The Stourbridge Observer, Cradley Heath, Halesowen & District Chronicle.
Stourbridge, West Midlands, England, 1881-05-21 00:00:00

THE LATE MARSHAL BENEDEK' S
WILL.

The following is an extract from the will of the late
Feldzeugmeister Ludwig von Benedek, as published by the
Austrian Press. It is dated the 15th June, 1873, and is a
most remarkable document. The will begins :

"Although I have a lengthened, fatiguing, and
chequered military career behind me,l now write my
last will with tranquility and a clear intellect. I have
never tried to make money, nor have I ever understood
how to accumulate it, and if I leave no debts I owe it
solely to my wife, who, having drawn one of the money
prizes in the Turkish Lottery, liberally shared it with
me. I have ever been a dutiful, faithful, and brave
soldier, and I am a devoted Christian, though not
belonging to any confession. I await my end with a
tranquil conscience, and I declare emphatically that I
have left no memoirs or other biographies, nor have I
left notes to any one with the object of writing the
history of my military career or my life. All my
remarks and criticisms on the campaign of 1866, and
in reference to the commandof the Army of the North,
which was forced upon me by appeals to my duty as a
soldier and subject, I have burnt."
The old soldier goes on to say that in the winter of
that year he had promised the Archduke Albert to
take his reflections with him to the grave. "This
promise was perhaps a hasty one, but it is the best
testimony I can give to my character as a soldier."
He goes on to mention the rebuke administered to him
for his conduct of the campaign by the Austrian
Government on the 10th of December, 1866, and its
publication in the newspapers, and a sob seems to
break through the veteran's voice as he does so. "I
have taken it in silence, and now for seven years past
bear my hard and painful lot with philosophy and
resignation. I am at peace with myself and all the
world, but all my soldier's poetry is gone."
The document then proceeds :—" My former adju-
tant, Eugen Muller, now General Staff Colonel of the
Infantry Regiment Archduke Albrecht, who, as a
juvenile cadet under my command, received the silver
medal for brave conduct and the rank of lieutenant,
and who under my eyes grew up to an esteemed man-
hood, and who has always proved a faithful son of our
hyuse, shall, after my demise, put my affairs in order,
and assist my dear wife in the sorrowful time when she
loses in me her best and most devoted friend. I have
long since communicated in writing to the local corn•
mander that I forbid all military display at my funeral,
and wish to be buried as simply as possible either .
the Protestant or Catholic cemetery as my wife shall
dialect. Colonel Muller shall take charge of all my
papers, and hand over to my wife what s e may deem
interesting, and shall destroy the remainder. To
Archduke Albrecht shall be returned the sword which
he exchanged with me after the battle of Novara, as
also the decorations—the military order of Maria
Theresa, the military cross, &c.—which Albrecht
sent me after my own had all been stolen from me
in 1866. My old and faithful servant, Joseph
Mateyka, shall have all my clothes and linen, and one
year's wages, and also what I leave for him in my
writing-table addressed to him. Only may watch
which I received after the Hungarian campaign of
1849 from Feldzuegmeister Baron Haynau, he shall
deliver to my old and faithful friend, Baron Simon
Shia, as a memento, and my arms and hunting re-
quisites, which I have presented to my friend Muller
long ago, shall now be given to him. I hope that I
may be able to verbally take leave of my dear wife;
but if not, then may these lines tell her that I thank
her heartily for all her love and kindness which she
has shown me during our union; especially I thank
her for having borne with me so bravely and re-
signedly my military reverses. TO my good-hearted
brother-in.law, Gustav Baron Krikh,c: and to my old
and trusted friends, Friedrich Duke Liechtenstein and
Field-Marshal Lieutenant Heinrich Ritter von Rup-
precht, shall Colonel Muller convey my last greeting.
Und daimt basta (and with this enough).—LuDvid
v. BENEDES, Feldzeugmeuiter.—Graz, June 15, 1873."

THE QUESTION OF SHIPOWNERS'
LIABILITIES.
In the Supreme Court 91 hiclt'are, before Lords Justices
Bramwell, Bre4l ,'4..td Cotton, the cause of "Wright v.
blarw(ol—'Gordon 'v Nfarwood " has been heard.—We take
the following report of the case from The Times:—

These cases- raised a curious question NU:Ten a
shipowner and the shipper of co,ttle on board his vessel
as to the shipowner'ti Lability for cattle carried on deck
and thi-own overboard in the course of the voyage for
the safety of the ship. The question really involved
was as to the lawfulness of carrying such living
cargoes on deck. The casol ha'-o-e arisen out of the
considerable trada which has lately grown up between
ArntriCa and this country in live cattle as a similar
export of cattle and pigs had previously existed with
regard to Ireland. For the purpose of carrying the
cattle, steamers are fitted up in order to allow of their
being earned on deck, aid in April, 1878, an agree-
ment wtts chtored into between the plaintiffs, the
owkicra of some oxen which were thus to be carried,
and the owner of a steamer at New York for their
carriage to Portsmouth, ,The vessel was to carry a
number not exceeding 100, or as many as the master
thought proper to take, at the rate of £4 15s. per
head, the shipowner not to be liable for mortality,
accident, or danger, and to find only water for the
cattle, the owners finding fodder. Under this agree-
ment fifty-three head of oxen were shipped on deck,
for which a bill of lading was given, tp be taken on
deck, dangers of the sea only eicepted, the ship-
owner not to be liable for mortality or injuiy. The
veSSel started on her voyage, and on the Bth of May
was at the AioreS ; there was then
_bad Weather and
a prospect of worse and as the Vessel waS " crank "
and the oicen were thought to interfere with the navi-
gation, it was deemed necessary by the master, and it
was now taken to have been necessary, to throw them
overboard, and accordingly the animals were one by
one taken out of their pens and led up to the yard-
arm, where they were haltered to it, and knocked on
the head and then thrown into the sea—that is, in the
language of maritime law, they were "Jettisoned,"
this being what is called "jettison " or part of the
cargo for the safety Of the whole. The vessel went
to Antwerp, and a suit was instituted in a court
of maritime jurisdiction there, in which the
cattle-owners disputed the necessity for throwing
the oxen overboard; but this was decided against
them, and so it was to be tak4n against them
that it was necessary. The question then arose as
to their remedy for the value of their oxen against
the shipowner arid the owners of the other parts of
the cargoi and they brought these actions against the
shipo*her. The case came on for trial before Lord
Justice Brett at Liverpool, where the facts were not
in dispute, and a decision of the Common Pleas in the
time of Mr. Justice Willes (in the case of "Johnson
v. Chapman ") was cited as in favour of the plaintiffs
in such a case, and the Lord Justice, accordingly,
thinking himself bound by that decision gave
judgment for the plaintiffs, and a Divisional decision,
in
the Queen's Bench also thinking themselves bound by
it, affirmed the judgment, from which the defendants
now appealed. They had previously obtained a rule
nisi in this Court to set aside the verdict. This case
was argued on the 15th of March, when _ _

Mr. C. Russell, Q.C., and Mr. Bigham appeared for
the plaintiff; Mr. Benjamin, Q.C. (with him Mr.
Gully, Q.C., and Mr. Myburgh), for the defendant.

Lord Justice Bramwell now delivered the judgment
of the Court (Lord Coleridge and Lords Justices
Bramwell and Baggallay) and allowed the appeal, ob-
serving that the case which was considered at the trial
and in the Divisional Court to govern the present
case did not govern it. The judgment of the Court
was not in opposition to any opinion of the learned
Judge at the trial; he had expressed no opinion; he
had merely given judgment for the plaintiff to raise
the question which had been discussed in this court.
The law of this country, as did the law of other
civilized countries, held the practice of carrying cattle
on deck to be illegal, and, therefore, the judgment
must be reversed.