The Northern Daily Times.
Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1856-07-22 00:00:00

SPEC/AL JURY

A COLLISION CASE.—GAILVIN AND OTIIERS, V. STIIONG
AND OTIIERS.—In this case, Mr. R. Garvin, shipowner,
and several other gentlemen, who were the owners of a
ship, called the Sebastion Cabot. were the plaintiffs, and
Joseph Strong, and others, the Royal Steam Tug Com-
pany, were the defendants. Mr. Blair and Mr. Aspinall
were for the plaintiffs, and Mr. Brett and Mr. Bremner
for the defendants. This action was brought to decide
who were the parties liable for the repairs of a ship
which had been injured, through, as the plaintiff alleged,
the gross neglect and misconduct of the servants of the
defendants. The damages were laid at upwards of
£1,500. The defendants pleaded not guilty in all the
pleas upon which issue had been joined. Mr. B.air, in
opening' the case to the jury, said he would not detain
them with many observations, but briefly state the facts,
which would be more clearly defined by the several wit-
nesses which would be brought before them. The
plaintiffs were the owners of the ship Sabastion Cabot.
On the 20th of December last, she was bound on her
voyage to Calcutta, from Liverpool. The defendants
were the owners of the steam tug Victoria, and on that
day she was engaged to take the ship out of the C
dock basin into the river, and thence to sea. The steam
tug had been engaged on the previous day by Mr. Chap.
man, whose evidence, by the consent of each party, had
been taken in writing, as he was absent. At that time
the ship was ready for sea. The pilot went on
between seven and eight o'clock, and soon after, c

!anning

the crew, (the crew consisted of 31 persons,) all of whom,
with the exception of one, were sober, and in very excel-
lent trim. The tug took the vessel in tow—the pilot
was in his proper place. On leaving the basin, there
were twe flats lying to the northward. To avoid these
the 141 m of the ship, and the tug were pet to port. the con-
sequence was, that the tug went round the ship and got
ahead, and came round a broad on the starboard bow. •
After that, the steam tug let go the hawser, although he
was repeatedly told not to do so by the pilot. It was a
rough morning. After this) another hawser was placed
on board the steam tug, which soon after broke, and the
ship ran against the Prince's-pier, doing considerable
damage. Another steam tug, the Constitution, was
hailed, and eventually the ship was taken into the
Sloyne. The injury done was alleged to have been
caused by the gross neglect of parties on board the steam
tug. The evidence of the captain and mate, which had
been taken in writing, was put in and read. The pilot
underwent an examination, and was cross-examined at
considerable length, in the course of which, he attributed
the blame to the parties on board the steam tug. Other
witnesses were called, who spoke to the same effect.
Mr. Brett argued that there was no case on which they
could involve his clients in the liability for the damage
done. lie argued that it was improbable that the
defendant, a poor man, but who had by his own
exertions raised himself to his present position, would
risk damages to the amount of £1,500, for which he
only gets £lO, particularly as he had delivered to the
person who engaged the ship a card, stating, that th-y
would not be responsible for damages that might arise,
as was the usual practice. The question they would
have to decide was, whether the parties should have let
go the hawser as they did—secondly, were they blame-
able in not going up in time ; and thirdly, could the
plaintiff's expect such a reasonable care. He then pro-
ceeded to comment upon the evidence, contending that
the tug had lost her funnel, and was, in fact, in a state
of danger, that she was justified in letting the hawser
go at the time she did, and that no damage occurred to
the ship from letting go the hawser, nor from the fact
that they had come up too late to render any assistance,
for she had gone up—had a hawser connecting them,
and had rendered assistance by going between the pier
and crossing over to her port side, before the struck
and pulling against which the second hawser was
broken ; therefore it was, that he denied that any blame
was attached to the tug, but was attributable to there
not having been reasonable and proper care used on
board the ship, as they had not placed the anchor in its
proper position, after leaving the dock gate. If he
proved the above facts, he should ask the jury to give
him a verdict. He called Captain Williams, who had the
management of the steam tug Victoria, at the time of the
occurrence, as was also John Sennett, the E

neer, who

folly corroborated the statement of

defence, which was corroborated by other w
witness was under examination, when the jury said they
were quite tired of the matter, as their minds had been
made up for some time. The. Assessor said his had been
going the same way. Mr. Blair, not wishing to compli-
ment his own eloquence, waived his right to address the
court, and the jury found a verdict for defendant.

COMMON JURY.

WILLIAMS V. MULLENS AND CARMICUAEL.-This was an
action of trespass. The plaintiff, Williams, was a grocer.
The defendant, James Mullens, was also a trader, and the
other defendant was a sort of a hedge lawyer, practising
much cheaper, perhaps, than the regular lawyer, in
getting up cases for the County Court. The plaintiff was
assistant to Mr. Williams, who occupied two shops in
Simpson-street, belonging to Mr. Fraser, but upon his
marrying Miss Fraser, shop No. 16, in the same street,
was given over to him by her father, on his paying for
the fixtures, as a marriage settlement. Some time after
this Mr. Fraser fell into difficulties, when a meeting of
the creditors was called, at the office of Carmichael's,

and on that night, he and ayr. Phillips took posse

of all the property in Mill-street and Simpson-street.
They owed Mullens some money 'for grocery goods.
Jane Williams, the wife of the plaintiff stated, that in
June last the defendant Carmichael came to her house,
when she told him that they had taken the shop from
her fa,her. After that the bailiffs came in with Mr.
Mullens, and she retired upstairs with Carmichael, who
took some bills from off the fila. After a conference,
Carmichael said he was satisfied, but Mullens said he
was not, and afterwards the goods were seized under a
County Court warrant, directed to Mr. Fraser, at the suit
of Mullens. When he asked Mullens for the receipts
he had got, lie pointed to his pocket, saying he would see
bim d- first. The property he took was worth about
£25. For the defence, it was urged that all the goods
seized were the property of Mr. Fraser, and was a fraud
to swindle the creditors. The jury returned a verdict
against the plaintiff as to the defendant Carmichael, but
for the plaintiff as against the defendant Mullens, with
£l5 damages.

••••=6•EMPICS...2Ift
THE BISHOPS OF LONDON AND DURHAM

On Saturday was issued a return, pursuant to an
address of the House of Lords, dated 17th July, 1856, for
copies of all correspondence which has passed between
her Majesty's Government and the Lords Bishops of
London and Durham, touching the resignation by them of
their sees. The correspondence is as follows :
The Lord Bishop of London to Viscount Palmerston.
Fulham Palace, 18th June, 1856.
My dear Lord,—l think it proper to communicate to
your lordship my desire, on account of continued illness,
if allowed by law, to resign the bishopric of London, upon
being secured the enjoyment during my life of a clear
annuity of six thousand pounds. If this proposal should
be approved by your lordship, I trust that you will take
,proper measures for carrying it into effect.—l have the
honour to be, my dear lord, your lordship's very faithful
servant, (Signed) C. J. LONDON.

The Viscount Palmerston to the Bishop of London

Piccadilly, June 19, 1856.
My dear Lord,—l have to acknowledge the communi-
cation of your wishes to resign your see, on the conditions
mentioned by you, and I will take steps to carry your
wishes into effect.- My dear lord, yours faithfully,
(Signed) PALMERSTON.

The Lord Bishop of Durham to Viscount Palmerston.
4, Upper Portland-place, June 21, 1856.
My Lord,—ln consequence of the great failure of my
sight, and other infirmities incident...to a very advanced
age, I am anxious, if allowed by law, to be relieved from
the fatigue and responsibility of the high office which I
have now enjoyed for the last twenty years. As I shall
relinquish a very much larger income, I am persuaded
that your lordship will not consider the annual allowance
of £4,500 per annum as by any means unreasonable.
Upon the assurance that this will be granted, I shall be
ready to resign the bishopric of Durham on any day not
earlier than the Ist of August.
I could have wished to have named a later day, for I
fear it will not be in my power to complete arrangements
for leaving Auckland at so early a day ; but Lord
Chichester informed me that it might be inconvenient to
the government, therefore I acquiesced, in the confidence
that I should not be hurried unnecessarily, and it may
possibly he desirable that my successor, whoever he may
be, should have an opportunity of conferring with me
before I leave Auckland upon the state of the diocese.—
I have the honour, to be, my lord your most obedient
servant, (Signed) E. DUNELM.

The Lord Bishop of London to Viscount Palmerston.
Fulham Palace, 23rd June, 1856.
My dear Lord,--I have the honour to acknowledge the
yonr.lordship.s letter of the 19th instant, and to
receipt of
express my obligation for your prompt acquiescence in my
proposal.—l remain, my dear lord, your very faithful
servant,
C. J. LONDON.

---------
The Government Emigration Commissioners have
chartered the Severn to sail for Portland Bay from
Plymouth on the 25th proximo, at £l2 13s a bead. The
Nabob, for Adelaide, from Birkenhead, on the 25th of
August, at £l2 17s 5d a head ; and the Kate, fromat
Plymouth to Sydney, on the Ist of September,
£l2 12s a head.