The Northern Daily Times.
Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1856-10-23 00:00:00

COURT OF PASSAGE.

This Court commenced, yesterday, before Edward James,
Esq., Q.C., Assessor, and a common jury. The cause list com-
prises ninety-six issues, and four writs of enquiry.
DUARTE AND ANOTHER V. DAWsoN.--The plaintiffs are
shipowners, and they brought the present action to recover
£26, damage done to their vessel the Tit-Bit, o❑ the night of
the 18th July, lost through the negligence of the defendant,
one of the Liverpool pilots. Mr. Aspinall appeared for the
plaintiffs, and Mr. Brett for the defendant. On the night in
queivion the Tit-Bit was being taken into the Queen's Dock
in charge of the defendant, and, when near the entrance, the
dock-gateman cried out to him " to trip his ancl.or, else the
ship would come in collision with the wall." The anchor was,
instead, altogether hove up, and the vessel, striking the
" island," carried away her boom, and sustained other damage,
amounting altogether to the sum now claimed. For the
defence it was contended, that even had the anchor been
tripped at the moment the gentleman called out, it could not
have prevented the collision, the tide and wind at the time
being strong. 'I he jury, under these circumstances, returned
a verdict for the defendant.

A BOOT-LESS ACTION.—WALSH V. OTTWAY—This was
an action brought by the plaintiff to recover damages for
certain slanderous words spoken of her by the defendant. The
plaintiff, in September, kept a bootmaker's shop in Prescott-
street, and a lodger of the defendant, who is a publican in the
same neighbourhood, sent her his boots to be repaired. The
boots not being ready on a certain day, and the plaintiff's
answers not being satisfactory, the defendant called at her
shop, and, after some altercation, used the slanderous expres-
sions complained of, which were " thief and robber." The
court being of opinion that the words, under the circumstances,
were not slanderous, a juror was withdrawn, and the case
dropped. Mr. Brett was for the plaintiff, and Mr. Tyndal
Atkinson for the defendant.

KNOUGHTON V. GIBSON.—This was an action to recover
damages for injuries sustained by the plaintiff through being
bitten by the defendant's dog. The plaintiff was servant to a
greengrocer, and, on taking some vegetables to the defendant's
house in Moor-street, she was severely bitten by his dog.
Failing to prove that the dog was known to the owner to be a
ferocious one, a verdict was returned for the defendant. Mr.
Thompson appeared for the plaintiff, and Mr. Brett for the
defendant.

BROTHERLY LOVE.—DDCRWORTH AND WIFE V. Lamm—
This was an action brought by the plaintiff to recover damages
for the false imprisonment of his wife by the defendant, who is
her brother. It appeared that since the defendant's marriage
ho and his sisters have repeatedly quarrelled, and at last, in
one of these altercations, he gave the defendant's wife into
custody, on a charge of stealing a hearth-brush, value Is. She
was detained in bridewell five hours, but when brought before
the magistrates was immediately discharged. She was enceinte
at the time, and it was alleged that she had suffered much in
health from excitement consequent on the charge. Mr.
Thompson was counsel for the plaintiffs, and Mr. Tyndal
Atkinson for the defendant. The jury returned a verdict for
the plaintiffs, damages £lO, with costs.
IMPORTANT TO SHIP CAPTAINS AND SEAMEN—KELLY V.
POLLOUS.—In this action the plaintiff sought to recover
damages for injuries he sustained at the hands of the defendant.
Mr. Blair was counsel for the plaintiff, and Mr. Brett for the
defendant. The plaintiff is an able seaman, and, in the early
part of last year, he shipped on board the Indian Ocean for a
voyage to Bombay and back to a port of discharge in England.
In the month of July, in the present year, when on the voyage
home, he was employed one day in the main-top. The captain,
the defendant in the action, came on deck while he was so
employed and accused him of laziness and skulking. He
replied that he was doing as much as any man in the ship, upon
which the defendant ordered him on deck, and, when ho
descended, informed him that, as a punishment, he
would have to sweep the decks for the rest of
the voyage, As ho was leaving the quarter-deck,
the rna'e met him and told him that if he again gave
"sauce" to the captain he would knock him down. The
plaintiff replied that he had not done so, upon which the mato
knocked him down and kicked and beat him, the captain all
the while crying out—"give it him, I will bear the cost."
The captain and mate then followed him to the forecastle, and
there both savagely assaulted him, the captain striking him on
the head, legs, and arms, with a rough piece of timber, and
injuring him so severely, as to disable .him for several days.
Some weeks after, the plaintiff was attacked with scurvey, and
the disease pitched in the wound which he had received on the
left hand. He suffered much for the remaider of the voyage,
and has not yet regained the use of the limb. His evidence,
which was to the above effect, was fully corroborated by a
fellow seaman and the second mato of the ship, and both
declared, that throughout the voyage he had worked as well
and fairly as any man on hoard.
The case had not concluded on the rising of the court et
half-past five o'clock.