
    THE JOSEPH STICKNEY. LOWELL et al. v. THE JOSEPH STICKNEY.
    (Circuit Court of Appeals, Second Circuit.
    May 23, 1893.)
    Collision — Evidence—Appeal.
    Where, in a collision ease, the controversy turns wholly on questions of fact depending upon testimony which is so conflicting- that no safe opinion can he formed of the merits, a decree dismiss' -g the libel will he affirmed on the ground that libelants failed to establish their case by a preponderance of evidence.
    Appeal from the District Court of the United States for the Southern District of Hew York.
    In Admiralty. Libel by Lowell and others against the steam tug Joseph Stickney to recover for a collision resulting in damage to the schooner Harry White. The court below dismissed the libel. See 50 Fed. Bep. 624, where a full statement of the facts will be found in the opinion of Judge Brown. Libelants appeal.
    Affirmed.
    Eugene P. Carver, for appellants Lowell.
    Mr. Berrier, for appellee.
    Before WALLACE, LAOOMBE, and SHIPMAN, Circuit Judges.
   PER CURIAM.

This controversy turns wholly upon controverted questions of fact, and such is the conflict of testimony that a safe opinion of the merits cannot he formed. The learned district judge, from whose decree the appeal is taken, rejected the theory of the collision of either party, and concluded that the libel ought to be dismissed upon considerations which appear to be reasonable. Without saying that we fully concur in his conclusions, we think the decree should be affirmed because the libelants did not establish their case by any preponderance of evidence.

The decree is affirmed, with costs of this court.  