
    Talcot against the Commercial Insurance Company. Same against the Marine Insurance Company.
    Id actions on two policies of insurance on the same vessel, where there had been two trials in each cause, and two verdicts for the plaintiff on the subject ofseaViorthiness, the court refused to grant ft tljird trial.
    In February term last, the court granted new trials in these causes, considering the verdicts as against evidence, as to the fact of seaworthiness. (See ante, p. 124.) The causes having been again tried, verdicts were a second time found for the plaintiff. On the second trial, the only additional evidence, on the part of the plaintiff, was, that the vessel, ingoing down Connecticut river, struck on a bar of sand, so as slightly to impede her course.
    A motion was made for á new trial, and argued by D. B. Ogden and P. W. Radclijf, for the plaintiff, and TJarison, for the defendants.
   Per Curiam.

Here have been two trials in each of these causes, on the same question of fact. As four different juries have found that the vessel was seaworthy, and on the last trial, some further evidence was adduced, on the part of the plaintiff, we do not think it expedient to disturb the verdict. The rule must be denied.

Rule refused,  