J'ltDERAL REPORTER,' vol. 48. THE PARTHIAN. THE AYR. DOSTON & PHILADELPHIA S. S. CO. ti. SCOTT, (two cases.) (01.rcU1.t Oourt, D. Massachusetts. November 28, 1891.) ADUIRALTY APrIllALS-QUESTION. OF FAOT-CONFLIOTING EVIDENOE.
.
, On appeal in admiralty, the circuit court will not reverse the decision or the distrlct' jUdge on a questionot fact depending upon contiicting evidence, unless it <llearly appears t(l be the weight or eV'idence.
'
In Admiralty·. Libel by Nathaniel C. Scott against the steaVl-ship Parthian for damages for a collision with, the schooner4yr, and crossli}jel by the Boston & Philadelpl:!ia Steam-Ship Company as oWners of Parthian' against the Ayr. Decree in thedistrict court for Scott against the ,Pl\rth;ian. The steam-shJpcompany appeals. "-ffirmed. $hattuck& appellant. ,T. & T.If. RusseU, for appellee.
,a.
CoLT, J. 'These, two caSeSRre involving t1;l!(3 same cQUision between the steam-ship Parthian and the schooner Ayr, and theycQme here>on 'appeal {Nm the district court. " The cases whoijy upon questio11S of Jitct,concerning",hich the evidence is con:\ikting. Thedistrict judge, having the advantage of seeing the witnessel3and;judging frOm their appet:trance, ordered: a decree in the firflt case in {llvor of the libelant, and against the steam-ship Parthian, in the damages, and ,costs of suit, and dismisse,d the cross-libel. . H is the established rule ofthis court that it will opnclusion rea.ched bytbe {;\istrict co.urt upon a offact, where the evidence'is contrl1dictory, unless it c1earlyappears to be contrary to the preponderance of evidence. The Grafton, 1 Blatchf, 17.3; The Sampson, 4 Blatcbf. 28; The FLorida, Id. 470; T4e Sunswick, 5 Bliltchf. 280; GwimaraiB'.Appeal, 28 Fed. Rep. 528; Levy v. The Thomas MelviUe, 37 Fed. Rep. 271. Upon a review of the testimony, I am satisfied thl!-t the decision of the district court w!lscorreot, ap.d therefore the are affirmed.
·
. 1 : :·;1.
_U';::"-i-, '
THE ALBANY.
665
POST t1. BOSTON
&
PHILADELPHIA
S. S. Co.
(Oircu.f.t Oourt, D. Massachusetts. November 80, 1891.) L ApPBAL ur ADMIRALTY-REVIEW BY CIRCUIT COURT-QUESTION OIl' FACT.
On appeal in admiralty the circuit court will not reverse a decision of the district judge upon a question depending on conflicting testimony, unless it clearly appears that the decision was against the weight of eviden\l6. . Nor will the circuit court interfere with the amount of salvage allowed, unless it Is strikingly out of proportion to the service or damage. '
._. SAME-AMoUNT OIl' SALVAGE.
In Admiralty. Libel by the Boston & Philadelphia Com- , pany against the coal.barge Albany for salvagesel'vices. Decree by the district court for $4,000. 42 Fed. Rep. 64. Aaron Post, claimant, appeals. Affirmed. , Eugene P. Carver, for claimant, appellant. Shattuck de Munroe and L. S. Dabney, for libelant. On aD appeal in admiralty to the circuit court .quesHonsoffact depeudentupon conflicting testimony, the decisiODof the district'judge, who has hlld the opportunity of, seeing the witnesses sud judging from their appearance, should not be reversed unless it dearly appears that the decision was against the weight ofevidenoo. The Grafton, 1 BIatchf. 173, 178; The Sampson, 4 BIatchf. 28; The Fl(1f-' ida, Id. 470; The Suwwick, 5 BIatchf. 280; Levy v. The Thomas MelviUe, 37 Fed. Rep. 271; Guimarais' APPMl, 28 Fed. Rep. 528. Nor wilrthis .court interfere with the amount of salvage allowed by the district court, unless it is strikingly out of proportion to the service or damage. The Narragansett, 1 Blatchf. 211; The Hope, 10 Pet. 108, 119; Cushman v. Ryan, 1 Story, 91; The Yankeev. Gallagher,l McAll. 467,479. Ihave .carefully examined the record in this case, and I find no sufficient ground for disturbing the conclusion reached by the district judge. Though the amountawarded,-:""$4,000,-waslarge, I do not think, under the circumstances, it was excessive. The Mary N. Hogan, 30 Fed. Rep· .381; Th,e Lahaina, 19 Fed. Rep. 923; Th,e Btmuon, 36 Fed. Rep. 793. The decree of the district court is affirmed.