Northern Times.
Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1857-06-08 00:00:00

THE JAMES L. BOGART.

At the Birkenhead County Court on Friday last, before J.
W. Harden, the Judge, a case came on to be heard in which
John Wellesley, one of the colored seamen of this vessel
was the plaintiff, and Mr. W. K. Campbell, of Liverpool,
solicitor, was the defendant. Mr. Bretherton appeared for
the plaintiff; and Ur. Campbell in person. Upon the case
being called on, Mr. Campbell objected to his honor's
jurisdiction as part of the money was received in Chester,
and the other in Liverpool. Mr. Bretherton said
he was afraid Mr. Campbell would take that step
and if he persisted in it he (Mr. Bretherton) must apply
for a fresh summons, for the case to be heard in Chester.
After some further conversation Mr. Campbell ultim Italy
agreed to abide by his Honour's decision as arbitrator.
Mr. Bretherton then stated that John Wellesley, the
plaintiff, was one of the coloured seamen of the James L.
Bogart, and was also a witness on the trial of Peter Camp-
ball, the second mate of that vessel, who was tried at the
last Chester assizes, and transported for life, for wounding
James Christie, another coloured seaman of the same
vessel. After the prisoner, Peter Campbell, was in custody,
the defendant (who conducted the prosecution) wrote
to the Lords of the Treasury that some allowance
might be made for such of the crew who may be
detained as witnesses on the trial, and he received in reply,
that the government would allow them the same wages
as they would receive while serving on board any vessel
and also board wages. For the plaintiff 16s per week
board wages, and 14 per month seaman's wages, and
Mr. Campbell accordingly received on his account from
the treasury the sum of £lB 16s, and £2 11s 8d allowed
him for attending at Birkenhead Police Court and at the
Chester assizes, making in the whole £2l is Bd, out of
which Mr. Campbell had made sundry payments to the
plaintiff to the amount of £lO 12s Ild, which left
£lO 14s 9d, the amount now sued for. The plaintiff was
then called into the box, and fully bore out Mr. Bretherton's
statement, and added that he had called very many times
on Mr. Campbell for a settlement, but all that gentleman
would offer him as the balance was £5, which he
(Wellesley) would not take as he knew more was
due to him. Mr. Drew, the magistrate's clerk, produced
a letter which had been received from the Treasury, show-
ing the amount each witness was entitled to, amounting in
the wholo to the sum of £66 14s, the receipt of which Mr.
Campbell admitted, as also the allowances at the assizes,
and, in answer to the case, stated that there was not so much
due to Wellesley as he stied for, and called his clerk, who
produced several copies of receipts, signed by Wellesley,
and amongst them was one for £2 Bs, which Wellesley
said he had never signed. Mr. Campbell said the original
receipt had been sent to London, or he would
have produced it. The several items of expendi-
ture on behalf of Wellesley were then gone
into as well as those for cash advanced to him at
different times, which ma ie up an amount of £l3 odd,
leaving a balance of about £B, which his Honour decided
should be paid to the plaintiff; upon which Mr. Campbell
remarked that the plaintiff had offered to take £7, and
added that be (Mr. Campbell) was not then prepared to
pay the £B, but would do so on reaching Liverpool. It
came out in the course of the evidence that the plaintiff
had been detained ever since the 3rd of April last, in the
hope of getting his money, and so badly off was he that
but for the kindness of the boarding-house keeper he must
have starved ; he also lost the opportunity of going in two
or three vessels, and that two other of the seamen, named
Chrystie and Johnson, who claimed a balance, had become
so reduced as to be obliged to go to sea without what they
alleged was due to them. {Surely some inquiry will be
made into this case, that it may be reported to the proper
authorities ; and we would recommend Wellesley to take
proceedings for some compensation for his loss of time
during which he has been unnecessarily detained for want
of that which he appears to have been clearly entitled to.
—ED. N. T.] .