lieve that there W'aJ8 an erroneous estimate of the amount actually laden on board, 01' that the cargo was not as advantageously stowed as it could and should have been. As has been stated, there should have been a loss of but 12 per cent. of the cargo space in stowage. The proofs show quite satisfactorily that, allowing for this loss, the cargo capacity of the steamship for the stowage and carriage of ordinary West Coast South American cargo was certainly 2,760 tons. How the mistake occurred is wholly a matter of conjecture. The proofs as to the accuracy of the estimate of the amount laden on board are meager and unsatisfactory. We conclude that to the extent of 367 tons the concession was erroneously allowed, and that there should be a decree for the libelants upon that basis, with interest. The decree is accordingly reversed, with costs of this court to the appellants, with instructions to the district court to decree for the libelll!nts, with costs of that court, and conformably with this opinion. ,
ALEXANDRE et al. 1'. THE ARGUS. (CirCUit Court ot Appeals, Tbird Oircuit. October 16. 189U.) No. 21. Appeal from the District Court of the United States for the Eastern District of PennsylvanIa. Dismissed pursuant to the twentieth rule. A LOT OF JEWELRY 1'. UNITED STATES. (Circuit Court of Appeals, Second Circuit. March 4, 1896.) No. 1037. M. L. '!'OWDS, for claimants. James L. Bennett, U. S. Atty. Before WALLACE, LACOMBE, and SHIPMAN, Circuit JUdges. No opinion. Aflirmed in open court.
BANK OF CALIFORNIA 1'. COWAN et al. (CirCUit Court ot Appeals, Ninth Circuit. June 1, 1896.) No. 253. Appeal from the Circuit Court of the United States for the District of Oregon. Zera Snow, for appellant. George H. Williams and L. L. McArthur, for appellees. Before GILBERT and ROSS, Circuit Judges, and MORROW, District Judge. GILBERT, Circuit Judge. This Is a suit brought by the Bank of California to set aside the mortgages referred to In the foregoing case of Beall v. Cowan, 75 Fed. 139. It Is precisely similar to the former case, and the conclusions therein reached are decisive of this case. The decree Is therefore afiirmed, with costs to the appellees. OENTRAL VT. R. CO. T. BATEMAN. (Circuit. Court of Appeals, Second CircUit. January 29, 1895.) No. 82. In Error to the Circuit Court of the United States tor the Northern District of New York. Louis Hasbrouck, for plaintl1r In error. Vrank E. Smith, for defendant in error. Before LACOMBE and SHIPMAN, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM. We find no error In the charge of the trial judge, and are satisfied that there was such a conflict of tl::stimony upon the Issues of tact as to require a submission of the case to the Jury. The decision upon
defendant's motion tor a new trial because the verdict wllS, as l!efendant con· tended, contrary to the eVidence,and for excessive damages,is not reviewable in this court. Judgment ot circuit court affirmed.
THE CITY OF SAVANNAH. OCEAN S. S. CO. v. HAURAHAN et al. (Circuit Court of Appeals, First Circuit. July 13, 1893.) No. 65. Appeal from the District Court of the United States for the District of Massachusetts. This was a libel by the owners of the schooner Lucy Jones, on behalf of themselves, the owners of the cargo of said schooner, and the crew, for the loss of the schooner and cargo, and for the loss of personal effects, by a collision between the steamship City of Savannah and said schooner, February 4, 1892, near Oross Rip light-ship, in Nantucket Sound. There was a decree for libelants, and claimants of the City of Savannah appeaL No opinion. Dismissed pursuant to the twentieth rule.
CROSS v. EVANS. (Ofrcuit Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit. February 25, 181:15.) No. 246. Error to the Circuit Court of the United States for the Eastern District of Texas. Questions of law certified to supreme court.
DALY et aL v. BRADY. (Ciroolt Court of Appeals, Second Ofrcutt. May 27, 1896.) A. I. Dittenhotr, for the motion. Stephen H. Olin, opposed. Betore WALLACE, LACOMBE, and SHIPMAN, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM. The supreme court had decided in this case that no appeal was ever taken from the judgment of this court. 16 Sup. Ot. 961. The time has now passed within which an appeal can be taken. The judgment was duly entered in this court. To vacate it and direct the entry of a new judgment for the purpose of permitting an appeal would be merely an evasion of the statute which requires appeals to be brought within a prescribed time. We are satisfied that we are without power to grant any relief. GOWEN T. BUSH. DAVISON v. GIBSON. ST. LOUIS & S. F. RY. CO. v. BARKER. (Circuit Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit. February 8, 1800.) Nos. 535, 605, 615. In Error to the United States Court in the Indian Territory. No opinion. The judgment entered in accordance with the opinIons herelD (18 C. C. A. 572, 72 I<'ed. 299) set aside, and the cases reinstated on the docket by the court of its own motion.
HALL v. FRICKET. (Circuit Court of Appeals, First Circuit. August 10, 181:13.) No. 62. Appeal from the District Court of the United States for the District of Massachusetts. This was a libel to recover damages to the schooner Mary Lymburner caused by: a coUlsion between said schooner and the schooner Robert P. King, on Nantucket Shoals, December 12, 1891. There was a decree for libelant, and claimant appeals. Thos. J. Morrison, for appellant. Frederic Dodge,for appellee. Before COLT and PUTNAM, Circuit Judges, and WEBB, .Dlstrlct Judge. Dismissed pursuant to the twentieth rule.
TJIE IOWA. lOWA S. S. CO.. Limited, v. MONROE. (CIrcuit Court ot Appeals,Flrst Circuit. July 12, 1894.) No. 96. Appeal from the District Court of the United States for the District of Massachusetts. This was a libel