The schooner Advent, while making a voyage from Coos Bay, Or., to San Francisco, with a cargo of lumber, .'was struck on her port Ippw just forward of the port cathead by the .steamer Sonoma on one of her voyages from San Francisco to Seattle, inflicting damage for which the libelant was given judgment by the court below. At the time of the collision, which occurred about 2 o’clock in the morning, the weather was good and the sea smooth. The schooner, which was of 399 registered tonnage, was making from 5 to 7 knots an hour, and the steamer about 1334 knots. The record shows that the steamer discovered the green light of the schooner about 12 minutes before the collision, when the two were about four miles apart. In such circumstances the established rule is:

*765 Á careful examination of the record satisfies us that the court below was right in its conclusion that the collision in question was brought about by the failure of the steamer to perform its duty in that regard. There is much conflicting evidence in the cause, a detailed review of which is not necessary, since it would serve no useful purpose. It will be enough to refer briefly to some of the testimony of the appellant’s chief witnesses and to the steamer’s log containing entries in respect to the collision, made immediately thereafter.

In the pilot house logbook the entry is:

The entry in the mate’s log of the same date is as follows:

The log of the steamer, therefore, shows that from the time the green light of the schooner was sighted until she was struck by the-ship 12 minutes elapsed. Now during that time what, according to the testimony of those in charge of the steamer’s movements, did the steamer do "to keep out of the way of the approaching schooner? Take the man at the wheel at the time in question — -Henry Casson We extract from his testimony as follows:

The foregoing was on direct examination.

On cross-examination the witness was questioned and answered, among other things, as follows:

Redirect examination;

Taking this testimony of the appellant’s own witness as construed hy its own proctor, it appears that, although the steamer sighted the green light of the schooner about 12 minutes before the collision and when they were about four miles apart, the first order given looking to keeping the .steamer out of the way was given almost immediately before the collision, when the three orders that were given ca,me in such rapid succession that they were characterized by the witness as coming in “a flash.” : '

We also extract from the testimony of Keneally, the third officer of the Sonoma, who was in charge of the deck at the time in question:

It is apparent, we think, from this testimony of the appellant’s own witnesses, as well as from other evidence in the record, that the steamer, although aware of the approach of the schooner in ample time to have gotten out of her way, did‘absolutely nothing to do so until a collision was imminent, when one order after another order was given in such rapid succession as to he ineffective.

.In respect to the lights upon the schooner, there was positive testimony to the effect that both her green and red lights were bright and in place, and, although there was evidence on the part of the appellant tending to the contrary, the finding of the trial court was against the appellant.

The judgment is affirmed.