COCKS ri STEÀtfBBTdNMANDA. ^§9 �■witlî the schooner Harriet E. Brown m tow, left the 'WilHes- barre pier, situate south-easierly f rom Fox Point and 1,536 feet distant therefrom in a direct Une, bound for the wharf of Tucker & Swan, situate at a point north-westward of said pier, on the westerly side of Providence river. �The course of the steamer was down the ehannel southerly; that of the tug and tow westerly and northerly across the ehannel. The schooner was securely atta«hed to the tug, starboard to starboard — the schooner heading easterly, the tug westerly ; the tug, as it seems, wholly hidden from view from a northerly stand-point. The schooner, it is not questioned, before leaving the pier came under the eontrol and manage- ment, solely and exclusively, of the captain of the tug; the captain of the schooner, though on board her, devolving for the trip ail his duties and responsibilities ùpon the captain and officers of the tug. The schooner and tug (regarding them attached to each other as one steam-vessel) started on her course, and the steamer Tonawanda on hers, and it so chanced that the two came into collision at a point hear the westerly line of the ehannel of Providence river, distant about 1,600 feet in a direct Une from the dock of the steamer, àiid about 1,100 feet in a direct line frotn the aforesaid pier. For the damage occasioned by this collision the owners of the schoonery at>d of her freîght, instituted suit by libel agairist both the steamer and the tug, charging that each and both of them were, upon the facts, guilty of sins of commission or of omission, or of both, which rendered them both liable for damage as daimed. The libel was filed November 8, 1876,' and the claims and answers of the steamer and of the steam- tug, November 24, 1876, and December 11, 1876; but, for one reason or another, the cause was not pressed to a' hear • ing until October 27, 1879, and a noteworthy fact is that a great part of the testimony adduced in depositions was not taken until 1878 and the summer of 1879. �At the hearing it was contended, on behalf of the libel- lants, that their allegations of non-feasance and misfeasance against the steamer and the tug, respectively, were fuUy sus- tained by evidence and argument, while on the pari of the ����
