PER CURIAM. Writ of error dismissed with costs on motion of defendants in error under Rules 23 and 24. In the Matter of Edward I. DOBRIN, Bank- Circuit Court of Appeals, Second Circuit. No. 252. Appeal from the District Court of the United States for the Southern District of New York. 3 Circuit Court of Appeals, Second Circuit. No. 140. Appeal from the District Court of the United States for the Eastern District of New York. Burlingham, Veeder, Masten & Fearey, of New York City (Chauncey I. Clark and Louis Jersawitz, of New York City, for Eugene Underwood, Jr., both of New York appellant. City, of counsel), for appellant. C. Edward Benoit, of New York City, for appellee. Before MANTON, L. HAND, and AUGUSTUS N. HAND, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM. Order affirmed in open court. Alexander & Ash, of New York City (Peter Alexander, of New York City, of counsel), for appellee. Before MANTON, L. HAND, and AUGUSTUS N. HAND, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM. Decree (14 F.[2d] 482) affirmed, with costs. 2 R. B. EAMES, Appellant, v. Steamship IN- Circuit Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit. No. 2622. Appeal from the District Court of the United States for the Eastern District of South Carolina, at Charleston; Ernest F. Cochran, Judge. Henry Bowden, of Norfolk, Va. (Augustine T. Smythe, of Charleston, S. C., and Samuel E. Forwood, of Norfolk, Va., on the brief), for appellant. Harold A. Mouzon, of Charleston, S. C. (Huger, Wilbur, Miller & Mouzon and Alfred Huger, all of Charleston, S. C., on the brief), for appellee. Before WADDILL, PARKER, and NORTHCOTT, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM. After a careful examination of the testimony, a majority of the Richard J. FOSTER, Libelant-Appellant, v. Circuit Court of Appeals, Second Circuit. No. 186. Appeal from the District Court of the United States for the Western District of New York. Macklin, Brown, Lenahan & Speer, of New York City (Horace L. Cheyney, of New York City, of counsel), for appellant. Brown, Ely & Richards, of Buffalo, N. Y. (Lawrence E. Coffey, of Buffalo, N. Y., of counsel), for appellee. Before MANTON, SWAN, and AUGUSTUS N. HAND, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM. Decree affirmed, with costs. 5 STATES, Defendant in Error. Circuit Court of Appeals, Second Circuit. court are of opinion, as was the trial judge, Fred GREENE, Plaintiff In Error, v. UNITED that the injury of libelant did not result from any negligence on the part of the steamship Ingram, her officers or crew, but from the accidental slipping of his own foot, for which the vessel was in no wise responsible. The decree of the District Court dismissing the libel is accordingly affirmed. Affirmed. No. 287. In Error to the District Court of the United States for the Southern District of New York. 24 F.(2d) Charles Soble, of New York City, for the bankrupt. Archibald Palmer, of New York City (Max L. Rosenstein, of New York City, of counsel), for trustee-appellant. S. L. Herold, of Shreveport, La. (Thigpen, Herold, Lee & Cousin, of Shreveport, La., on the brief), for appellants. Philip H. Mecom, U. S. Atty., of Shreveport, La. (J. Fair Hardin, Asst. U. S. Atty., Before L. HAND, SWAN, and AUGUS- of Shreveport, La., on the brief), for the United States. Before WALKER, BRYAN, and FOSTER, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM. In this case we are content to adopt the opinion of the District Court reported in 20 F. (2d) 670. The judgment is affirmed. Anthony O'BOYLE, Libelant-Appellee, v. Steam Tug FRANK, Cornell Steamboat Company, Claimant-Appellant, and Barge M. F. Phalen, Edward J. Phalen, Claimant-Appellee. Circuit Court of Appeals, Second Circuit. February 20, 1928. No. 164. Appeal from the District Court of the United States for the Eastern District of New York. Kirlin, Woolsey, Campbell, Hickox & Keating, of New York City (Robert S. Erskine and Henry P. Elliott, both of New York City, of counsel), for appellant. Macklin, Brown, Lenahan & Speer, of New York City (Horace L. Cheyney, of New York City, of counsel), for Anthony O'Boyle. Foley & Martin, of New York City (James A. Martin, of New York City, of counsel), for the Phalen. Before MANTON, L. HAND, and AUGUS N. HAND, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM. Decree affirmed, with costs. 5 John O'FALLON, Plaintiff in Error, v. UNIT. ED STATES of America. Circuit Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit. January 24, 1928. No. 7821. In Error to the District Court of the United States for the Northern District of Oklahoma. See, also, 15 F. (2d) 740. John T. Harley, of Tulsa, Okl., for plaintiff in error. John M. Goldesberry, U. S. Atty., and W. B. Blair, Asst. U. S. Atty., both of Tulsa, Okl., for the United States. PER CURIAM. Writ of error dismissed, without costs to either party in this court, on motion of plaintiff in error. Charles PARIDY and Anna McLatchle, Appellants, v. HOLT MANUFACTURING COMPANY, Appellee. Circuit Court of Appeals, Seventh Circuit. February 16, 1928. No. 3966. Appeal from the District Court of the United States for the Northern Division of the Southern District of Illinois. John C. Higdon, of St. Louis, Mo., for appellants. Frank T. Miller, of Peoria, Ill., for appellee. Before ALSCHULER and EVANS, Circuit Judges, and LINDLEY, District Judge. PER CURIAM. Upon issue joined, the bill of complaint was, in the District Court, referred to a master in chancery to take the testimony and report conclusions of law and fact. A number of witnesses for appellants had been examined when the latter filed an affidavit stating that the master was prejudiced and refused to offer any additional testimony. Thereupon, the master filed his report and conclusions, with a transcript of the evidence submitted. Appellants filed also an affidavit charging the judge of the District Court with prejudice, which, being held insufficient in law, was followed by a second, held by the District Court to be sufficient. The Senior Circuit Judge for the circuit thereupon regularly assigned Circuit Judge George T. Page to the District Court to hear the cause. Judge Page thereupon set the matter for hearing upon said report and said affidavit of prejudice of the master, and all parties were duly notified. Appellants refused to proceed further and failed to appear at this or subsequent sittings, though the court continued the matter repeatedly for the express purpose of allowing appellants to appear, and though appellants were duly notified each time. Thereupon the court heard the testimony of several witnesses, including the solicitor for appellee, the associate solicitor for appellants, and the master, upon the question of the master's prejudice or misconduct, and found that there was no basis in fact or law for said affidavit or for appellants' refusal to proceed in the case, and, upon the master's report, no further evidence being submitted by either party, dismissed the bill for want of equity. The evidence taken before the master is not submitted to this court, but the findings admit of no conclusion other than that at which the District Court arrived thereupon. That court was also clearly right upon the finding that there was no basis for the affidavit filed against the master. We find no error. Accordingly, the decree is affirmed. |