The Northern Daily Times.
Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1856-01-11 00:00:00

COUNTY COURT.-YESTERDAY,

(BEFORE JOSEPH POLLOCIC, ESQ., JUDGE.)
WILLIAMS v. BOWMAN, GRINNELL, AND CO.--In this case
David Williams, master of the schooner Henrietta, was the
plaintiff, and Messrs. Bowman, Grinnell, and Co., Regent-
road, the well-known emigration agents, defendants. The
action was brought to recover £5O, of which, however, £4l
10s were paid into court by defendants. Mr. M'Donnell,
barrister, appeared for the plaintiff, and Mr. Almond for the
defendants. Mr. M'Donnell stated that the plaintiff arrived
in Liverpool on Sunday the 12th November, with the
Henrietta, having on board a cargo of iron rails consigned to
the defendants. On the following morning at ten a.m. he
called to the office of the defendants to know where he was to
discharge the cargo. He was told to call again, which be
did, and after being told to call a second time, he was then
directed to go into the Wellington dock, alongside the Revenue,
and discharge the cargo there. He got into the Wellington
dock on Wednesday morning, but found that another vessel
was discharging alongside. He again went to the defendants
and told them he could not discharge into the Revenue, and
gave them a written notice that if they did not provide a place
of discharge he would discharge upon the quay. After he had
commenced to discharge upon the quay, on the following
day, he received an order to go into the Bramley-
Moore dock. He continued, however, to discharge on
the quay. Ho now claimed £46 17s lld freight, and
£3 2s Id town dues, of which defendant had paid £4l lOs
into court. The plaintiff was examined, and stated the facts
as mentioned by counsel. In answer to Mr. Almond, the
plaintiff said he was ordered to go into the Wellington-dock,
at five p.m. on Tuesday evening, but he did not go in until
the following morning. In answer to tho judge, the plaintiff
said he (lid not go into the dock on Tuesday evening, because
the tide did not answer. He did not go in: at the night tide,
because it was too dark a night. The night tide was about ten
o'clock. His vessel is 100 tons burthen. His Honour : Do
you mean to say that vessels of a great deal larger tonnage
than that, do not go into dock upon a night tide ? Plaintiff :
They do, but not without a steamer. His Honour : Is it not
a thing of common occurrence that vessels of a much larger
tonnage than 100 tons, go into the Wellington-dock at night?
Plaintiff: They do, sometimes. His Honour : Have you
ever been to the port of Liverpool before ? Plaintiff: Yes,
sir, many times. His Honour : Did you ever go into
dock at night? Plaintiff: Yes sir, but net such a dark
night as that. His Honour : Did any vessels go into the-
dock that night? Plaintiff: Not to my knowledge, sir.
In answer to further questions from his Honour, the plaintiff
stated that he did not wait for the Revenue to be ready to
receive his cargo, because it would be too long, because he did
not think he was bound to wait, and also because the mate of
the Revenue told him that vessel could not receive any more
iron. He finished discharging upon the quay on the following
Saturday. Mr. William Reed, of the firm of Strong, Reed,
and Co., shipbrokers, was examined in reference to the custom
of the port, and stated that when a vessel which, as in the
present instance, was to discharge from bottom to bottom, was
ordered to go into a particular dock to discharge into another
vessel ; if the latter could not receive the cargo, it was the
custom to discharge upon the quay. The captain was not
bound to go into any other dock. Mr. Almond • Suppose
there is a vessel already alongside, is he bound to wait ?
Witness : Well, he is bound to wait if the vessel can receive
the cargo. Mr. Almond : Is he not bound to wait until the
vessel alongside has discharged, and then see if the other can
take his cargo? Witness : I should say not, if he is dis-
tinctly told that that vessel cannot receive it. Mr.
Almond contended, on behalf of the defence, that
plaintiff was bound to have waited a reasonable time before
he put defendant to expense by beginning to discharge upon
the quay. Mr. Henry Lethwaite, a clerk in the employment
of Messrs. Bowman, Grinnell and Co., deposed that the de-
fendant had entered into an engagement with the owners of
the Revenue to take a quantity of railway iron on board, and
the plaintiff was directed to go into the Wellington dock,
alongside on the Tuesday. After he communicated the fact that
another vessel was alongside, witness went down on the
Thursday, and told him to go to the Bramley-Moore dock,
which is next to the Wellington dock, and discharge into the
Clara Wheeler, and that defendants would pay the additional
expenses. The plaintiff, however, had commenced discharging
upon the quay, and said he would continue to do so. If he
had obeyed the order, witness is of opinion he could have
finished discharging into the Clara Whet ler on Friday night.
By his discharging noon the quay, the defendants were obliged
to pay porterage of 15d. a ton upon the cargo, 124 tons. A
man named Mulholland, foreman in the employ of Messrs.
Bowman and Grinnell, corroborated the former witness's
evidence. Mr. Henry Ross, agent, in Liverpool, for the
South Wales iron works, deposed, that the custom of the port
was that a vessel coming to discharge from bottom
to bottom, should wait to take her turn, if there were another
vessel discharging before her. His Honour in giving judg-
ment said he entertained some regret at being obliged to give
a verdict for the plaintiff in this case, because he thought the
plaintiff had exercised his right with as much strictness and as
much caution for his own interests as possible. He entertained
great doubt in the first instance as to the reason why plaintiff
determined on giving the notice of his discharging upon the
quay, Lactation the plaintiff's answer did not at all satisfy bins
as to whether he declined to wait because the vessel, as he
believed, would not be able to take the rails at all, or only
simply because he would be delayed by doing so. If his verdict
were to depend upon that point, ho should have adjourned the
case in order that further evidence might be given to shew
what passed between plaintiff and the mate of the Revenue.
If the mate, being the person to be treated as the agent of the
defendants, absolutely refused to receive the cargo, and said
the vessel could not possibly receive it, then no doubt the
plaintiff would be absolved from the necessity of waiting
altogether. But it seemed to him that the defendants had
disentitled themselves to the advantage of that evidence,
because they did not require him to wait for the purpose of
discharging into the Revenue stating that the Revenue would
be ready to receive the cargo, but they adopted another view
of the case altogether, and requested him to discharge into
another vessel in another dock. According to the undisputed
evidence of Mr. Reed, against which Mr. Roes had said
nothing, the custom of the port was not such as would entitle
the parties to whom the goods were to be delivered, to require
the vessel to be moved from one dock to another, and this
was, as Mr. M'Donnell had very properly put it, highly
important evidence in that case. Therefore, as these gentle-
men did request what they were not entitled by the custom
of the port to request, and did not insist upon their right, if a
right it was, that the plaintiff should wait and take his turn to
discharge into the Revenue, he thought he was bound by the
evidence to say, that the plaintiff was justified in discharging
upon the quay. Although he had put the defendants to very
considerable expense, without any advantage to himself, for he
would probably have been discharged sooner, if he had acted
as he was requested to do; yet, inasmuch, as the custom
entitled him to disregard the notice he received, and as the
defendants themselves had not insisted upon his waiting, but
requested him to go into another dock, and thereby waived
their right, he thought he was bound, according to the letter of
the law, to give a verdict for the plaintiff.

ADMIRALTY COURT, DUBLIN.'. MONDAY,

(BEFORE DR. KELLY.)

THE BARQUE CHFROKEE, OF LIVERPOOL.—This was a
case of salvage. The vessel was on her homeward voyage
with a cargo of palm oil and ivory from the coast of
Africa. Mr. Hamerton, proctor, appeared. for the pro-
movant, and returned the warrant with the marshal's
certificate of due execution. Mr. Lee, proctor, appeared
for the vessel and cargo, impugnant, and prayed liberty to
give bail for the vessel at "Waterford, where she is now
lying, in order that she might prooceed on her voyage to
Liverpool, her port of discharge—the bail to be taken by
the commissioner of the court at Waterford in two sure-
ties of 1,0001. each, the admitted value of the ship and
cargo beim-, 14,0001. The Court : Be it so. [The Chero-
kee arrived at this port on Wednesday, having been
towed into the ,river by the steam-tug Illttler.—
ED. N. D. T.

IN RE TUE MARY AND AGNES OF BIRKENHEAD.—
This was a case of derelict salvage at Annalong, on the
coast of the county of Down. The vessel had been arrested
at the suit of the salvors, fishermen, and was being pro-
ceeded against by default. On this day Mr. Lee, proctor,
appeared for the owner, and moved, en the affidavit of
Mr. Joseph Edward Berry, of Llirkenhead, on behalf of
himself and the other part-owner, Thomas Strangman
Hancock, and prayed the court to decree ownership of the
impugnant vessel in this case to said parties. The court
granted the application, Mr. Lee undertaking to pay the
defaults Incurred, and to bring in the ship's registry.
Mr. Lee, on behalf of the owners, then made a tender of
25/, with all costs incurred up to that time, to the promo-
vents for their salvage services, admitting the value of the
vessel at 1001, and praying that they might proceed at
their peril. The court decreed the release of the vessel.

The Paris correspondents of the Indepenclance Belfm
revive the story that the Emperor Napoleon intencl4
placing himself at the head of one of the expeditions on
the coming campaign.
MARRIAGE TN HIGH LIFE.—We understand that among
the approaching matrimonial alliances in high life, must
be included that of Viscount Somerton, son of the Earl of
Normanton, and the lion. Miss Barrington, daughter of
Viscount and Viscountess Barrington.
Notwithstanding all reports to the contrary, Mdle.
Cruvelli has really become the Baroness Vigier. Her
marriage was solemnised on Saturday at the mayoralty of
the first arrondissement, and afterwards in a Catholic and
a Protestant church, the lady being a Protestant.
EXEEITTION Op ABRAHAM BARER.--
The convict Abra-
ham Baker underwent the extreme penalty of the law on
Tuesday morning at Winchester for the murder of Naomi
Kingswell, at Southampton, on the 14th October last.
es d ai 1
3,a
Since his committal to prison, and :especially since his
sentence, Baker has been most earnest in making prepar-
ations fez. the change that awaited him. Shortly before
his executioa, he wrote a letter to each member of has
family, and to the -nother of per l'ltngswell, all breathing
the
deepest
paron 0 sdo. r r oHwe
attendedfor hi s crime, and
chapel s expressiveervi e
of, his
n and
hope that "through the blood of Christ his Saviour'' it
was
pardoned.
received the Holy Communion at half-past seven o'clock
on Tuesday morning, and returning to his cell, remained
in prayer and religious conversation until the arrival of
the under-sheriff, and then walked with a firm step and
audible prayer to the drop, where his voice was most dis-
tinct in appealing to the Lord to receive his spirit., 1