THE NAEOB. 213 ���The Nahoe. (District Court, 8. B. New York. May 21, 1881.) �I. OOLLISrOK^LlBEL BY OWNES OF VeSSEL FOR LOSS OF OaKGO— LlBBIi BY �OwNER cH? Cargo— Petition to bb Madb Co-Libbllant — Ordbb Consol- iDATiNG Actions— CosTS—Two Sail-Vebsels on Crossing Courses, One op �ThEM WITH THE WlND APT— ChANGING CollBSB BEPOBB COLLISION — LiGHTS �— LooKOUT— Vessbl TO Windward^Sevbnteenth Rule op Navigation. �A vessel, arrested upon the libel of the master and owners of anotHer vessei, who, with the crew, libelled her for losa, by collision, of vessel, cargo;, pending freight, and personal efEects, having been released, on giving bail for the full amount claimed, is not liable to be again arrested on a libel by the owner ef cargo, setting forth the«ame cause of action as to loss of cargo contained in the flrst cuit. The proper and usual course in such a case, for theiowner of cargo, if he desires to be made personally a party, is to petition to be made a 6o-libellant in the flrst suit. Although an order upon the trial, consolidating theactions, in efEect produces the same resuit, still, the commencement of the second action being improper, the second libellant should be ch^yged with the costs of his action, and the bond given therein should be caneelled without regard to the resuit of the flrst suit. �Where the bark N. collided with the libellant's'schooner P., about 75 miles south-east of Sandy Hook, about half past 5 o'clock Ji, m. in NoVember, 1879, striking her on the stern a little to the port pf the stem post and causing her to sink', and the P. was sailing on a north-east course, wing and iving, the wind being south-west, and the P. claiined that she did not see the Ni uutil juet bef ore the collision, when, to diminish the force of the blow, or possif)ly to avoid thCr collision, she immediately changed her course, but not more tlian two points to port, and that the collision was caused by the N. having no lig'hte, and not lufflng to avoid it, and not keeping oui of the -tvay of the P.; an'd the N. claimed hef course had been N. W. by N. and not N. by W., as claimed by the P., aud that she kept that course and did not change to a more northerly course, as claimed by the P., but that the P. changed her course as much as ' four or flve points, and that the collision was caused by the fault of the P. in bringing herself on a Une with the N. instead of keeping out of her way, and in not sooner seeing the 'N.,—7i,dd, on the evidence, that the P.'sgreen light was flrst seen by the N. distant about a mile, and from two and a, half to three points on her port bow, and that the N. was heading at the time N. W. by N. and not N. by W., as claimed by the P. Also held, the evidence showing that at the instant of the collision the courses of the vessels diverged about two or two and a half points, that the P. must have changed her course just before the collision more than two points to the port, and as much as four and a half to flve points ; that the disappearance of the P. 's light from the view of those on the N. af ter it was flrst seen was due, not to the alleged change in the course of the N. , but to the fact that the P. vs^as not kept steady in her course ; that the ]fi. ' s port light was kept burning brightly, and could have been seen by the P. as soon as the N, saw her green light ; that the collision was due to the fault of the P. in not keeping a good lookout, and in not sooner seeing the N. 's light, and, being to the windward of the N., in not keeping out of her way, as required by the seventeenth rule of navigation ; that the N. was not in fault, but kept her course, as she had a right and was bound to do under the seventeenth rule, ���Id Admiralty. ��� �
