The Northern Daily Times.
Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1856-08-27 00:00:00

NORTHERN TIME S.---LIVERPOOL, WEDNESDAY.

his head to take an enormous quantity of land in the neigh-
bourhood of Formby, but he had not the small( st intention
of opening Walton Cemetery. His wish was to form a
burial board, and get a cemetery elsewhere.
Mr. Jeffery replied that be acted on his impression at
the time, and as he believed on a fair interpretation of Mr.
Carne's own words. However, he did not think they had
been injured by the delay, but that, on the contrary, the
town will be benefited by it. The question of the fees was
an exceedingly delicate one, but it was improper on the
part of Mr. Dover to say that theywere,,the cause of the

present meeting. The chairman himself knew that that
was not the fact, and that he himself expressed a readiness
to arrange a scale of fees with any person having the confi-
denv of the ratepayers. As to the resolution of the vestry
of 1848, the existence of which was denied by Mr. Dover,
Mr. Jeffery produced the book in which it was contained,
and read it for the meeting. And, in conclusion, reminded
Mr. D wer, that if a dissenter entered his friends at Walton,
no religions service other than that of the Church of Eng-
land could be read over the body. As to the appointment
of a chaplain, that was a question for the board when ap-
pointed, and not for them.
The motion was then put, and carried nem con.
Mr. S. B. Jackson, on rising to nominate the members of
the board, observed that they had now adopted the con-
stitutional principle of taxation, by representation, and that
the board would be a distinct corporate body. Its mem-
bers could not be more than nine, or less than three ; and
in selecting so small a number from the large community
of Liverpool, great difficulty would of course be felt. One
third of the number should retire annually, and no vacancy
could be filled up without the consent of the parishioners.
They might take more land than they required, but what
they would not immediately use, they could sell, or let, for
agricultural purposes. If they disposed of Walton Cemetery,
they would, no doubt, get a good price for it, but to do so,
they should consult the rector and the church commis-
sioners. But whatever might be done with Walton, the
question of fees should be arranged.

The Chairman :Do you refer—to the Walton Cemetery ?
Mr. Jackson . I refer to the parochial cemeteries. I
question the legality of fees sometimes exacted at the
St. Martin's Cemetery.

The Chairman : If this continues, I must ask you, Mr.
Churchwarden, to take the chair. I cannot allow this to
go on ; it has nothing on earth to do with the question of
a burial board.
Mr. Jackson: I will not allude further to it.
The Chairman : I wish you had followed the example of
Mr. Jeffery.

Mr. Jaclison, then, after advocating the right of dissenters
to separate burial ground, stated that the cost of the new
cemetery would be distributed over a period of forty years,
and that no land could be bought, uo salaries paid, and
no fees granted until the approval of the vestry at large was
first obtained. In conclusion, he proposed that Mr. J. R
Jeffery, Mr. S. ThornlPy, Mr. S. B. Jackson, Mr. John
S. Stitt, Mr. Rober son Gladstone, Mr. Christopher J.
Corhally, Mr. W. R. Bairstow, Mr. J. Woodruff, and Mr.
C. W. Shaw, churchwardens.
Mr. Sidney thought that the Rev. Rector Campbell should
not be excluded. If he were so, the town would not be
satisfied.

[The rev, rector then retired, and the chair was occupied
by Mr. Woodruff.]
Mr. Dover observed that it was quite clear it was a one
sidad board, and that it would not satisfy the town.
In the course of the discussion, Mr. Jeffery observed that
he understood that the rector had no wish to be on the
board,

Mr. Baxter thought it better that the rector should, for
the present, be off the board. The question of fees would
have to be discussed, and the rector himself, from delicacy,
might not wish to be present.
Mr. Jackson said that that was precisely the feeling of
the promoters.
The names were then put singly.
name was put,
Mr. Dover, moved as an amendment, that the name of the
rector be substituted. He did not object to Mr. Jeffreys on
any personal grounds. He would prefer that be was on the
board, but he thought thaf the rector's should be the first

When Mr. Jeffery's

Mr- Carne seconded the amendment.
A show of hands was called, when there was a vast
majority in favour of Mr. Jeffery.
Mr. Dover then called for a po'l at a future day, but it
was decided that under the new act the poll should be im-
mediately taken, unless the meeting wished otherwise. The
meeting being almost unanimous against an adjournment,
Mr. Dover and Mr. Carne left the church.
The other names were then put seriatim, and unani-
mously adopted.
Mr. Woodruff, when his name was proposed, expressed a
desire to retire in favour of the rector. He was sure that
there need be no apprehension that he would use any
improper influence there ; on the contrary, he believed, that
from feelings of honour and delicacy, the rector would not
interfere in any discussion on the question of fees.
The meeting refused to allow the substitution, and Mr.
Woodruff was, accordingly, unanimously elected.
At the close of the meeting a poll was taken between the
rector and Mr. Jeffery, and resulted in three persons and
twelve votes for the Rector, and three persons and sixty-
two votes for Mr. Jeffery, who was accordingly declared
elected.

This concluded the business, after which the meeting
separated.

THEATRE ROYAL,

Mr. Benjamin Webster, the versatile actor, and man-
ager of the Adelphi Theatre, Landon, and Mad. Celeste,
are performing this week here. Buckstone's admirable
drama of the " Green Bushes" has been performed and put
upon the stage in a most artistic and creditable manner.
Madame Celeste as Miami was as impressive as ever ; and
the whole company seem to have exerted themselves
greatly ; without being invidious, where all were com-
mendable, we would specially name Mrs. Power, Messrs.
Loraine, Baker, and Stoyle as highly distinguished.
We have not had an opportunity of seeing Mr. Webster
yet, but he has appeared in the afterpiece each night.
A very strange play, in which Madame Celeste plays a
" tiouble,"lis to be produced on Friday, under the title
of " Like and Unlike."

SOUTH LANCASHIRE ASSIZES

NISI PRIUS COURT.—MONDAY
RICKETTS AND OTHERS V. JOHNSON AND OTHERS.—
, The hearing of this case was resumed. Mr. Attorney-General
Knowles having replied on behalf of the plaintiff, his Lordship
summed up at considerable length. The jury retired, and,
after some consideration, found a verdict for the plaintiffs—.
damages £1 865.
THE LOCAL BOARD OF HEALTH OF KINGSTON-UP)N-
HULL V. TONES.—This was an action in which the plaintiffs
claimed to recover from the defendant, money payable in
respect of an improvement rate. Mr. Attorney General
Knowles, Mr. Warren, Q C., and Mr. Thompson, appeared
for the plaintiffs ; Mr. Hugh Hill, Q C., Mr. 'Watson, Q.O ,
Mr. Mellhuish, and Mr. Millward for defendant. The action
was brought by the Board of Health of Hull, to recover from
the defendant the proportion of expenses to which they alleged
he was liable by law, for the making of a street in the town of
Hull. In 1848, certain alterations and amendments took
Place in the laws affecting the sanitary condition of towns, and
under the operations of that act, which were applied to the
town of Hull in 1851, the town council of Hull became the
t local board of health for a district comprising the whole
borough. The land upon which the road was made was partly
in the parish of Sealcotes, and partly in the parish of Holy
Trinity, in Hull. There were some houses built upon the
ground, and there was a footway, and on the northern side
there was a cartway. The plaintiffs made a handsome road or
boulevard, with trees at each side, and footways between the
trees and the houses. They called upon the inhabitants to pave
and channel this road, and the demand not being complied
with they laid a rate and collected the regular proportions from
the parties. The only resistance made to the payment was
by the defendant and another party. It was alleged
that the road caused a very great improvement to the town,
and that the owners of houses on it were liable for their pro-
portion of the expense of paving and channelling. The defence
was that the road was a public highway, and that the Town
Council, being the Board of Health in another capacity, was
the party liable for the repairs. The principal questions
involved were merely legal points, on which a lengthened
discussion took place. Finally his Lordship directed the jury
to find for the defendant. He observed that in law the
plaintiffs had no claim, and in other respects the demand was
uncon.cientious and monstrous. The defendant did not
require the road to be made, had not part in the unkertaking,
and if therefore i► was a great public improvement, the public
in some capacity ought to pay for it. The double capacity of
the Board of Health reminded him of a story, which possibly
the jury remembered, of a certain Prince Bishop who once
headed an army going to war. A peasant, who saw him pass,
laughed. " You impudent fellow," said the Prince Bishop,
" why do you laugh ?" " I laugh," he answered, "to see one
of the successors of the Apostles in armour, at the head of an
army." " But," said the other, "do you not remember that
lam a Prince ?" " Aye," rejoined the peasant, " but when
the Prince goes there (pointing downwards) what becomes of
the Bishop ?" (Loud laughter.) Now, his Lordship added,
he had no doubt the Town Council of Hull was a very respect-
able body, but what was to become of it if the Board of Health
went down there ? (Laughter.) The jury found for the
defendant.

THE LOCAL BOARD OF HEALTH OF KINGSTON•IIPON-
HULL V. THE TRINITY HOUSE OF HULL.—In consequence
of the results of the previous action, the records in this case
was withdrawn.

WARDE V. STEIVART AND ANOTHER —This was an action
brought by Mr. James Angus Ward against Messrs. Stewart
and Douglas, African merchants, of this town, to receive an
amount of commission claimed by him for his services as agent
of defendants. The defendants had paid £1,975 into court.
Mr. Quaine opened the pleadings. Mr. Hugh Hill, Q.C.,
stated the case. He said, the question the jury would have to
try was partly one of law, and partly one of fact. In 1848 the
plaintiff was first introduced to the defendants, and went out
for them in the ship Rothschild to the coast of Africa, and
made a successful voyage. He went out again, in 1849, in the
same ship. When he returned from the latter voyage, it was
agreed in the month of August, 1853, that a new arrangement
should be come to between the parties, under which plaintiff
should make two further voyages as their agent. The terms
of the agreement was that the plaintiff should proceed to the
Bonny river as defendants' agent ; that defendants should be
bound to supply bins with goods for the purposes of barter ;
that the plaintiff should sign bills of lading, &c., for all articles
transmitted, and that if there was any mistake or matter not
accounted for, plaintiff should be held fully responsible. The
eighth clause of the agreement, which was material in the
present action, was, that Messrs. Stewart and Douglas should
allow and pay to the plaintiff, as remuneration for his services,
a commission of £6 per cent. on the net proceeds of the dry
merchantable palm oil, or other African produce received by
them, such commsssion to become due when the proceeds shall
have been received in cash, and after making the usual
deductions in accordance with the rules and regu-
lations of the Liverpool African Association. The
ninth clause, which was also an important one to
the present action, was, that the plaintiff should not be entitled

to any commission or remuneration whatever, on any palm oil
or other African proudce, which should be bartered for or
purchased by him, hut which, from loss of the ship or other-
wise, should not be actually received in Great Britain, or upon
any wet, dirty, or unmerchantable palm oil which might be
received. To this clause Mr. Hill called special attention, as
being that on which the defence principally rested. The
plaintiff remained for a considerable time on the coast of Africa,
and traded in a very profitable manner for the defendants.
Ultimately, on his return to this country, he found con-
siderable difficulty in obtaining a settlement of his account,
and it was only when he gave notice of this action that they
paid £1,975 into court. Mr. Hill concluded by stating that
the defence set up was, that the sum of £1,975 was commission
upon all the oil, which fetched the highest price in the market,
and on which they were not compelled to make any abatement
of any kind. And any oil which (lid not actually reach the
highest market price, they contended they were entitled to
refuse commission upon, as being wet, dirty, and unmerehant-
able. Several witnesses were called to prove that the reductions
made in the prices of certain qualities of the oil sent here by
the plaintiff, were not of such a character as to render the oil
unmerchantable, in the commercial acceptation of the term.
His Lordship observed that he thought it would be a liberal
course for the defendants to pursue to allow plaintiff the
commission, deducting the abatements they were compelled to
make. It never could have been their intention, in
framing that contract, to make a profit out of a misfor-
tune. Mr. Watson, Q.O who,with the Attorney-General, and
Mr. Milward, appeared for the defence, said that he would be
able to show that the construction defendants put on the
agreement was that which every merchant in Liverpool, en-
gaged in the oil trade, adopted. His Lordship : Then it would
be a positive advantage to them if the plaintiff had sent home
no oil which was not wet or dirty. Mr. Watson said the
general construction of the trade was such as he had stated,
and the defendants desired to have the question decided. Hie
Lordship: Well, I only say what I think might be a hand-
some and liberal course—l do not at all say that you are
legally bound to it. The hearing of the evidence then proceeded.
The general result of the examination was that where an
abatement was made in oil, because of visible wet, it was con-
sidered as, commercially speaking, wet oil, although it might
not be unmerchantable. Mr. Watson addressed the jury for
the defendants, contending briefly that the contract was a
most dictinct one, and one for which many reasons could be
given to prove its necessary and equitable character. He urged
that where so large a commission was given without risk or
outlay on the part of the agent, it was but reasonable that
merchants should guard themselves against the great losses
which frequently occurred in that trade by a contract which
rendered them liable to no commission where the article
returned had the fault of being wet or dirty. A large portion
of the oil sent home by the plaintiff, being so visibly and tan-
gibly wet and dirty, he urged, as to come within the meaning of
the contract, the defendants were fully entitled to refuse commis-
sion upon that quantity. Evidence was then given which showed
that certain quantities of the oil, when arrived in Liverpool, were
made. A verdict was given for the defendants,
found by the brokers to be wet and dirty, and abatements
accordingly
with leave to plaintiff to move that the verdict be entered for
him, on the ground that although the oil was wet or dirty, still,
as it was merchantable, subject to allowances, he was entitled
to receive commission. His Lordship remarked that after the
evidence which had been given, he did not think the jury
could do otherwise than find for the defendants.
The court adjourned at half past six o'clock.

CROWN COURT Y -- ESTE RDAY.
CIVIL CASES.
(BEFORE MR. JUSTICE WILLES.)
CROOKEINT v. FLIITCHER.— This was an action on a
charter party, by which the plaintiff, a merchant, of Amster-
dam, sought to recover of the defendant, merchant, of this
town, compensation for the breach of a charter party, effected
at the latter end of February, of this year, through the instru-
mentality of Messrs. Van Sauten & Herne, brokers, of this town.
In this case the plaintiff's agents in this town agreed to charter
the ship Swan to the defendant, the amount of freight being
agreed upon. It became necessary, after the agreement had
been made, that a charter party should be drawn out, signed by
the defendant, and then transferred to the owners of the
vessel for their exceptance. The agreement was, that the
charter party should be returned without delay, and that the
vessel should leave Liverpool at a certain time. This charter
patty was returned, but with the delay of a day, and when
it was forwarded to the defendant, it was found that a material
proviso had been inserted in the margin, namely, wind and
weather permitting, containing the signature of the plaintiff.
On these grounds the defendant refused to accept the charter
Pa party, but the plaintiff's agent, on the ship's arriving, offered it
theta, stating, on their refusal, they should claim any
damages that might incur from such refusal. Tho
sole evidence adduced in the case was the plaintiff's
agent, and Mr. Fletcher, the defendant—the former
stating that there was no stipulation that the charter
party should be returned from the owner without delay,
and the latter distinctly and positively stating that such was
the case. A lengthened discussion ensued as to the legality of
the charter party, an insertion having been made on the mar-
when biz'• Lordship said that it was his opinion that the
charter party, from having such insertion, was void, although he
did not wish to positively rule so, as this charter party
jwas different from some others. The real question the
ury would have to decide was—whether or not
there was a stipulation to the effect that the charter party
should be returned from the owners without delay, and on that
evidence they would to have decide between the statement

made by tho plaintiff's agent, and that made by the defendant,
when the agreement was first mooted. The jury returned a
verdict that there was no stipulation made for the return of
the charter party, and his Lordship gave the defendant leave
to move in the court above as to the validity of the
charter party, consequent on the insertion in the margin.
HARGRAVES V. CARLISLE.—This was an action brought by
the plaintiff, Mr. George Hargraves, a merchant, of Liverpool,
to recover damages front the defendants, Messrs. Carlisle and
Co , merchants, of London, for an alleged neglect of duty as
a broker in disposing of some tea, by which the plaintiff was a
considerable looser. The ostensible plaintiff in this action was
a firm of tea merchants in China. In the year 1854 a large
quantity of tea, 4,362 chests, were shipped to England in one
vessel, of which 3,042 were consigned to Mr. G. Hargraves,
and the rest to other brokers. The value of the tea so
shipped wat £7,744. In April last an application was made
to G Hargraves to have the teas forwarded to France, on the
ground that there was at that time a good market for the same,
to this ho gave his assent, as far as regards the chests that
were consigned to him, and the samples were given to the
defendant. At that time the teas were in transit to England,
and were shipped at London. By that shipment the
expenses had been incurred, the consequences was, that the firm
in France refused to take the teas, and thus the plaintiff sought
to recover the loss sustained. These were the facts of the case as
far as could be understood from the voluminous correspondence
which had taken place on the matter, and which were read in
court. The case bad proceeded some little way, when, at his
Lordship's suggestion, a verdict was returned for the plaintiff,
it having been decided between the parties to refer the matter
in dispute to some merchant to settle, as to the amount lost
by the delivery, each party then to take a share of those
losses.

DAUNT AND ANOTHER ♦. DAvIS AND ANOTHER.—In this
case the defendants contracted to take a certain quantity of
iron of the plaintiffs. They did not receive the iron. A dis-
agreement arose as to who should find the ships for the transit
of the iron—the plaintiffs being ready to deliver it, and the
defendants to receive it. This action was brought to recover
damages for such a breach of contract. Verdict for the
plaintiffs.

mISS MARIAN,

AMERICAN ENCHANTRESS,