lants. Nathaniel C. Sears, Albert J. Hopkins, and Clarence A. Knight, for appellees.

PER CURIAM. Appeal dismissed. See 150 Fed. 612.

WESTINGHOUSE ELECTRIC & MFG. CO. v. MONTGOMERY ELECTRIC LIGHT & POWER CO. (Circuit Court of Appeals, Second Circuit. June 7, 1907.) No. 268. Appeal from the Circuit Court of the United States for the Northern District of New York. Before WALLACE and TOWNSEND, Circuit Judges, and HOLT, District Judge.

HOLT, District Judge. The resignation of Judge WALLACE and the death of Judge TOWNSEND having left me the only member of the court which heard this appeal, I think that I have no power to render any decision or make any order upon the application for a rehearing. I therefore decline to act upon such application for want of power.

F. B. VANDEGRIFT & CO. v. UNITED STATES. (Circuit Court, E. D. Pennsylvania. June 4, 1907.) No. 50. Application for Review of a Decision of the Board of United States General Appraisers. Foulkrod & McCullogh and J. W. Hampton, Jr., for importer. W. C. Douglas, Jr., and J. Whitaker Thompson, for United States.

HOLLAND, District Judge. This is a petition to the Circuit Court praying for a review of a decision of the Board of General Appraisers, affirming the collector of the port of Philadelphia, assessing on a certain hair imported by the petitioners a duty at the rate of 12 cents a pound, under paragraphs 350, 357, Schedule K, Tariff Act July 24, 1897, c. 11, § 1, 30 Stat. 182 [U. S. Comp. St. 1901, p. 1664], imposing such a duty on "hair of the camel, Angora goat, alpaca, and other like animals." The petitioners claim the importations should be admitted free, under paragraph 571 of the free list, as "hair of horse, cattle and other animals," not specially provided for in the act. The board of General Appraisers, in the opinion filed in the case, finds from the evidence then before it that the importations are a "grade of Angora goat hair," and sustains the assessment as made by the collector. The testimony subsequently taken does not strengthen the claim of the importers. The finding of facts by the Board of General Appraisers is amply supported by the evidence which it had before it, and that afterward taken did not at all weaken the claim of the government as to the proper classification. The decision of the Board of General Appraisers as to protests 104,411 and 120,953 is affirmed.

SIEGERT v. EISEMAN. SAME v. SEVENTEEN OTHERS. (Circuit Court, S. D. New York. May 16, 1907.) Motion for interlocutory decree, granting injunction and reference to a master to take proof of damages and profits, made under stipulation. Arthur Furber, for the motion. John Brooks Leavitt, opposed.

LACOMBE, Circuit Judge. The "event of the Gandolfi action" was a finding that plaintiff was entitled to the full measure of relief accorded in such cases. The stipulation secures a like relief as against the other infringers, which is not lost by the circumstance that in Gandolfi suit complainant, after the event of that action, chose to waive prosecution of claim for profits and damages against Gandolfi. Motions granted.

THE IRON STATE.

(District Court, E. D. Pennsylvania. July 19, 1907.) No. 76. Exceptions to Report of Commissioner on the Subject of Damages.

Horace L. Cheyney, John F. Lewis, and Francis C. Adler, for libelant. J. Wilson Leakin and N. Dubois Miller, for respondent.

J. B. MCPHERSON, District Judge. Both parties are dissatisfied with the valuation put upon the sunken barge by the commissioner, and the respondent objects also to the allowance of interest upon the total award. The market value of the barge at the time of the collision-which is agreed to be the measure of damage, so far as this item is concerned-was a question of fact, to be determined according to the evidence, and, while recognizing fully the difficulty in coming to a conclusion where the witnesses differ as widely as in the present case, and differing from the commissioner with much reluctance, I feel bound to say that, in my opinion, the decided weight of the testimony, both in quantity and quality, is in favor of a higher award than the commissioner was able to recommend. I think, therefore, that his valuation of the barge should be raised from $13,000 to $17,000, and even this larger sum seems to be a conservative estimate. No circumstances were shown to render inequitable the allowance of interest on the various items of damage, and the award of the commissioner in this respect is approved. The respondent should also pay the costs of suit, including the costs of the inquiry before the commissioner. A decree may be drawn in accordance with this opinion, and with the report of the commissioner concerning items that have not been excepted to.

THE PERSIS A. COLWELL. (District Court, E. D. New York. June 14, 1907.) Peter S. Carter, for libelant. Armstrong, Brown & Boland, for claimant.

CHATFIELD, District Judge. There is a question of fact in this case as to the exact terms of an agreement made immediately after the collision, between the masters of the respective craft. The testimony has been taken before a commissioner, under a stipulation that he shall hear and determine. This commissioner has reported in favor of the libelant, the claimant has filed exceptions, and the libelant now applies for a decree. The commissioner, after hearing the witnesses, finds the facts to be as alleged by the libelant, and under the form of stipulation, and upon the record, it is impossible for this court to review his decision as to the credibility of the witnesses and the weght of the testimony. Assuming that his decision as to the question of fact is correct, there seems to be no error in the conclusions at which he arrives, and the libelant is entitled to a decree for the amount of demurrage, and also, under the amended form of the libel. for the items of damage to cargo and loss of freight. The exceptions will therefore be overruled, and a decree entered accordingly.

END OF CASES IN VOL. 154.