
    THE JOHN H. STARIN.
    (Circuit Court of Appeals, Second Circuit.
    June 14, 1912.)
    No. 22.
    Appeal from tlie District Court of tlie United States for the Eastern District of New York. This cause comes here upon additional testimony taken in compliance with opinion of this court filed November 20, 1911 (191 Fed. 800, 112 C. C. A. 286).
    James J. Macklin (De Lagnel Berier, of counsel), for appellants. James D. Dewell, Jr. (A. F. Cushman, of counsel), for appellees.
    Before LACOMBE, WARD, and NOYES, Circuit Judges.
   PER CURIAM.

The witnesses have been recalled and cross-examined on matters touching which objections to their testifying were sustained in the District Court. Additional testimony has also been taken. The cross-examination has developed nothing of importance. Upon the whole record we cannot see that “privity or knowledge” by the owner is at all made out. Even if a thorough inspection before the accident might have disclosed a condition which called for atténtion, the petitioner is liable only for his personal negligence. He provided a shipyard for the repair of his floating property, and employed competent agents to inspect and maintain it. Their negligence is not his personal negligence. Quinlan v. Pew, 56 Fed. 113, 5 C. C. A. 438; The Tommy, 151 Fed. 570, 81 C. C. A. 50.

The decree is affirmed, with costs.  