80 e FEDERAL REPORTER. �Testimony ol certain witnesses is procluccd as to state- ments said to have been madeby the master and mate of the Mason, after the collision, as to the course of the vessel, Buch as, that the Mason came about and was on the atar- board tack, or that she went in stays. In view of the deniais interposed to this testimony, the liability of mistake in un- derstanding, recollection and restatement of what was said by the master and mate of the Mason, and in view of ail the circumstances and the present sworn testimony of libellants' ■witnesses, I have concluded, after reflection, that I ought not to give these alleged admissions such weight as to over- throw the positive testimony in the case, on this question of the course of the Mason. Some of the witnesses testify- ing to admissions do not themselves agree in their state- ments of what would seem to be the same conversation. The alleged admissions consist of statements to the effect that the Mason came about from the port tack and went in stays, or went upon the starboard tack; and since, as we find from the testimony in the case, when a collision was immi- nent the helm of the Mason was put hard down, and she then did vary from her course and luff more to windward, it is not difficult to see how a recital of thes 3 circumstances might coDvey the impression that she was put in stays or on the starboard tack before the collision occurred. These alleged admissions mainly comprise the testimony, which is in the nature of aiiirmative proof on the part of the respond- ent, to show a deviation of the Mason from her course. Whatever else is presented by respondent on the question is almost wholly inferential. And after careful examination and consideration of aE the evidence, I cannot say, as the resuit of my judgement, that the circumstances urged by respondent, and the testimony touching the alleged admis- sions, are sufficiently strong, in the language of Justice Clif- ford, in the case of The Winona, 19 Wall. 41, "to justify the court in adopting a conclusion directly opposed to the posi- tive testimony of the witnesses who were on the deck of the vessel just before and at the time the disaster occurred. Beyond doubt, they must know what the circumstances were. ����
