The Express.
London, England, 1855-06-02 00:00:00

liati) intelltgence.

COURT OF QUEEN'B BENCH.—Jura I.

4-100•1 LORD CAN/111.1. AND MINIM ODE.
lUDOS. /Mil, AND CDOZPINSI.

DOWILL •. TEN 01N1INAL STRAY NAVIGATION COMPANT.

JUDOVSNT.

This was an action to re over compensation for damages
done to the plaintiff'. brig, the Harewood, by reason of the
negligence of the defeodaste as owners of the steamer
Diderot. It appeared that a collision took place at night off
the Moue Light between the two vessels, when the brig
was sunk, and all hand', with the exception of two, perished.
The cease has been tried three times, sod on each occasion
the evidence was of a most orieflictiog character, both as to
the rats at which the steamer was proceeding and whether
the brig had complied with the Admiralty regulations, in
showing a proper light. On the lint trial the verdict was
for the plaintiff, on the second the jury were discharged after
being locked up for sixteen boon without wooing, sad on
the third the jury found that blame was to be attri-
buted to both aides—the steamer going too fast, and the
brig not having shown a light sufficiently to avert the acci-
dent, bat that the greater biome was to be attributed to the
steamer. Mr. Justice Bele, who tried the cue, directed
the verdict to be entered for the plaintiff, reserving to the
defendants leave to move. A rule to enter the verdict for
the defendants on the ground that it was against evidence
was obtained by Sir F. Thesiger, which was argued this
term, when the court took time to consider.
Lord Campbell now delivered the judgment of the court.
He said that after great deliberation the court were of
opinion that the answers which bad been given by the jury
to the questions so properly propounded by the learned
judge who had tried this cue amounted in point of law to
a verdict for the defendants. The first of those 'sewers

was that the muter of the brig had not followed
the Admiralty regulations laid down under the 14
and 15 Via, imposing a duty on vessels to show
• bright light on approaching another vessel, in
the best position in which it could be seen. SO as to
avoid collision. The true construction of those regulations
was, that a sailing vessel must not only show a light, bat
show it for a reasonable time, so that the object might be
gained, by avoiding danger. The jury had come to the con-
clusion that the brig had shown a light on approaching the
steamer, but that she bad not dons so for a reasonable time,
and that while the danger existed the light should base been
shown, and that therefore the was in fault. The court were
of opinion that the jury had lucid that this fault led to the
collision, if it were not the approximate cause of the collision, I
however much the steamer was in fault. Now, if both
vessels were in fault, an action could not be maintained. In
cases where it was shown there was negligent.* on the part
of the defendants, then the question arose whether the plain-
tiff. might have ovoids. the collision by reasonable oars. In
the present ease the jury had concluded, as they well might
have done, that the brig, in not complying with the Admi-
ralty regulations, bed contributed to the accident, though
blame was to be attached to the steamer. That was •
defence to the action on the plea of not guilty. The collision
was found to have occurred by the noo-obeervance of the
Admiralty rule by the plaintiff, and therefore he was not
entitled to recover. The court did not consider that the

answer of the jury to one of the questions by the learned
ledge, that the steamer was going too fast, at all varied what
they had said about the non•obeeresnce of the Admiralty
rules by the piniatiff. The rale to enter the verdict for the
defendants mast, therefore, be made absolute.
Rule absolute accordingly.
D 11111000199 9. C9BIIISIILEY.—DIIII7IIII.II.

This was a demurrer to a plea. The declaration stated
that the defendant had assaulted the plaintiff, by giving him
into the custody of a police constable. To this the defendant
pleaded that the plaintiff had forcibly expelled and re-
moved the defendant from his own premises, in view of a
polio constable, and that thereupon the defendant bad
given the plaintiff in charge of the police constable for a
breach of the peace. To this plea the plaintiff demurred.
Mr. Kemplay, in support of the demurrer, contended that
the plea was bad. The plaintiff was a private individual,
and attempted to justify his act u by a right of his own, and
not that he was aiding and assisting a police constable to pre-
vent a breach of the peace. The first question for their
lordships was, whether the defendant was justified in impri-
soning the plaintiff for • breath of the peace which had
terminated. He submitted that if the police constable was
justified in arresting the plaintiff, that did not justify the
defendant ; but he would contend that the constable was
not justified in arresting him after the breach of the peace,
and when there was no fear of its being repeated.
Lord Campbell said the plea distinctly averred that all had
been done continuously, and not after the peace bad termi-
nated. The substance of the plea was, that the defendant
bad not assaulted the plaintiff, but had merely told the
police constable, who witnessed the breach of the peace, to do
his duty. The plea was good, and judgment must be given
for the defendant.
Judgment accordingly.