The Express.
London, England, 1853-12-05 00:00:00

COMMITTER OF THE PRIVY COUNCIL

FOR THE AFFAIRS OF JERSEY AND GUERNSEY.
SATURDAY.

The Lords of the Committee of the Privy Council present
on Pridaywere the Lord Chancellor, the Secretary of State
for the Home Department, the Right lion. T. Pemberton
Leigh, the Right Hon. Sir J. Knight Bruce, the Right
Hon. Sir J. Turner, the Right Hon. Sir J. Luahingtoe, the
Right Hon. Sir J. Patteson, and the Right lion. Sir Ed-
ward Ryan.

111711A011DINART STATE OF TRI LAW IN JERSEY.
In the matter of the petition of the states of the island of
Jersey for the repeal of three orders of council of the 11th
February, 1852, and is support of their application for
the confirmation of certain acts of that assembly passed
on the 10th, 16th, and 17th of August, in the same year.
The prerogative of the crown in Jersey.
Sir F. Thesiger, Mr. Roundell Palmer, end Mr. Matheson
appeared on behalf of the states; Mr. Welrby appeared on
behalf of the crown ; Mr. Collier, Mr. Dryden, and Mr.
Marett represented certain inhabitants and ratepayers t f
the island who opposed the petition.
The Attorney and Solicitor•Oenerals sat within the bar u

asseason.
Mr. Collier appeared in support of the petition signed by
4,227 inhabitants against two of the acts of the states,
namely, the act for the establishment of a small debts
cram and the act in reference to the police court.
Mr. Wm. Wyllys Mackeson addressed the court against
the petition.
Mr. Francis Godfrey, an advocate of Jersey, followed on
the same aide.

Mr. Collier replied.
Mr. Dryden, on behalf of the petitioners, then applied to
their lordships for costs.
The Lvrd Chancellor—We have not jurisdiction to grant
coats. Oar duty now is simply to make a report to her
hisifttY•
The Council then broke up.

EQUITY COURTS.-SATURDAY.
1111.011/ TIIII lIAITIZ 01, TIM ILOLLII.
YORE AND NORTH MIDLAND RAILWAY COMPANY V.

HUDSON.

This case was resumed. When the court rose yesterday
it was engaged in the consideration of an item of 2,3371. 10s.,
in respect of 100 shares transferred to Mr. Nicholson. The
only point in contest was as to whether these shares were
included in the 1,800 shares which the defendant had dis-
tributed, and the disposal of which the plaintiffs did not
question.

His lion.mr held that defendant was properly charged
with the shares in question.
The neat item to which objection was made was 2,9311.55.
for premiums on 150 shares transferred to Mr. Close. The
evidence was that the premiums were paid to Close, but
there was no proof that they were received by iefendant,
and it was therefore contended that he was not liable ; but
or. the part of the plaintiffs it was shown that Close we
defendant's private secretary, acted entirely under his
direction, and that be had paid the deposits on behalf of
Mr. Hudson.

This item was also confirmed, and the decision governed
another item ut 7681. 15s. on other 50 shares.

Mr. Rolt then moved for the allowance of a sum of
6,3001., which defendant alleged he had " paid to several
persons for thc benefit of the plaintiffs, in parliament or
otherwise." Mr. Hudson refused to divulge the names of
the persons who had received the money, but offered to
state them privately to the Muter of the Rolls.
His Honour said he disposed of this in his judgment.
He was astonished to hear that any such payment had been
made. It was improper to make the payment, and still
more improper to receive money for such a purpose. If it
was right that the money s►oi.ld be paid, it was right that
proof should be given of the payment, and that aot having
►een given he could not allow it, even if the payment were
a proper one.

Mr. Rolt next moved that defendant be allowed 3,1204,
paid by the defendant on behalf of the company. In 1846,
the Great Northern Railway Act having passed, it was
thought desirable toimprove the approaches from the city of
York to the York and North Midland station at York.
Defendant was then Lord Mayor of York, and be induced
the corporation to apply for an act of parliament to make a
bridge over the Outs at Lendall, and to widen streets, and
he pledged the company to pay the expenses of the act.
He alleged that he did this with the concurrence of the
other directors. The act passed, but after much opposition,
and the expenses were 3, 1201., which defendant paid, and he
now sought to have it allowed. The act had not been
carried into effect.
. . . .

The Solicitor• General opposed the motion, and said the
money was paid by the defendant after he had ceased to be
a director. • .

His Honour (interrupting the learned ennui) said if it
were opposed it was clear he could not allow this stem. This
payment was not within the scope of the power of the di-
rectors, and it could not be allowed in this account.
This concluded the list of objections to the certificate
which were brought before the court, but there were several
others which were either g d by the decisions given
or were not brought forward. The result, as will be seen,
was that the certificate was confirmed in every particular.
The SolicitoxGens ral then, on the part of the plaintiffs,
moved that defendant be ordered to pay the sum of
54,5901. 141. 3d., the: sum found due from the defendant.
A motion had been made before the Lords Justices to vary
the certificate, and it was then arranged by consent to take
an order that 20,0001., part of the sum, be paid into court on
the first day of Hilary Term, and that the rest of the motion
should stand over for disposal in this:court. The rest of
the motion being now disposed of, and the certificate con-
firmed he moved that the whole sum be paid.
Mr. Holt did not oppose this motion, and after some dis-
cussion as to the time which was to be allowed an order
was eventually made that 20,0001. he paid en the first day
of Hilary Term, and the remainder, 34,5901. 14s. 3d., on
the first day of Easter Term, but in order that plaintiffs
might be in a position to register a legal judgment, that
the order be that the whole amount be paid to the plaintiffs
on the Ist' August next.
The Solicitor-General, Mr. R. Palmer, and Mr. Rob-
house were counsel for the plaintiffs, and Mr. Rolt and Mr.
Toiler for the defendant.

Mr. Serjeant Wilkins having replied,
Lard Campbell summed up. His lordship expressed his
disapprobation of the line of defence the company bad
adopts d, and said the only serious charge against the plain•
tiff which had been established was that which relsted to
his having sent in a certificate of sobriety to the Admiralty.
but the jury was to say whether the defendants had been
induced to employ him by fraudulent misrepresentations as
to his position and character. He thought there was no
evidence to show that he was not competent to fulfil the
duties of his situation, and although when he was under
the command of Captain Henderson he might sometimes
have taken a gig,. too much, that ought not to be allowed to
ruin his prospects for life. If they found for the plaintiff
he would be entitled to a reasonable amount of dsmages
for the lose be had sustained by his dismissal from the ser-
vice of the defendant?.

The jury returned a verdict for the plaintiff—damages,
40/.

COURT OF COMMON PLEAS.-SATURDAT.
SITTIMOS AT DOH PRIUI IN revoke CMO/Y JUSTICI
/RIM AND • COMMON IVRY.
SMITH O. THE AUSTRALIAN ROYAL MAIL SITAR NATI.
OATION COMPANY.-CONCLUSION OF THE CASE.
This morning the hearing of this case was resumed, and
the knowing additional witnesses on behalf of the defend-
' ants were examined.
Mr. Hobert Marshall was the first witness called, and he
stated that he was the secretary to the Australian Royal
Mail Steam Navigation Company when the ship Melbourne
arrived in Eugland. The written complaint now handed
to him was sent in to the company.
The document was read by the associate. It was ad-
dressed to the company, and was signed by several second-
class passengers. It stated that during the voyage from the
Australian colonies to London, having agreed for second-
class ricer mmodation, they had been placed in the third-
class cabin, and with a considerable number of persons
more than should have been placed in the space. That
there were upwards of 30 persons where there should not
have been more than 30. That the dining-tables had been
occupied by those who had no berths. That they had not
been provisioned according to the scale ; previous to their
arrival at the Cape they were short of all provisions, and
at times entirely without. It was also stated that they hid
in their possession a paper containingievery particular, and
signed by second-class passengers, and which, if necessary.
could be brought: forward, unless that redress was shown
to which they were fairly entitled.
When this was delivered, the passengers were requested
to send in a detailed statement of their complaints, but such
a statement was never sent in. Witness, upon receiving
the complaint, called the officers before him, and the matter
was deliberated upon by the hoard of directors. At the
Cape, the company expended 3,500/. for provisions, and
3,0001. odd for coals.
To the Chief Justice—The expense of the Australian, a
ship of about the same size, was about 27,0001. out and
home. The expenses of the Melbourne were much greater.
Witness—The Melbourne was furnished with the best of
everything that could be procured. 'Thiel class passengers
paid 211. The price for second class passengers was a little
over a halfp-nny a mile.

Croce-eximined—Some of the passengers went before the
directors, but he made no Memorandum of what they said.
They read a document, which they refused to leave. They
were there about 20 minute., and there were, he thought,
four persons. Ile immediately inquired into the matter by
calling the purser and captain before him. In a day or two
they went before the board of directors. This was more
than a fortnight after the first complaint. There
had been one board meeting before. 113 delayed
laying the matter before the board until he should
get a written statement, which he Lad not had;
not a detailed statement. They afterwards went before the
directors at the request of witness. There were a number
of letters between the attorneys for the plaintiff and the de-
fendants before action brought, but he could not say
whether they were written without prejudice. The pas-
se, gees attended without any solicitor. They made a state-
ment to the directors. The directors questioned them, and
they answered. The chairman said a minute investigation
211°00 be made. The captain, the purser, and the first
officer went before the directors, and they were under ex-
amination for an hour. This was at the end of July or the
beginning of August.
The Chief Justice paid it appeared from the document
that the passengers must have seen the directors sooner than
a fortnight after they wrote.
Witness—Did not get the addresses of all the passengers,
but he did get some of them. He did not write to any of
them, for he had daily visits from some of them, Smith
particularly. He had a meeting of one of the committees
of the board soon after the first paper was delivered. Every
thing for the Melbourne was ordered of first rate quality.
The Melbourne was built as Greenock for the government,
but he dit not know why the government rejected her. She
was built of iron.
The Chief Justice said the government had given up all
the iron vessels of war because they would not stand shot.
Mr. Serjt. Ryles—There were some experiments at Por-
chester Castle, and when shots were fired it was found that
the splinters flew about, so that they did more damage than
the battery.
Witness re-examined—She sou perfectly strong and
sound. Why he took no notes of what was said was that
he expected a detailed statement. They had no agent
named Fry in Australia, but their agents were Broadfoot,
Bonham, and Co. No plan of the Melbourne had gone out
to Australia before she went out.
Mr. Serjeant Byles—There was no doubt the company
had adopted the contract, whatever it was.
Captain Gillmore, an officer tin the navy, an old com-
mander in the mercantile marine, and surveyor for the go-
vernment under the Passengers Act, was then called—He
bad seen the Melbourne alter her return. Captain Mills
and Captain Reeves also saw her. Witness saw her last
week. The deck, which was called the forecastle, was
raised 6or 7 feet above the main deck, and was 61 feet
long. The pigsties were on the top of the forecastle. This
was decidedly the best part of the ship for them. The very
best possible place. Between the spar deck and the main
deck there were tbs sailors, and under the main deck was
the cabin in question ; so the sailors were nearest the pigs.
The sailors were lodged also in the bows. It was not in
the power of man to construct a ship free from inconve-
nience at sea; and if any filth got into the cabin it must
have patted through the sailors' place.
To the Chief Justice—ln merchant vessels the pig. were
in the centre of the ship, either in or under the long boat.
Witness—ln returning from Australia to the Cape a
larger quantity of coals was necessary than in going out.
He should say there was certainly no other place but the
second class saloon where the additional coals could be put.
This was necessary for the trim of the ship, and also to have
them near to the furnace. As to the second class cabin
coming back, he could not discover any objection to it. It
was a good height, and the bunks were in the usual form.
It was well ventilated. The Passengers Act of the 15th
and 16th Vict. required for each passenger fifteen super-
ficial feet. These passengers bad more than double
He could sot say whether the married coupes were pro-
perly placed. He only surveyed the ship as to stability.
There were three tables in the cabin. There were six
scuttles and two skylights. The sleeping berths were six
feet long and two feet wide. From the galley to the cents
of the cabin was 47 feet. The galley was the cooking place.
He saw Morgan's cabin. It was 4 feet by 8 feet 6 inches,
and contained eight berths. There were three water closets.
He never saw accommodation for second-class passengers
less objectionable. They had the best part of the ship and
• cabin in which he should not at all object to travel
himself.