¶1Admiralty <§x»318 — Review—Findings.of Fact.
¶2An appellate court is reluctant to disturb a finding of fact in an admiralty ease by tbe trial judge, who had the advantage of seeing and hearing the witnesses.
¶3<gzs>For other cases see same topic & KEY-NUMBER in all Key-Numbered Digests & Indexes
¶4Appeal from the District Court of the United States for the Eastern District of New York.
¶5Libel by William Beard and another against the steam tug W. H. Flannery and her engines, etc., claimed by James H. Flannery. From a decree for libelant, claimant appeals.
¶6Affirmed.
¶7*350Macklin, Brown & Purdy, of New York City (Pierre M. Brown, of New York City, of counsel), for appellant.
¶8Ralph James M. Bullowa, of New York City, for appellees.
¶9Before WARD, ROGERS, and HOUGH, Circuit Judges.
¶11The question which this case presents involves no question of law. The District Judge, who saw and heard the witnesses, has found as a fact that the collision was occasioned by the Flannery’s failure to comply with the signal given by the Beard and which the Flannery had accepted. This court is reluctant to disturb a conclusion of fact reached by a trial judge, who had the advantage of seeing and hearing the witnesses.
¶12Decree affirmed.