Task: songer_othadmis

What follows is an opinion from a United States Court of Appeals. The issue is: "Did the court rule that some evidence, other than a confession made by the defendant or illegal search and seizure, was inadmissibile, (or did ruling on appropriateness of evidentary hearing benefit the defendant)?" Answer the question based on the directionality of the appeals court decision. If the court discussed the issue in its opinion and answered the related question in the affirmative, answer "Yes". If the issue was discussed and the opinion answered the question negatively, answer "No". If the opinion considered the question but gave a mixed answer, supporting the respondent in part and supporting the appellant in part, answer "Mixed answer". If the opinion does not discuss the issue, or notes that a particular issue was raised by one of the litigants but the court dismissed the issue as frivolous or trivial or not worthy of discussion for some other reason, answer "Issue not discussed". If the opinion considered the question but gave a "mixed" answer, supporting the respondent in part and supporting the appellant in part (or if two issues treated separately by the court both fell within the area covered by one question and the court answered one question affirmatively and one negatively), answer "Mixed answer". If the opinion either did not consider or discuss the issue at all or if the opinion indicates that this issue was not worthy of consideration by the court of appeals even though it was discussed by the lower court or was raised in one of the briefs, answer "Issue not discussed". If the court answered the question in the affirmative, but the error articulated by the court was judged to be harmless, answer "Yes, but error was harmless". 

PER CURIAM:
A collision occurred in the Kill Van Kull between the M/S Philippine President Osmena, an ocean-going vessel, and Barge Red Star No. 70. The Barge, together with Barge Red Star No. 72 and Barge Red Star No. 73 were being towed by the Tug Catherine. The two first-named barges, loaded, were on the tug’s starboard side, one behind the other, and were held to have been damaged in the collision. The Osmena also suffered damage. No. 73, light, was on the tug’s port side and was not found to have been damaged.
The owners of the barges filed their libel against the tug and its owners and the Osmena and its operator. The owner and operator of the Osmena in a separate proceeding filed their libel against the tug and its owners.
The two proceedings were consolidated below and, after hearing, Judge Bonsai in a careful opinion held that the Tug Catherine was at fault and that her fault was the sole cause of the collision. Damages were awarded against the owners of the tug for the loss found to have been suffered by the owners of barges 70 and 72 and an award was made to the owner and operator of the Osmena for the damages occasioned to the Osmena.
The Catherine appeals in each case and the two appeals were consolidated for action in this court.
The barge owners cross-appealed in their case against the Catherine. They maintain that the damage award to them was inadequate, for the district court denied their claims to be recompensed for alleged business losses caused by the detention of the barges following the collision.
We agree with the results reached by the judge below and we affirm the judgment entered in the district court on Judge Bonsai’s opinion.

Question: Did the court rule that some evidence, other than a confession made by the defendant or illegal search and seizure, was inadmissibile (or did ruling on appropriateness of evidentary hearing benefit the defendant)?
A. No
B. Yes
C. Yes, but error was harmless
D. Mixed answer
E. Issue not discussed
Answer:

Answer: E