BUCKEYE HOLDING CO., A CORPORATION, AND G. HAROLD MARTIN, PETITIONERS,

v.

DOROTHY KELLY, RESPONDENT

PER CURIAM.

The petition for writ of certiorari reflected apparent jurisdiction in this Court. We issued the writ and have heard argument of the parties. Upon further careful consideration of the matter, the briefs and record, we have determined that the cited decisions present no direct conflict as required by Article V, Section 3(b)(3), Florida Constitution (1973). Accordingly, the writ must be and is hereby discharged, Fla.App., 297 So. 2d 869.

It is so ordered.

ADKINS, C. J., OVERTON, ENGLAND and SUNDBERG, JJ., SMITH, District Court Judge, and SHOLTS, Circuit Judge, concur. ROBERTS, J., concurs specially with an opinion.

ROBERTS, Justice

(concurring specially).

I have concurred in the judgment discharging the writ of certiorari for lack of conflict jurisdiction in this Court. In this posture, the case will be remanded for trial, the outcome dependent largely upon the credibility of the witness, Dorothy Kelly. With the flagrant inconsistencies appearing in her testimony at different times, it is easy to see why the trial judge would have rejected her credibility. With that done, there would be little, if any, evidence left to support her charge and, frankly, on the record before us, I do not see where he committed error in dismissing her cause.