The Express.
London, England, 1855-02-21 00:00:00

OOURT OP COMMON PLEAS.—Fr.a. 20.

lIITEASI AT JIM THOS 111 LOIDON.-100111 Ml= MT= VONT'

-AIM a SPICIAL
ILACKWOOD e. LYALL. LIABILITY OF BBOISTERID
OWNERS OF TWILL.
This was an action to recover the price of some repairs
done to a ship named the Siam, of which the defendant was
at the time registered as part owner; the defendant by his
plea denied the liability.
Mr. Hugh Hill, Q.C., and Mr. Willem appeared for the
plaintiff, and Mr. Eisrjeaot Byles was for the defendant.
The plaintiff was a shipbuilder, in business at Bother-
!tithe, and in the year 1846 he received a letter from Mr.
Hennas, of the Ara of Bertram sad Parkinson, of New-
castle, who was the managing owner of the Siam, in these
terms—" Dear Sire—Capt. flatter of the Siam will deliver
this to you. Has vessel requires an overhaul, and I wish
it to be does in your deck. Pray manage to receive the
vessel as soon as she is ready, and I will personally see you
in a few days." Accordingly the plaintiff did re-
pairs, under the direction of a Lloyd's Surveyor, to the
amount of 7061.10 a. Id., and drew a bill on Mr. Bertram 'e
Snafu the amount. This bra, however, was dishonoured,
and a claim was then made spots the defendant as one of
the regisk.red proprietors of the Siam. Messrs. Bertram
and Parkinson failed, but by arrangement with the defend-
ant the plaiatiff proved his debt against their estate, and
had received a dividend of 371.8 s 8d , which therefore was
to be deducted from the amount of his claim against the
defendant.

Mr. Beffeaat Byles stated that though it was popularly
thought among commercial men that a registered proprietor
of s vessel was liable to pay for all repairs done to her, yet
that was not the law. He apprehended that it was only
the real owner who was bound to pay for the repairs, and
that the register was only prim& facie evidence of owner-
ship, so that If a person who was registered could sh3w that
he was not the real owner, but only mortgagee for instance,
he would not be liable in an action fur repairs.
Mr. Lyall, the defendant, was called and he stated that
the only interest which he had in *lb vessel was that he
held ner as security for large advances which he had made
to Mr. Bertram.

__—
Hie Lordship, upon this evidence, directed a nontuit, hot
reserved leave to the p!aintiff to move to enter a verdict for
the amount claimed.

A juryman said it had been considered as law for the last
fifty yean that the register was decisive of the liability to
pay for repairs ; and tf thh was not ss, they hoped to have
had the law correctly laid down by his lordship.
The Chief Justice said there was a difference of opinion
among the judges, but upon eensideration he believed it
would turn out that the register was only prim& title evi-
dence of owaership, and sot at all decisive of the liability.
The plaintiff wee accordingly nonanited.
MASON AND ANOTHNII V. JINLINSON.—IPARRANTY OP A

The plaintiff; are horse—dealers, in Oxford-street, and
the defendaat is Captain Jenkicson, of Whiltoo, in North-
amptonshire. In August, 18.53, the plaintiff sold a bay
mare to Captain Jenkineon, for 1801., upon a warranty of
soundness, and they now sued to recover that amount, and
also seam of money for her keep. The defeadant refused
to pay, upon the grounds that the mire was unsound when
sold to him, and al.o that the plaintiffs had agreed to take
her beck.

1.--inthes:imam of the ease the mare was brought into the
Onildhall-yard, end the jury went out to see her, io order
that they might form their own epioion as to her condition
at the present time.
Mr. Edwin James, Q.C., and.hir. Finlaisnn appeared for
the plaintiffs ; and lir. Seijeent Byles and Mr. Hawkins for
the defendant.
The history of the mare was this :—Th•- plaintiffs
bought her of lir. Cocks, a horse dealer, in Bleclariars-
road, for 1301., and afterwards sold her for, hunting, to Sir
Sandford Graham, for 1801. That gentleman found it ne.
canary to part with some of nis horses, and the plaintiffs
toot tee mare lack at the fall price. This was on the 20th
July, 1863, and on the 6th August following they sold her
to Captain leakiness for 1801. No complaint was made
about her until the 27th November; but on that date Capt
Jenkinson wrote es follows:—" I do not know what to do
with Sir Sandford's mare. I have literally n been on
her, and Isere she is lame In the near fore foot ; and does
not get better. She has never done anything but exercise
in my gram park." The mare was returned to the plain-
tiffs. and they had her examined by the following eminent
judges of horses: Mr. A. Field, Mr. Mayor, Mr. Spooner,
and Mr. Yarnell, who were all of opinion that she was not
lame from any chronic navicular disease, as had been ap-
posed ; but that the lameness had arisen from some recent
strain or injury, and that the mare wee sound when she
was sold to the defendant. She continued lame for two or
three 'scathe after she had been returned ,• but she was
odw perfectly sound, which would not have been the case
it the lameness bad arisen from chronic disease. _

cane was itraiTlie;;remust have been
unsound when he bought her, as she hid done nothing to
produce lameness whilst he bad her. His groom, however,
stated that she had been in training for the huntlnf sy
son, and he admitted that three days before the captain ri
turned from a journey to lrelane she bad been for a ran fa
a stubble field, and that the next morning she turned dead
lame. A veterinsry surgeon was called, and he was of
opinion that the lameness had not arisen from any recent
strain or injury, but from a chronic dimmed' the auricular
bone. Another defence was that the plaintiffs had agreed
to take the mere back if she should be shown to be lame • but
the plaintiffs' vtew.of the matter was that they were only to
take her back if it should turn oat that she was unsound at
the time the plaintiffs sold her to the defendant.
The jury gave a verdict for the plaintiffs tor 1921.

COURT OF EXCHEQUER.—Fss. 20.
mix« AT XIN WIN &? OVILDWALL AVIIM 111101.-1111101/11 MI 14/111

MIR DAWN AND SPRCIAL JURIES.
DRINNADD O. DINNITT AND OTKERB.-11(NINO

This was an action to recover compensation in damages
from the defendants for the alleged fraudulent mierepre•
sen,ation by them of the ♦alue of certain mines in Corn-
wall, called the Great Onalow Consols Mine, and the MI.-
earns Mine, w►ereb) the plaintiff had been induced to
• fleet purcbues of a large amount of shares in each of the
mines.

Mr. Serpent Kinglake and Mr. Kerslake appeared for
the plsintiff, who is a merchant at Liverpool; and the
Attorney General, Mr. Phials, and Mr. Kingdom, repre-
sented the defendants, Absolom Bennett and Henry CUT,
who have carried on business m mining agents aad broken
in Moorgete-street; and Sir Frederick Thetipr and Mr.
Lush conducted the case for the other defendant, lonathsa
Carr, of Carlisle.
The ease bad only been partly gone late on the Meg of
tits court, when the farther hearing was postponed fair to-
morrow (this) meaning.