538 FBDEEAL BBPORTER. �fallen to such an extent as to render it unsafe to proceed. The master knew he was about to enter a dock where his ves- sei coula not float at ail conditions of the tide, and he was at fault in attempting to enter such a dock after the tide had fallen. The respondents wereaiso at fault. The respond- ent who was present should have cautioned the schooner to stop befbre she reached the point of danger. For this fail- ure oi duty the respondents sbould be held responsible. �The preponderance of the eyidence shows the injury to have been caused by the grounding at this point, and the efforts made to move her. As the negligence of both the parties coh-tributed to this resuit, I pronounce for the libel- lants for one-half the damages. I do not find that the build of the schooner, being'a single-deck, center-board vessel, with great breadth of beam as compared with her draught, rendered her unsuitable to carry a cargo of ooal. Nor was it negligence in the master not to enter the dock until the day after her arrivai. Stress was laid on both these, circum- stances by the respondents, but I deem them immaterial. �In repairing the schooner after the accident a second deck was built on her. The libellants claimed this was made nec- essary by the injuries resulting from the accident. But it was shown she was originally constructed with a view of having a second deck added at some future time. I am of opinion this deck was put on in pursuance of the original plan, and was not made necessary by the injuries received in the dock. In the assessment of damages the expense of the new deck is not tO be included. �Interlocutory deoree for the libellants accordingly. ��� �
