The Daily Times.
Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1860-10-27 00:00:00

COURT OF PASSAGE.-YESTERDAY.

(Before Mr. E, Low.)
TARBIJCK V. FINLEY, CAMPBELL, AND Co.—The
plaintiff is a seaman in her Majesty's service ;-
Milton appeared on his behalf. The defendants me
shipowners and merchants, in Liverpool, and- were re-
presented by Mr. Deighton. The actionwarobroughtto
recover £5l 6s. It appears that on the 24th Obtober,
1857, the plaintiff signed articles to proceed ter Bea inn
the brig Palmerston, Captain Wilson, at £4 per meath6
At Hong Kong, in January, 1859, he was conveyed ashore
and committed for 28 days to gaol on a charge of insolence..
Discharged on the 15th February, he asked the captain
for his discharge to enable him to join H.M. ship
Calcutta, and was refused. He took a boat and pro-
ceeded to the Calcutta, and next day accompanied
Lieutenant Walker to the Palmerston. Capt. Wilson
refused to pay Tarbuck's wages, and alleged that he had
deserted. Capt. Hall, of the Calcutta, wrote to the
defendant upon the subject, awarding the plaintiff a
good character. The defendant refused to pay the debt.
It also appeared that the plaintiff's clothes were lost,
having been sent ashore at Hong Kong without
his knowledge and against his wisk. The whole
claim, including the month's imprisonment, was
£5l 68. The log-book was produced, in which were
found entries to the effect that the plaintiff had deserted
the vessel, and acted in an improper manner. The
learned assessor, in addressing the jury, explained that
the only question for consideration was the coflicting
nature of the evidence,
as compared with the entries in
the log-book, which, however, Was not evidence, and,
therefore, of no great importance. The jury returned a
verdict in favour of the plaintiff for £47.
THE COMPANY OF PROPRIETORS OF THE LIVERPOOL
EXCHANGE V. JOHN CLARE, JUN.—Mr. Deighton ap-
peased for the plaintiffs. On the 31st December, 1857,
the plaintiffs granted a lease of certain premises to the
defendant, whereby he became a terant at will, at a
renital of £2O per annum. On the 21st July half a
year's rent became due, arid he paid a portion of it.
leaving a balance of £6 Os. sd. Mr. loulighusband
proved the case, and the jury returned a verdict for the
plaintiffs.
A SIMPLE TALE OP WOE. ^ HUGHES V. ROBERTS,
TURNER, AND WOODS.—Mr. Deighton appeared for
the plaintift; and explained that the defendants broke
into and entered the plaintiff's apartment, and carried
away the furniture. He consented to a verdict of £l5
against Turner, auctioneer, to be taken. Ann Hughes,
who appeared c mtremely distressed, said . I am over
eighty years of ag e. Roberts and Woods entered my
house, and carrit.'d away all my furniture. Mr.
Deighton : What 10,as the value of it. Mrs. Hughes :
I would not have take:.' £2O for it, because I had it in
my possession for such long time. Why did they
take it away ? They said I owed them some rent, but
I did not owe anyone a fai 'thing. My landlord is in
the court. Did they take all ..'way ? No sir, not all ;
but they took away my bed and t,'est furniture. What
rent did you pay ? Two shilling,' per week. The
assessor, in addressing the jury, commented very
strongly upon the conduct of the defendan.44. A verdict
of £l5 in each case was returned by consent.