THE BEN HOOLET. 319 �into the stream, against the protest of her mate, who was in charge. In doing this the hawser of the latter vessel broke, the breaking result- ing in a collision with and damage to a vessel anchored in the stream. �Held, that the tug was bound to have ascertained whether the haw- ser was sufflcient, and was responsible for the damage. �Heldyfurther, that the tug was not relieved, because the schooner might have anchored after the flrst breaking of the hawser, and thns avoided the collision. �In Admiralty. �Libel for collision, by the $cbooner Galloway G. Morris against the steam-tug Ben Hooley. The facts are as follows : On November 3, 1876, the schooners Ella G. Little and Index yeie lyiag at a pier in the Delaware river, The Index em- ployed the respondent tug to tow her iato the stream, and in order to do so the tug undertook to first tow the Little into the stream. While doing this the hawser parted and the Little collided with and damaged the Galloway G. Morris, which was anchored in the stream. On behalf of the libel- lant it was alleged that the tug towed the Little into the stream against the protest of the latter's mate, and in doing 80 used the Little's hawser, after notice of the mate that it was rotten. On behalf of the respondent it was alleged that the mate of the Little refused to move his vessel, and was compelled to do so by the dock-master; that he then fur- nished a Une to the tug, and the Little was towed ont into the stream; that the hawser then parted, but it being a con- venient place to anchor, those in charge of the tug requested the mate of the Little to let go her anchor ; that he did not do this, and the tug then went along-side, again received a line from the Little, and attempted to tow her; that the hawser again parted, and the collision with the Morris resulted; that those in charge of the tug had no notice or knowledge of the defective condition of the hawser, and that if the Little had anchored after the first breaking of the hawser the collision would not have occurred. �Henry R. Edmunds, for libellant. �Alfred Driver and J. Warren Cotdston, for respondent. �Butler, D. J. The liab:lity of the respondent is plain. The loss resulted directly from his negligence. If he did not ��� �
