Page:Federal Reporter, 1st Series, Volume 7.djvu/202

 190 FEDERAL REPORTER. �Courts that the power exista; that in the federal courts it does not. �A distinction is urged in respect to this case on the view that the error sought to be corrected was an error of fact, while in U. S. v. Teven and other cases it was an error of law, and that in the Teven Case the judgment was paid and so the parties were ont of court. The evidence referred to, and sought to be introduced on a new trial, is evidence of facts which existed when the case was tried. The failure to put them in evidence did not constitute error in fact. There was no error in any proceeding of the court. A mistake or ille- gality in conducting the survey, or the failure of the defend- ant to offer evidence thereof, was not an error of the court of any kind. The principle of the cases cited applies to and controls the present case, and requires that the motion should be denied. It is not intended to imply that there was any illegality in the mode of making the survey, as that question has not been considered. ���United States v. Wisb.° United States v. Thornbues. �(Girouit Vourt, S. S. Ohio. May 26, 1881.) �1. Navisation Lawb — Rbv. Bt. j 4472— Carryino Petroleum on Passbngbb Vbssbls— Pbaoticable Mode of Transportation. �In an action to recover penalties for the violation of section 4472, Kev. St., which prohibits the carrying of petroleum and other dan- gerous articles upon passenger vessels, but excepts petroleum of a certain flre test, upon routes where there ia no othei practieable mode of transportation : �HM, that although there was an all-rail route over which the petro- leum might have been transported, yet, if the rates charged for trans- portation by rail were so high as to amount to a prohibition of the trafic in that article, it was not a practieable mode of transportation within the meaning of that section. �*Reported by Messrs. Florien Glauque and J. 0. Harper, of the Cincin- nati bar. ��� �