THE B. C. TEEEY. 9:^5 �bled the White to overcome and — aided by the Bramell and Forest City — ultimately to extinguish the fire on the Terry, and rescue her and her cargo, the greater part being crude sulphur in bulk, from imminent destruction. Bat on viewing all the surrounding circum- stances — the position of the Bramell and White, always keeping the weather-gage ; the moderate state of the wind, in broad day ; on a navi- gable river, within the ebb and flow of the tide ; possessing the pro- pulsive agency of steam, and under easy and ready control — it cannot be claimed that the services of the Bramell and White were attended with hazard to either of them, or peril to their crews. It was, how- ever, urged that the White was in immediate danger because the fire from the Terry scorched the paint on her side. Let this be so; yet it must not be forgotten that the scorching was due to temerity, in coming within 15 feet of the burning sohooner, when their steam fire-pump, as Hudson testified, could throw a good body of water 30 feet ; and it may also be noted that the witnesses, on the question of danger, expressed the opinion that neither the Bramell nor White was in any peril. �At the time the Forest City and the other tug-boats caught fire from one or both of the burning vessels she was under the lee of the schooner Terry, 10 feet from her starboard bow, fast aground, and without steam. She threw water from her hand-pump against the fire on these boats and herself until it was eonquered, and at intervais, while thus employed, threw a little water on the jib-boom of the Terry ; and after she had suppressed the fire on herself and the two tugs, she threw more water on her than previously. �It was argued for the respondents that the main purpose of the Bramell and Forest City was to save the .tugs moored at the wharf, and that if the Wheeless had not been towed away by the Bramell and the fire extinguished on the Terry the tugs would have been destroyed by fire; and that the saving of the Terry was incidental and subordinate to the main purpose, and that this view is sup- ported by the witness Darby, who proves that the maater of the Forest City called on him to pull the Commodore Foote (Lynn ?) out, and he refused, because he thought the best way to sa,ve the tugs was to put out the fire on the Terry; and that the court should consider these matters in estimating the quantum of salvage. It seems to me that the evidence of Darby fails to prove that the sav- ing of the Terry and her cargo was incidental and subordinate to the asserted main purpose. But suppose such purpose did prompt ��� �
