notice of the pre- cise place where they disappeared from view. �The pilot of the Vim testified that before reaching the place where the barge stranded they had disappeared, and thereafter he proceeded by the aid of his compass, taking his soundings once with the lead. Although his credibility is called in question by the counsel for the claimants, because he testified that in his judgment it was good luck that he got out safely, I see no reason to reject his testimony to mat- ters of faot about which he cannot be mistaken, even if in matters of judgment and opinion he has shown some bias in favor of the claim- ants, whose tug he was instrumental in employing in this service for his own owners. But where the lights and landmarks became ob- scured is still a question. The answer does not claim that this hap- pened till the tug was in the vicinity of the place where the barge grounded. The testimony of the pilot is to the effect that it happened about half-way between the mouth of the canal and the place of stranding. In either case, I think, the evidence warrants the conclu- sion that a careful pilot, familiar with the ehannel, proceeding cau- tiously, by the aid of a good compass, and using the lead, could have made his way safely out of the harbor. The pilot of the Vim did so ; I think not by accident or pure good luck. Where the barge stranded she was heading about S. by B. She was a considerable distance to to the eastward and outside of the ehannel. Her true course out was S. 1^ W. I think the tug could not have got so far out of the ehannel in so short a distance, nor have been so far off from her true course, if her pilot had kept a good lookout, observed where he was when the lights and landmarks disappeared, and thereafter proceeded with cau- tion and care, as alleged in the answer, by the aid of his compass. The departure from the true course actually proved, cannot be attrib- uted upon the evidence to the mere obscuring of the lights and land- marks as the chief or primary cause, and therefore this defence is not made out. There is a great deal of testimony as to the admissions of the master of the tug, that he had no compass, or that it was in the locker and of no use. Ordinarily such testimony of admissions by the pilot in charge of the aceused vessel are entitled to almost no weight, because of the great uneertainty in the proof of what was actually said. In this case, however, the admissions were made to so many persons, and are so well authenticated, as to destroy the value of the testimony of the pilot as to the use he made of the compass. Upon the whole evidence, I find that the charges of fault contained in the libel against the tug are established. ��� �
