WBAVEB V. SOHOONBH ONMST. ���811 ���proofs clearly indicate one vessel might strike the other at right angles, or to some extent from aft forward. �On the whole, after bestowing much consideration upon this case, although I have not at ail times been free from doubt, it bas become a settled conviction in my mind that this collision was occasioned by the fault of the Calkins, and sueh will be taken as the judgment of the court. �KoxK.— This Judginent was afflrmed, on appeal, by Drummond, 0. J. ���Weavee and otbers v. Schoonee Onmst, her taokle, etc. �{District Court, B. Ehode lAand. April W, 1880. COLUSIOTÏ— Facts Detbrminbd. �In Admiralty. �Knowles, D. J. The libel in this cause of collision -was filed January 21, 1880, the answer February 11, and the cause brought to a hearing on the seventh of April foUowing. �Upon the points of contention raised and discussed at the hearing I propose now to announce my conclusions, first stating the allegations and claims of the respective parties as set forth in the libel and the answers : �ALLEGATIONS IN THE LIBEL. �First. That your libellants, before and at the time of the collision, in the second article hereof mentioned, were the owners, and the said Lafayette Weaver was the master, of said schooner Mary Weaver, her tackle, apparel, and other furniture, which your libellants employed in the coastwise freighting business between different ports and places in the United States ; that she was of 222 tons burden, as regis- tered, with a carrying capacity of 350 tons ; that she was duly enroUed and licensed for said business, and was actually em- ployed therein at time of said collision, and was light, staunch, Sound, fuUy equipped, and bad the usual compliment of men and officers on board. ����
