416 PEDBBAL BEPOBTBBi �Bhe attempted to lufP and pass under her stem ; that she had not room to do so, and her starboard bow came in contact •with the port quarter of the Brandreth;' that those on the Brandreth, seeing her coming, pushed off her bowsprit, and that thereby the bow of the Brandreth was thrown in towards the pier, and the tide striking on her starboard bow pushed both vessels towards the pier ; that the Brandreth extricated herself and went out into the river, while the Earle, getting into the eddy, was carried on against the pier; and the dis- aster happened wholly from the fault of the Earle. The bur- den of proof is on the libellant. His vessel was overtaking the other, and was bound to keep out of the way. The evi- dence is very conflicting. The case in volves no question whieh can make it of any value as a precedent; and it is suf- ficient to say that the libellant haa not sustained the burden of proof. Upon the whole testimony, the probabilities and the weight of evidence are with the claimant, and the libellant has failed to establish either the material facta alleged in the libel constituting the faults of navigation relied on to sustain his claim, or that different state of facts testified to by soms of his witnesses. �Libel dismissed, with costs. ����
