¶1Admiralty <§=>118 — Findings on evidence binding on reviewing court.
¶2A finding in an admiralty case that a tug struck a well-known reef, based on the testimony of witnesses seen and heard by the trial court, will not be disturbed by the appellate court, where the fact found was no more incredible than facts found in other similar cases.
¶3<£=>I’or other cases see same topic & KEY-NUMBER in all Key-Numbered Digests & Indexes
¶4Appeal from the District Court of the United States for the Southern District of New York.
¶5Libel by James M. Creighton against the steam tug Bern, her engines, etc., claimed by the Philadelphia & Reading Railway Company. Decree for libelant, and claimant appeals.
¶6Affirmed.
¶7Macklin, Brown, Purdy & Van Wyck, of New York City (P. M. Brown, of New York City, of counsel), for appellant.
¶8Park & Mattison, of New-York City (S. Park, of New York City, of counsel), for appellee.
¶9Before WARD, HOUGH, and MANTON, Circuit Judges.
¶11The difficulty of believing that this tug went so near the New Jersey shore as to strike a well-known reef is great, but no greater than similar difficulties resolved in favor of a libelant by Brown, J., in The Ellen McGovern (D. C.) 27 Fed. 868. But no question of law was or is involved, and where, as here, the findings below are based on evidence given by witnesses seen and heard by the trial judge, we are not disposed to disturb his finding. The F. B. Squire, 248 Fed. 470, 160 C. C. A. 479.