1022
om
FEDERAL REPoRTli:a
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
MEMORANDUM DECISIONS.
1023
to recover damages to cattle shipped Aprll 12, 1887, on board the steamship Iowa, from Boston to Liverpool, alleged to be caused by the failure of the owners of said steamship to provide suitable cleats, stanchions, head boards. and other fittings to keep such cattle in position during the voyage. There was a decree for libelant, and defendant steamship company appeals. Benjamin L. M. Tower, for appellant. Thomas P. Proctor, for appellee. No opinion. Dismissed pursuant to the twentieth rule.
THE MARY LYMBURNER. HALL v. FRICKET. (Circuit Court of Appeals, FIrst CIrcuit. August 10, 1893.) No. 37. Appeal from the District Court of the United States for the District of Massachusetts. This was a libel to recover damages to the schooner Robert P. King, caused by a collision 'between the said schooner and the schooner Mary Lymburner on the Nan·' tucket Shoals, December 12, 1891. There was a decree dismissing the libel, and the libelant appeals. Thos. J. Morrison, for appellant. Frederic Dodge, for appellee. Before COLT and PUTNAM, Circuit Judges, and WEBB, District Judge. No opinion. Dismissed pursuant to the twentieth rule.
NEW DEPARTURE BELL CO. v. HARDWARE SPECIALTY CO. et a1. (CirCUit Court of Appeals, ThIrd Circuit. September 15, 1896.) No.4. Appeal from the Circuit Court of the United States for the District of New Jersey. Dismissed pursuant to the twenty-second rule.
RICHARDSON v. INTERNATIONAL PAVEMENT CO. (CIrcuit Court of Appeals, Third Circuit. September 21, 1896.) No. 36. Appeal from the Circuit Court of the United States for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. Dismissed pursuant to the twentieth rule.
UNITED STATES v. STOWELL et al. (Circuit Court of Appeals, I!'lrst CIrcuit. February 12, 1896.) No. 141. Error to the District Court of the United States for the District of Massachusetts. This was an information for the forfeiture of a distillery owned by Joseph Stowell and Thomas Bevington. The judgment of the district court dismissing the Information was affirmed by the circuit court, whereupon the United States sued out a writ of error to the supreme court, which court reversed the judgment and remanded the cause for further proceedings. 133 U. S. 1, 10 Sup. Ct. 244. The rllstrict court rendered a judgment of forfeiture, one-half the costs to be taxed against each of the claimants, respectively. The United States brings error. Before PUTNAM, Circuit Judge, and WEBB, District Judge. No opinion. Dismissed wIthout costs. END OF CASES IN VOL.
'15.