The Northern Daily Times.
Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1856-04-05 00:00:00

SOUTH LANCASHIRE ASSIZES

CROWN COURT. V -_ESTERDAY

Mr. Baron Martin entered this court at nine o'clock
yesterday, and proceeded with the common jury cases.
BLYTHE AND ANOTHER v. TAYLEUR.—This WaS an
action brought by Messrs. Blythe and Lyon, merchants
and shipowners, of Liverpool, against Mr. Tayleur, the
eminent shipbuilder, of Warrington. Mr. Atherton,
Q.C., with Mr. Manesty, appeared for the plaintiffs, and
Mr. Wilde, Q.C., cont:ucted the defence. The action
was brought to recover damages for a breach of contract.
The plaintiffs entered into a contract with defendant on
the Ist of August, 18.53, for the building of an iron
vessel, intended for the South American trade. She
was to be of clipper build, of a light draught; she was
to be built upon a model furnished by Mr. Grimwood,
C E., and to be delivered "in all January." The vessel
was afterwards named the Deerslayer. The vessel was
not delivered until the close of September, being eight
months after the time specified in the contract had
expired. The plaintiffs alleged that the non completion
arose from neglect upon the part of the defendant.
Damages were claimed for loss sustained upon two voy-
ages which the plaintiff calculated the vessel could have
made, had she been delivered at the specified time
before the period of her actual delivery. This the
plaintiffs calculated at £1,438. The defendant
had paid £250 into court, and contended that
the delay was inevitable, in consequence of the great
demand for iron ships going on at the time, which
rendered it utterly impossible for the defendants to get
hands to complete the vessel. It was urged that no
claim of this kind was made in the month of January by
the plaintiffs, and that the account was settled and the
ship had made a voyage before the demand was made,
The plaintiffs were admitted to have written urging the
completion of the vessel and complaining of the loss of
Time, but no intimation whatever was given that such a
claim would be made. The vessel was received by the
plaintiffs and the account settled between the parties, by
which it was urged the plaintiffs assented to the delay,
and it was even stated that the delay had partially
arisen by the plaintiffs' own fault, they having required
several additional matters to be formed which necessi-
tated some protraction of the work. Several witnesses
were called upon both sides. The jury found for the
plaintiffs, with damages, £l5O, above the amount which
had been paid into court.

ALEXANDER V. THE ASIATIC MARINE INSURANCE COM -
PANY.—This was an action on a policy of insurance and
was undefended. A verdict was given for the plaintiff
for £4400.
HUDSON AND ANOTHER V. CLEMENTSON & Co.—This was
an action brought to recover damages for a breach of
contract. Mr. Watson Q.C,, in opening the case stated,
that the plaintiffs were merchants and brokers, carrying
on business in Sunderland. They were owners of the
ship Forerunner, and the action was brought against the
defendants, to recover damages occasioned by their not
loading the vessel in proper time, according to charter
party. The defendants are Messrs. Clementson, coal
and coke merchants, of Newcastle•on-Tyne. The plain-
tiffs having got the vessel ready for sea, intended to
send her to India, and in the meantime were anxious to
obtain a charter for her, to deliver coal or coke some-
where on the way. The defendants offered to give them
a charter to take coke to Carthagena, or any other port
in Spain, or in the Mediterranean. Ultimately a char.
ter party was entered into in Sunderland, to the effect
that the vessel should with all possible despatch, load
in the south dock, with a full and complete cargo of
coal from the defendants, with which to proceed to
Carthagena, or some other Spanish ports. On the sth
of July, the vessel was in the south dock, ready to take
in her cargo. No loading, however, took place for a
long time. On July the 14th, the plaintiff wrote to the
defendants, to urge the necessity of having the vessel
loaded. An answer was returned on the 16th, saying
that the defendants had inquired on the 11th and
that the vessel was not ready to load. It
was affirmed, however, upon the part of
the plaintiff, that this was not correct, as she was
ready on the sth of July. It was alleged that she could
have been loaded in about five days. From the sth of
July she had remained without being loaded, up to the
14th of August, when the work was at last performed.
For that delay the plaintiff sought to recover damages.
Mr. Temple conducted the defence. Several witnesses
were examined, and documents read, to prove the case
on behalf of the plaintiffs. Finally, a verdict for £lOO
was taken by consent.
GREENOUGH V. CALDWELL.—This was an action
brought to recover £222 19s. for money lent, and inte-
rest. Mr. Brett stated the plaintiff's case, which was
simply that, in the month of August, 1849, plaintiff lent
defendant, at his request, £2OO at interest, to be repaid
in thr.!e months. The money was not repaid ; but the
defendant continued to pay the interest up to Septem-
ber, 1852, when he ceased paying interest or principal.
The action was accordingly brought to recover the prin.
cipal and balance of interest. The case rested on the
plaintiff's evidence. Mr. Sergeant Wilkins appeared
with Mr. Brett for the plaintiff; and Mr. Temple for the
defence. The evidence was very contradictory. The
jury found a verdict for the plaintiff.
HALL V. MOURN.—A verdict was taken by consent in
this case for £4BO.

The court rose shortly before seven o'clock

NISI PRIUS COURT

(BEFORE

JUSTICE WILLES, AND A SPECIAL JURY.)

to recover the sum of £1,500, on a guarantee granted by the
defendants to the Union Bank, dated sth November, 1852 on

account of a person named Andrew Dempster. Mr. Hill,
Q.C., toLyether with Mr. Millward, appeared for the plaintiffs;
and Mr. James, Q.C., with Mr. Mellmish, for the defendants.
From the statement of the learned counsel, and the evidence
adduced on behalf of the plaintiff, it appeared that Messrs.
Samuel and James Holme, of this town, applied to the bank in
1848, asking them to open an account with him, and stated
that he had a contract under them. The application was
acceded to, the defendants giving a guarantee at first for £5OO
for a limited period, which was subsequently renewed. In
November, 1852, the balance against Dempster was £1,573,
end this being unsatisfactory to the bank, they informed the
Messrs. Holme that if accommodation were to be given to
Dempster, they should give a binding continuing guarantee for
£1,500, which should extend over the time the account of
Dempster remained open. The defendants consented to give
this guarantee, and the usual printed form was filled
up, and executed by them. Dempster's adverse balance
still increasing, the defendants were made acquainted with the
fact, and Dempster was pressed for payment. At the end of
1854, the defendants were informed that Dempster's account
had not been redeemed, and that the bank wished it to be
closed. On the 30th of December in that year, a clerk of the
defendants came to the bank, after it had closed for the day,
and said, " I have come from our people with £lOOO on
Dempster's account." The usual receipt was given for the
money, and it was carried to Dempster's account. Dempster
got credit at the bank, as if the money had been paid by him,
and when he became bankrupt, the bank called upon the
defendants for the amount of their guarantee, the sum owing
to the bank by Dempster, after giving credit for the £lOOO,
being £2,900, including interest. On the part of the defend-
ants it was contended that the 41,000 had been paid in reduc-
tion of their guarantee, and that the £5OO which they had paid
into court at the commencement of the action, fully discharged
them of their liability in that respect. The juryr eturned a
verdict for the plaintiffs for the full amount claimed.

CHADWICK AND OTHERS V. THE CITY OF DUBLIN
STEAM PACKET COMPANY.—This was an action brought to
recover damages for the loss of the schooner Thomas Clifton,
by collision with the Royal William paddle steamer. Mr.
Hill, Q.C., with Mr. Millward, appeared for the plaintiffs ;
and Mr. James, Q.C., with Mr. Quain, for the defendants.
The plaintiffs were the owners of the Thomas Clifton, a small
schooner of seventy-six tons register, and 100 tons burden,
employed in the coasting trade chiefly between Preston and
Drogheda. On the 17th October, 1855, she sailed from the
former to the latter port, laden with ninety-eight tons of coal
and some empty sacks. On the following night, that of the
18th, which was clear, though there was no moon, she was
making towards the coast of Anglesey, close hauled,
the tide dead against her. Towards midnight a
steamer, the Duke of Cambridge, was seen in the
distance. The schooner hung out a light over the starboard
bow, whereupon the steamer ported her helm and passed across
her bow. The Duke of Cambridge had scarcely passed when
another steamer, which proved to be the Royal William, one
of the City of Dublin Company's boats was seen approaching,
on her voyage from Dublin to Liverpool. The schooner
shifted her light a little more aft ; but the steamer not altering
her course or slackening her speed (so the crew of the Thomas
Clifton alleged) struck her amidships. The schooner almost
immediately sunk, but all the crew were saved, the steamer,
properly, assisting in their preservation. For the defence it
was alleged that the Royal William, on sighting the schooner,
immediately ported her helm, and reversed her engines, and
that the collision arose from the neglect of the schooner to
exhibit a proper light, and the ignorance of her crew. As is
usual in such cases, each crew stoutly maintained on oath that
all the blame lay with the other side. The jury returned a
verdict for the plaintiffs. The damages are to be estimated out
of Court.

GENOA, Thursday.—A squadron of American ships of
war is ordered to cruise on the coast of Spain.
A letter from Pavia, in the OpinOne, of Turin says,
that fifteen students at Padua had been arrested for dis-
playing the French, British, and Sardinian flags, in one
of the most frequented squares of the town. There was
a similar manifestation at Mantua some days ago, but
the authors had not been discovered.
At an inquest held yesterday, by Mr. Wakley, that
gentleman,',in allusion to some speculations in a Dublin
newspaper, respecting the possibility of Mr. Sadleir being
still in existence, said, that he (Mr. Wakley) was well
acquainted with the deceased, of whom, at the inquest,
he had made a minute examination, even to the opening
of his lips and eyelids ; so far from the features being
changed, the deceased appeared as though he were in a
quiet sleep. The surmises which had been induiged in
had, therefore, nothing solid for their foundation.