The Northern Daily Times.
Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1856-03-10 00:00:00

AFFAIR OF HONOUR ON 'CHANGE.

On Saturday morning, Mr. Benn attended at the Police-
court, in consequence of the arrest of a gentleman,
that had taken place late the previous evening, on a
charge of being about to fight a duel. It appeared that,
on Friday evening, an information was lodged by Wil Ham
Earle, Esq., before James Aikin, Esq., one of the borough
magistrates, and on this a warrant was issued for the arrest
of Mr. James Loran, a c)tton merchant, whose counting-

at 13, Rumford-pla3e. Th 3 warrant charged Mr

Logan with having written a letter to Mr. I. P. G. Smith,
which contained a threat to commit a breach of the peace.
was intrusted to Mr. Cozens, one of the war-
rant officers of the court, who at once proceeded to Mr.
office, and informed him of the matter, intimating
im that he was then under arrest. Bail was, however,
'ered and accepted for his appearance on Saturday,

Logan'

when he attended before Mr. Benn in surrender of the bail.
Mr. Smith a,vl Mr. William Rathbone, with another gen-
tleman, and Mr. Wylrrgh, the magistrates' clerk, were the
only persons (except the reporters) in attendance.
Mr. Smith (handing a letter to Mr. Benn) said, I re-
eeived this letter yesterday morning from Mr. Logan.
Mr. Wybergh (looking at the letter) : It contains a
threat.
.

Mr. Smith : Yes ; it contains a threat, and, in con3e-
(pence of the words used, I apprehend it intends a breach
of the peace. I can put no other construction whatever on
the words.
___. . . __ _

—Mr. Wybergh : What have you to say, Mr. Logan, to
this charge ? _

Mr. L;')'gan : I hare nothing to say, except that I wrote

Mr. Wyber

OORTMIIIN TIMIIB.--LIVIRPOOL, MONDA:ft MARCH I'i, ism

COUNTY-COURT.-SATURDAY.

(BEFORE JOSEPH POLLOCK, ESQ., JUDGE.)
The court, which was adjourned from the previous
Tuesday. was held on Saturday.
FARMER V. OXLEY—JUDOMENT.-1-liS Honour delivered
judgment in this case, which was heard a short time since,
and involved a question of considerable importance to
seamen. In giving judgment, his Honour briefly recap-
itulated the circumstances of the case, which was an
action brought to recover 241 16s 3d from defendant as a
balance of wages alleged to be due, the plaintiff having
been an able-bodied seaman on board the War Cloud, of
which defendant was the owner. As the principle
involved was of great importance both to Her Majesty's
navy and the merchant service, his Honour said he had
thought it right to give the case his best consideration.
The plaintiff entered the defendant's service in April,
1854, and signed articles binding him to the service on a
voyage to the Black Sea, and thence homeward to Liver-
pool. On Friday, the 29th December, 1854, the War
Cloud was anchored off Scutari, being then employed as a
transport in the government service. A few days before,
she had received sailing orders from the late Admiral
Boxer, and was only waiting for a fair wind to obey them.
She was bound, under a penalty, to have a given number
of men and boys on board as a crew. On the evening
mentioned, the 29th December, the plaintiff, along with a
man named Chambers, who had brought an action of the
same kind against the defendant, applied to Captain Fox,
master of the War Cloud, for leave to go on shore, in
order to buy some articles which they stated
they required for the homeward voyage. They
were informed that the vessel was under sailing
orders,'but that they might go on shore and bring the
articles, and money was given to them for the purpose.
Subsequently the permission was extended to the follow-
ing day, on the morning of which both the men left the
ship, having orders to return the same evening. They
went ashore, but contrary to the orders did not return,
that,' or the following, day. While on shore, they met
with some of the crew of her Majesty's ship, London,
made inquires about the vessel, and having received
what they considered satisfactory replies, they entered
her Majesty's service, on Monday, the Ist January, 1855.
On Wednesday, the Bth of January, both men, accom-
panied by an officer from the London, went on board the
War Cloud and claimed their wages, Captain Fox refused
either to pay the wages or to give an order for it, on the
ground that the men had deserted !their ship in the first
instance, before they entered her Majesty's service, and
had, therefore, disentitled themselves to any wages. On
these facts, it was contended for the defence, that the
cap ain was justified in refusing to pay the wages. The
question was to be decided by considering the clauses of
the Merchants Shiping Act of 1854, and was in some of
its parts, by no means easy of solution. Having carefully
examined the act of parliament, he found provisions in it,
to which at the time of trial, his attention was not
specifically directed, and which affected materially the
issue now involved. The 214th section of that act stated,
that "any seaman may leave his ship for the purpose of
forthwith entering into the naval service of her Majesty,
and such leaving his ship shall not be deemed a desertion,
and shall not render him liable to any punishment or for-
feiture." The question in this ease was whether the sea-
men had or had not, by their absence from the War
Cloud after Saturday evening, for 36 hours at least before
they entered her Majesty's service, forfeited their claim
to this exception, to which, if they had left the ship, for the
purpose of forthwith entering her Majesty's naval service,
they would have been entitled, by the 214th section. The
question then was what actually' constituted desertion ?
The 215th section of the same act set forth that " when-
ever any seaman, without having previously committed
any act:amounting to, and treated by the master as, deser-
tion, leaves his ship in order to enter into the naval ser-
vice of her Majesty, and is received into such service, the
master shall deliver to him his clothes, &c., and shall pay
the proportionate amount of his wages down to the time
of such entry, subject to all just deductions, either in money
or by bill upon the owner." The term " forthwith" was
not used in that section. and the question was whether
these seamen deserted, or committed an act amounting to
desertion, before they were received into her Majesty's
s.rvice ? Now, if these seamen left; their ship on Satur-
day morning in order to enter the naval service, it was
extremely difficult to say that by their absence on Sunday,
without forthwith entering that service, they committed
an act of desertion. By the evidence in the case there
was no ground to doubt that they left the ship with
the intention of entering the naval service, and in the
official log of the IWar Cloud they were described
as "absent without leave," not as having deserted. His
Honour held, therefore, that " subject to all just deduc-
tions." the plaintiff was entitled to recover, and, calculating
these deductions, as permitted by section 254, according
to the forfeiture fixed by section 243, he subtracted fro m
the proportionate amount of wages down to the time of the
plaintiff's entry into her Majesty's service, two days' pay
for the absence on Saturday evening after the expiration
of the leave given by the master, and in addition for the
next twenty-four hours' absence previous to the
entry of' plaintiff into the service of the London, six:days'
nay being the largest deduction, which in his opinion, the
law entitled him to make.

The case of Chambers v. Oxley, which involved a pre-
cisely similar question, was decided by the above
decision also.

Several other cases were heard during the day, but
none of them possessed any public interest.

POLICE COU RT.-SATURDAY.

(BEFORE MR. G, GRANT.)

AN OLD OFFENCIL-William Richards was brought up on
the following charge. It appeared that some time in 1854,
the prisoner went to the shop of Mr. Charles Hill, Brownlow
Hill, and stated that Mr. Copeland, of the Theatre Royal,
had sent him for a quantity of boots for the Misses Copeland.
Mr. Hill sent a boy with seven pairs of boots• On the way
the prisoner took the boots from the boy, and entered a public-
house, saying he would be back in a moment, but of course
he never returned, nor was he heard of until Friday,
when he was picked up by a policeman. Mr. Copeland said
he did not know anything of the prisoner, and of course he
had never sent him for any boots. Tlio prisoner was

remanded.

(BEFORE MR. fl NN.)

UNSOLDIVR-LIKE CONDUCT.—John Eves, a prixate in the
royal artillery, was charged with having threatened to stab
Mrs. Ellen Norris, of the Saddle-inn, Kirkdale. It appeared
that the prisoner and a corr_rade were billeted at the house
of the complainant, but as she had not room for them, she
paid them to get lodgings elsewhere. They went away, but
returned after some time, saying they would 'prefer remaining
in the house, as their officer wished it. She said she could
not give them lodging, and an altercation took place between
the two men, when the complainant interfered and sent out
for the police. The prisoner then drew his sword, and
putting it to her breast, swore he would put it through her.
Two policemen then came up, and the prisoner was arrested.
The magistrate handed over the prisoner to the military
authorities, to be dealt with by them for his conduct.