116 FEDBBAIi EePORTEB. �enough to sustain hîs claim in the judgmeni of th'e court, and the law gives him a new trial in an appellate court, and he may there introduce more evidence. This right of appeal would be of no value whatever if the vessel were released because the libel was dismissed below, and the long-accepted practice in the admiralty courts of detaining the vessel in Buch case, if an appeal is taken, shows clearly that his right to secure his alleged demand by her continued arrest has been always recognized. It seems to me, also, that the Admiralty Eule 11, which secures to a claimant the right to bond a ves- sel under arrest, and to either party, in proper cases, her sale pendingthe suit, was designed bythe supreme court as giving to the owners of vessels sued for damages ail practioable relief against the hardship arising from the exercise of this right of arrest on the part of a libellant proceeding in good faith. And it seems to me that the granting of the relief here asked would, in such a case, be ineonsistent with that rule. �In the present case I cannot doubt the good faith of the libellant. The case was by no means so clearly for the claim- ant on the proofs that the libellant 's suit or his appeal can be pronounced frivolous or one prosecuted malafide. If such should appear to be the case, it is unnecessary to determine what relief the court could give the claimant. As it is, this claimant is suffering only the inconvenience and hardship to whioh ail owners of property are liable from the attachment of their goods by due proeess of law in a suit in which such attachment is permitted. It is unnecsssary to consider whether the proof of claimant's alleged inability to bond the vessel is sufficiently made out for any purpose. ����
