218 FEDERAL REPORTER. �the witnesses from the bark to the same effect, is a mistake and an overstatement. It is quite consistent, however, with the testimony from the: bark that the light was seen from two and a half to three points on the port bow, and at that angle a collision was possible.. From the circumstance of the dimness of the light, and the fact that its oolor was undistinguishable at first, I think that the light was seen from. the bark about as soon as it could have been seen, and that the judgment of the witnesses that the vessel bearing it waa nearly a mile distant when it waa first seen, is probably correct. After it was seen to be green, the evidence of most of the witnesses is ihat it continued to bear at about the same angle on the bow, but to be coming nearer and nearer ; that after a time the lights disap- pearedjand in its place was seen the loom or shadow of sails very near to the bark. The testimony of the witnesses as to the light con- tinuing to have the same bearing is rather indefinite. It was quite evident? to those on the bark that the light was the light of a vessel Crossing the bows of the bark from port to starboard. When the master had made eut the color of the light, he left the top-gallant forecastle and went aft. The evidence does not sustain the averment of the answer that he ran aft to give an order to the wheelsman. On the contrary, it shows that it was not till he got aft and looked again for the light, and saw the loom of sails in its place in dangerous proximity to the bark, threatening immediate collision, that he gave the order to the wheelsman to port. The testimony of both the mas- ter and the wheelsman is that the wheel was not changod before the bark struck the schooner. �It is argued, on behalf of the schooner, that it is inconRi5tent wlth the proved or admitted facts in the case that the bark was heading N. W. by N. when she sighted the light of the schooner, and that the only rational explanation of the case is that she was heading as far north as N. by W., and afterwards, when the green light disappeared by the schooner drawing so far forward as to hide it, bringing the bark more than two points abaft her beam, the course of the bark was changed two and a half points further to the north, under the supposition of those on the bark that the disappearance of the light was caused by a change of course on the part of the schooner to port. This theory is ingenious, and enforced with great skill, but I am unable to reject the positive testimony of three credible witnesses who were on the bark, and who testify positively to her course being N. W. by N. Their testimony is not overcome by any proved or admitted facts irreconcilable therewith. The disappearance of the ��� �
