The Northern Daily Times.
Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1856-10-03 00:00:00

COUNTY
COURT.-YESTERDAY,

(IMPORT! XnSEPII POLLOCK, ESQ JUDGE.)
WEIGHT v. BINGRAM.—In this case Messrs. Thomas
& Wiliam Wright, the plaintiffs, were master porters, and
the defendants were the consignees of a cargo of 893 qrs
of Indian corn, which arrived from Trieste in the ship
Tiber. The action was brought to recover ell 12s 6d, of
which £9 6s was the ordinary porterage charge, and £2 63
6d was an extra charge for additional work alleged to have
been performed. The former item was admitted by
defendants, and the amount paid into court ; the only
question in dispute, therefore, being the claim for addi-
tional work. Mr. Roby appeared for the plaintiffs, and
Mr. Hime for the defendants. The action had been tried
before in last November, and a new trial was given on the
production of additional evidence. The case for the
plaintiffs was that the corn was discharged from the ship
(where it lay in hulk) in sacks, and carried on to the
quay. It remained there two days or more, and the
defendants did not send their servants to carry it away,
the usual course being, it was stated, for the censignee
men to take the corn away, empty it in the warehr
and then return the sacks. In consequeree or II
being done, on the part of the defendant
that three men were employed by the
days skipping and trimming the corn, on discharging
from the sacks and piling it up. It was contended that,
under the regulations issued by the dock committee, this
was additional work, not included in the ordinary por-
terage, and for which the plaintiffs were entitled to claim
the extra allowance demanded. On the part of the
defence it was contended that the rule referred to did not
entitle the plaintiffs to any extra allowance, as the corn
was not stowed in the sense contemplated by that rule.
Ilia Honour was of opinion that that clause in the regula-
tions, which provided that all goods which were allowed to
lie on the quay for a thy after the vessel arrived' and
delivered, were subject to the same rate as goods stowed,
entitled the plaintiffs to recover. Mr. Rime rook objec-
tion also on the ground that notice in writing had not been
given to the defendants of the fact that the corn was to be
landed, which, he contended, was prescribed by the rules.
His Honour held, however, that the notice• given wag
sufficient. His impression then, was that the N:
were entitled to a verdi..t for the' full amount clan.
He held this opinion entirely in accordance with the
bqb
euy
ae l aaw
chargedd vayh
oi
acnfhet
e. rfru 10
tuetri dot
htvhme as
more
re
ela loal
on
rgoodstihveedp
aoarnl
tldeo
rwda wed
tvt
etohr
ele
di ea
smohnoo
amount
claimed in this instance. Ile only, however, expressed his
opinion at present, and would reserve his final judgment
for a fortnight. ,t Mr. Hitne stated that the action was not
defended for the purpose of endeavouring to save the
amount of money involved in the dispute ; the claim was
resisted lbg the purpose of testing a very important prin-
ciple, such a charge never having been made upon the
plaintiff's before, nor had they ever, although master
porters themselves, made such a charge.

, it was all

tiffs for two