The Northern Daily Times.
Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1853-10-14 00:00:00

BANKRUPTCY COURT, YESTERDAY

Commissioner Steveson.)—ht re
appeared for three creditors,' and .sought to prove a6_
the bankrupt's P'' 4 of three promissory notes,
-en. security` for the bank-
')sectuently heard. Mr,
'd that he would not

CASSIDAT

;tate the amou
with costs, for which they had
rupt, Mid upon which they we
Rymer, who .was for the assig
oppose the application, but he was not quite sure whether
under the late act, costs could be considered part of the
original liability. The claim was allowed..
CHOLERA.—The most favourable reports are still
being' received as to the health of the town, from the district
medical officers, as will be seen'from the proceedings of the
health Committee yesterday. There had been no additional
admissions to the. cholera .wards of the workhouse up to eight

- lout ovunine, and l.ur. tvrrn - _
chiefly emigrants, remained in the hospital, but of these a
very large number are reported out of danger. In. fact, of
all those now under. treatment, some half dozen only are in a
dangerous state. - The deseaso sCenis to :have- subsided in
Newcastle and Gateshead,
.Imt.is, on the increase in several
districts in London. Several cases have alSo occurred in
Edinburgh within the last few
.days. - -
Du. CAHILL'S LECTURES.—Dr. Cahill delivered
his concluding-lecture last:night .upon the Social Condition
of Ireland. The galleries-and body of the hall were densely
thronged. The lecturer went through' the history of Ireland
from the period of the invasion of the British in the reign
.of Henry the Second down to the present day. He argued,
that in every period of the history of the country, internal
war and mis-government had prevented the improvement of
agriculture, extension of commerce, and spread of education
which alone could render a Country prosperous and happy.

The unfortunate result of the condition of the country in
late years, he contended, arose -not from any fault of the
Irish people, but from the system of government pursued
by successive English monarchs, and partly in late years
from the extravagance and the tyranny of Irish landlords.
The lecturer illustrated his argument .bv examples drawn
from the different periods of the Irish history to .which he
alluded. Throughout the whole of the lecture, which lasted
two hours, the audience was most enthusiastic in their
applause.
THE WAGES MOVEMENT IN PRESTON— PROBABLE
CLOSING OP ALL THE Corrox.Mmis.—lt is to be feared that
the dispute between the Preston master cotton-spiners and
their men, will not soon terminate. On Tuesday evening, a
meeting convened by the party of men who disapprove of the
present union of mill hands,was held at St. Paur sSchool ; Mr.
John Lutenar, overlooker, in the chair. Amongst others,
there were several clergymen present

A resolution was

then moved. by factoif operatives, and carried unan-
imously :—" That a deputation, composed of hands from
various mills, and others, should wait upon the masters to
ascertain on what terms they would be willing to continue
work." The Rev. S. F. Page, incumbent of St. P,aul's
church, and the Rev. W. Walling, incumbent of All Saints'
church, formed, part of the deputation appointed. On Wed-
nesd.ay morning, one of the members of the deputation
waited upon the secretary. of the masters' association, to as-
ertain if they would receive the deputation, and subsequent-
y a resolution of the masters was forwarded to the deputation
o the following effect :—" That acting upon the principle
hat has hitherto guided the associated masters, this com-
mittee, with a due appreciation of the benevolent motives by
which the gentlemen named as a deputation are influenced,
s unanimously of opinion that any such interview as that
uggested by 'the St. Paul's School Committee is, the
)resunt temper of the operatives, undesirable." it is under-
tood that the reason why the masters refused to receive the
leputation is, that *the great bulk of the, operatives are
mder the influence of parties from other towns. . The
nasters declare that they will close their mills until the
nfluence which'strangers has gained over the men is entire-
Ly removed, and as the men refuse to withdraw themselves
From the association of strangers, it is believed that all the
mills in Preston will be closed. tomorrow. Should this prove
true, thousands of men, women, and children, will be
thrown out of employment, the consequences of which it is
truly fearful to contemplate.
READY WlT.—The Morning Herald says of- Mr.
Gladstone's Inverness speeches, "The nail-blue-cholera-col-
lapsed condition of his speeches 1" Is not this not ready wit?
Wit at the finger ends ?—Protelt.
APPLICATIONS OF THE NEW STAMP ACT.—The new
Stamp Act, whioh came into operation on Tuesday, besides
enacting that a uniform penny receipt stamp shall be put on
all receipts for £2 and upwards, has relation to other duties.
In case of any insurance for lives, a stamp policy is to be
made out, and the officers of insurance companies are to be
answerable for any default. A reduction is made on articles
of clerkship to attorneys of the country palatine, which may
be stamped for admission into the superior courts on the pay-
ment of the additional duty. Additional inventories in Scot-
land are to he charged with a certain duty. Licenses to
perform divine services while churches are 15eing repaired
are to be free from stamp duty. Where property is sold
subject to any mortgage, the mortgage money is to be deemed
part of the purchase money whether agreed to be paid by the
purchaser or not. Where property is sold in consideration
of a redeemable annuity, the redemption money isrto be
seemed the purchase-money. The Commissioners of Inland
Revenue may adjudge what deeds are liable to stamp duty.
Officers of the Post-office may, on being authorised, now sell
postage stamps. Playing cards must not be sold without
the stamp on the ace of of spades. The stamp duties in Ire-
land are now made: perpetual. Such is an outline of the new
duties which came into operation on Tuesday.
RUSSIA IN LONDON.—It is said that the-agitation
for the constitution of a Greek empire is the politic work of
Russia. That if others supply the eloquence, the Greek fire
of talk—it is Russia that.stands the shot.—Tetnch.

_
liarriagt4, anZr 3tatb4.

We shall only insert such notices of Births; Marriages, and Deaths,
as may be originally forwarded to us by authorised parties:

DIED, '
wife of Mr, William 31edle3, 71,

On the 10th inst., the
Chatham-street,

The Court sat as usual at ten o'clock yesterday.
RUDD AND BENSON V. FAIRCLOUGIi. —This was an action
in which the plaintiffs sought to recover £2l 10s., the
amount of one month's interest at 121 per cent. upon £2OOO
lent the brother of the defendant by the plaintiffs. The
plaintiffs were William Thomas Rudd, manager of the
Woodside ferry, and Robert Benson, of Cockermouth ; and
John Walsh Fairclough the defendant. Mr. Aspinall ap-
peared for the plaintiffs, and Mr. Blair for the defendant.
It appeared that a sum of £2OOO was lent to the brother of
the defendant, who had since become bankrupt. Defendant
was one of several sureties, who had agreed by a covenant
that the principal should be paid upon the 16th of October,
1857, and that in the meantime interest at the rate of 12i per
cent. should be paid by monthly instalments. The deed was
produced, and its execution proved, by the attesting wit-
nesses. Mr. Rudd was then himself examined, and deposed
to the negociations which ended in the lending of the money
to the brother of the defendant, and the drawing up of the
deed which had been produced. Mr. Blair then raised a
legal question, contending that the plaintiff, in order to
bring his action in the County Court, should abandon the re-
mainder of the principal and interest, as he was not allowed
by law to split his claim into several claims, for the purpose
of enabling him to bring an action in that Court. He con-
tended that if Mr. Aspinall did not, on behalf of the de-
fendant, consent to abandon the remainder of his claim, the
action did not come within the jurisdiction of the Court.
Mr. Blair argued the question at considerable length, and
cited several legal authorities to support his views. Mr.
Aspinall contended that the objection was premature, and
that the point could not be raised until the plaintiff actually
split his claim by bringing a second action. It would be
quite a different thing if a man came into that Court and
said that he had a certain demand for which he chose to
bring several actions in that Court instead of going into the
superior Court, and therefore professed that he intended, to
divide the claim into parts, in order to bring it within the
jurisdiction of that Court. If the counsel for the defence
asked the plaintiff whether the defendant did not actually
owe him more, and then got out of him that at some future
time there might by possibility be a further claim against
defendant fo-r something else, that was not sufficient to en-
title him to object on the ground that the action was split.
The objection, if it lay in that case at all, could not possibly,
arise until another action was brought. The question hav-
ing been argued at some length upon both sides, the Court
said, that as the question which had been raised was one of
considerable importance, he should reserve giving a decision
for the present. Judgment in the case was therefore re-
served until the next sitting of the court.
Me.Nmais. v. LurrnELL.—This was an action brought
by John Mc.Nellan, in the employment of Mr. Smart; of
Duke-street, brewer, against Richard Luttrel, of Salisbury-
street, licensed-victualler, to recover £l2 125., the value of
four casks of Alloa ale, at £3 3s. each, supplied to the de-
fendant at his order, Mr. Hime appeared for the plaintiff,
and Mr. Wheeler for the defendant. The order and delivery
of the ale were proved upon behalf of the plaintiff. On the
part of the defendant it was alleged that the ale was delivered
in bad condition, and that one of the casks was leaky. Mr.
.Luttrel was examined and deposed that he received the ale
in January, and that he tapped the first barrel about the
latter end of. February, when he found it was quite sour.
The plaintiff called about a fortnight after, and witness told
him that the ale was bad. The plaintiff tasted it, and said
it would mend by keeping. Several times after the plaintiff
called, and would not drink his own ale. Customers would
not take it at one penny a glass. One of the casks also
leaked. Defendant stated that he called at Mr. Smart's
office several times, but did not see him. He was told to
see Mr. Smart, but he did not do so, only leaving a message
at the office. On cross-examination the defendant stated that
he was not aware the ale required to have a apigot put into
it occasionally to prevent fermentation. Witnesses were
called to prove that one of the casks leaked, and that the
condition of the ale was sour.—His Hoison said the defend-
ant should have sent back the ale, instead of keeping it for
a length of time, and pronounced a verdict for the plaintiff.
CORNFORTII V. CLAUS.—Mr. Roby appeared for the plain-
tiff, Mr. Cornforth, who was a broker, and sought to recover
the sum of £22 ls. 6d., as commission upon having effected
a charter upon a vessel called the " Conisbrook,' for the
defendant, Mr. George Claus, an extensive shipowner, at 2i
per cent. Mr. Roby stated that the vessel was to sail from
Liverpool to Savannah, with cotton, and return to Liver-
pool. The vessel was lost upon her passage out, but there
was an express agreement that the commission should be
paid, and no reference made to the fate of the vessel. Mr.
Aspinall appeared for the defence. The plaintiff was exa-
mined and deposed that the usual brokerage charged was 5
per cent., but after drawing up the charter Claus prevailed
upon him to agree to receive 24 per cent., which he did in
the hope of getting more business from Mr. Claus. Re-
ceived small sums upon account from Mr. Claus, amounting
to £6. Mr. Claus said the outfit of the ship was very heavy,
and asked plaintiff to wait for the remainder of the money
until her return. The only reason he subsequently assigned
for not paying the money was, that the vessel was lost, and
that, therefore, he was not bound to pay. Mr. Wright and
Mr. Haskeyne, brokers, were examined to prove that it was
usual to pay the commission even in the event of the vessel
being lost. On the part of the defendant it was contended
that the commission was not to be paid except upon the
arrival of the vessel. A document was handed in signed by
Mr. Cornforth, in the following words :—" I have receiv-
ed from Messrs. Claus and Co. thesum of £2, which, together
with £4 previously received, makes £6, on account of com-
mission of the home charter of the ship Conisbrook, the re-
mainder not to become payable until after the arrival and
loading of the said vessel at Savannah." The question in-
volved having been argued at considerable length on both
sides, his HONOR said—l am of opinion that I need not' call
upon Mr. Aspinall for the rest of the evidence. I think that
Mr. Cornforth, when he signed the document, rendered the
matter sufficiently doubtful to justify me in saying that he is
not entitled to recover. There is likely to be conflicting evi-
dence with regard to the striking out of the words " the
commission of 21 per cent. due to William Cornforth, on
the signing of the charter," and I at present give no opinion
at all upon that part of the case. But I think the mewling
may be gathered from the very nature of the document.
Ordinarily the charter party would be signed at the place
from which the vessel was to sail. The parties were in
Liverpool, from which the vessel was to sail, and were
making a charter party for a voyage to commence back again
from Savannah. Ido not think it is necessary to decide at
all the question of custom as regards the loss of the vessel,
but I find that (the charter party being signed on the 24th of
November, 1852) on the 19th of January, 1853, this was
Mr. Cornforth's own explanation of the circumstances in
which he then stood. (His Honor here read the document
given above.) Now, either that document is a variation of
the original contract, made under circumstances wherein Mr.
Cornforth has been paid certain money, which he was not
likely to receive at the time, or it is his explanation of the
original contract ; one or the other. Whichever I take it
to be—whether a variation of the original contract, made by
him (it that be possible under the circumstances), or, which
I am rather inclined to think, his own explanation of the
original contract—l take it that the word "due" must have
referred to the loading of the vessel at Savannah. There-
fore I do not think I am called upon, in justice to the
parties, to enter into an investigation which must be ex-
tremely painful, and must tend to results which could not be
agreeable to one or other of the gentlemen. I would rather
fall back upon the plaintiff's own act, and adopt the expla-
nation which he gave in January, 1853, after some two or
three months' time to think over it, and repeated applications
for money. As, therefore, the contingency specified never
has happened, and the vessel never did arrive or load at Sa-
vannah, and as.that is the condition which Mr. Cornforth
himself in this document admits should occur before he was
to be paid the remainder of the money, I shall say that he
is not entitled to recover it.

BOYD V. MONDELL AND WILSON.—Mr. Aspinall appeared
for the plaintiff, and Mr. Blair for the defendants. Mr.
Aspinall stated that the plaintiff was engaged as mate on
board the vessel Elizabeth Archer, to make a voyage from
Liverpool to some ports in South America. One of the
defendants, Mr. Wilson, who was part owner of the vessel,
Was also captain of her. There was no doubt but the plain-
tiff performed his duty properly upon the whole, and was
entitled to the amount of his wages, viz., £47 15s. The only
ground upon which his claim was resisted was, that certain
cases of cutlery which were put into the vessel at Liver-
pool had been lost somewhereupan the voyage,but it would
be shewn that the plaintiff had taken all the care of them_
which he was bound to do. It appeared that a portion of
the cargo had to be landed at one of the ports before reach-
ing he other, and the
,goods were therefore exposed about
the deck, and the natives, who were generally round the
vessel, might, if they were thievishly disposed, have carried
them off. It also would appear that the captain had taken
out some goods of his own, to which he was attending rather
than to the others. There might of course be many other
ways in which the goods might have been lost ; but Mr.
Aspinall contended that the mate was in no way responsible
for them, having done all that his duty required. The mate
and other witnesses were examined to prove the facts alleged.
Mr. Blair contended, upon behalf of the defendants, that
according to the custom of the trade, the mate was re-
sponsible for the loss of the goods, and his clients entitled
to withhold his wages. The captain of the vessel Was
examined to prove that the custom of the trade was, that
all deficiencies in goods should be supplied out of the
wages of the officer who had charge of them, and that, in
the present case, the mate alone had the entira charge
of receiving and delivering the goods in question. The
witness admitted that he had smuggled goods on shore:when
the vessel was in the South American ports, which he stated
was done in every Spanish port, but denied positively that
he had ever taken the missing articles on shore. Further
evidence was given to chew the liability of the officer in
charge to have the amount of any loss occurring in the
cargo supplied out of his wages. Mr. Joseph Mendell, one
of the defendants, deposed that it was to his own knowledge
the custom of the trade to make such reductions. On cross-
examination by Mr. Aspinall, the witness stated that the
mate was considered liable to the captain, and the captain to
the owners. His HONOR : I am of opinion that the
evidence does not make out the case. The statements of
some of the witnesses go to prove that any deficiency what-
ever, from pirates or storms even, are supplied out of their
wages. It is quite manifest that they cannot mean that.
What they. mean, although they do not say it, is any
deficiency in the care, arising from short delivery, and
which short delivery is not accounted for, by any cause

known to the parties. It is impossible to take the meaning
of these witnesses in its general sense. Mr Mondell states
that the custom is that the mate is not liable to any one but
the captain, and the captain to the owners ; therefore the
custom as he states it does nett actually extend to the mate
at all. This places it in a perfectly distinct view. But I
think, without going into the question at all, that when the
parties have put their names to a document in which they
make certain arrangements of their own, even if the custom
was made out to be a general one, they did not act upon it,
but acted upon that to which they signed their names, and
intended to limit the right of deducting from the wages to
that which is specified there, any loss occurring from em-
bezzlement or wilful destruction to any part of the cargo.
Ido not think the case sustained. It must be understood,
however, that I say nothing regarding the common law.

right of the owners to receive dimage- for negligent loss,
which is not at all touched upon by the verdict given in this
case. The court then decided in favour of the plaintiff,
ordering that the money should be paid into court to abide
the result of the action, which it was intimated that the
defendants intended to bring.

No other case of importance was heard up to the rising of
the Court.