The Northern Daily Times.
Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1853-11-18 00:00:00

THE NORTHERN DAILY TIMES.

been led into error, it would be a hard case to fix upon him
penalties. All he (Mr. Heels) wanted, was that the council
should keep themselves in a straight course, as far as might
be. He thought they would stultify themselves by accepting
the resignation of an office which had never been filled. He
should content himself with nrm,c4-1,,,.. -a at. - _

tency ot the council to entertain the question.
handed up a protest to the above effect to the mayor.)
Mr. Councillor SANKEY having made a few remarks, and
the mayor one or two observations in explanation, the motion
was carried without a dissentient voice.

(He then

steamer not only did not act in obedience to the directions of I
the pilot, but acted directly contrary to them.

Several witnesses were examintd'for the defence, to prove
that the steamer could not have gone astern of the schooner ;
but that the schooner, by putting up her helm, and lifting

witness

who was on board the steamer, stated that in his opinion the
order of the pilot in the brig was not heard in the steamer.
His HONOR : My present impression is that the steamer
ought to have given way, and have gone astern of the
schooner, and that it was the duty of the pilot in the brig to
direct, and of the master in the steam-tug to obey. It is a
plain, common principle, which we all understand,- that a
vessel with a steam tug is more under command than a sail-

ing vessel. A sailing vessel must regulate her course ac-
cording to the wind, and cannot depart from it, or change it
so readily as a steamer can. His Honor then said he would
look over the Admiralty regulations, and give judgment in
the case on Monday next.

BOYLB V. CHAP.MAN.—In this case Mr. Hull appeared for
the plaintiff, and Mr. Chilton for the defendant. It was an
action brought against Mr. H. C. Chapman, the receivers of
Admiralty droits in this port. The plaintiff, Captain Boyle,

was master of an American vessel, the Ticonderamo and the
action was brought by him to recover £3 Bs. which been
paid to defendant, but for which he contended he was not
liable. It was stated on behalf of the plaintiff, that the
Ticonderago came into port somewhat injured after a col-
lison at sea, and was about going into dock, and had left her
anchor in the river. Cnnt. Boyle sent his men to br4

_ sia. mg up
the anchor, but they were driven away by a number of other
men who insisted on taking up the anchor. The anchor
was taken up and placed in the Nelson dock, and Mr. Chap-
man sent a, bill to Captain Boyle for £3 Bs., as commission
and porterage on lifting the anchor. He at first refused to
pay it, but, finally, having to go to sea, he had to pay it,
besides £l5 to the men who took it, which his own men
would have done for £5, and which, accordingly would be
made the subject of a separate action. Evidence was given
for the plaintiff, from which it appeared that the anchor had
been fastened to a boom, which served as a buoy, and that
the men on coming next morning found the boom gone, and
the men who carried away the anchor engaged in lifting it.

On the part of the defendant it was stated that the anchor
was found by those parties who were dredging for another
anchor, and that there was no buoy attached to it at the
time.

Mr. Hull argued that there was no right on the part of
the Admiralty officers to claim compensation upon any arti-
cle which did not appear to have belonged to a wreck, and
came under the heads of flattsom, jettsam, derelict, the old
phrases, which signified articles which had floated ashore,
had been cast out of a sinking vessel, or had been left as
waifs. Mr. Hull cited several legal authorities bearing out
his view of the question.
His HONOR asked if Mr. Chilton contended that a vessel
having left her anchor, with a buoy attached to it, in the
river, for the purpose of returning at a certain time to re-
move it, and that during the night the buoy became
detatched, that then the anchor became derelict ? And,
also, whether, it not being derelict, but reported to the
receiver as such—whether, in that event, he had a right to
treat it as such, and obtain his commission'on it ;
CHTT.TtIy rtvnliorl +l3n+ 1

11,.; ULU. , uil66 le LIG tI.IICLIOT,
the circumstances stated, was derelict; and that whether it
was derelict or not, so long as it was reported such to the
receiver, he was entiled to treat it as a derelict, and recover
his commission.