The Northern Daily Times.
Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1857-01-14 00:00:00

IMPORTANT EMIGRATION CASE.

Captain Stewart, one of the emigration agents at this
port, summoned Mr. Guion, emigration broker, under the
48th sec. of the passenger act, Mr. Harvey was for the
defendant. The facts of the case, as collected from the
statement of Mr. Stewart, were these : In SepteMber
last, a person named Donnelly, nho resided in New
York, paid a passage in that city for his sister and her
child to go out to America. The sister was a widow.
Donnelly got a prepaid contract ticket in New ,Yor'e,
which engaged to take the woman and her child to New
York from Liverpool, by the defendant's ship. This
ticket was sent to the woman to Ireland, and she sold
her farm there and arranged her affairs to go out. She
got married in the meantime, and came to Dublin, where
she called at the agents of Messrs. Guion, and took a
passage, for which she paid, for her new husband, whek was a Crimean hero. She then came to Liverpool and
presented the order, but they refused. It would appear
that, in the meantime, the woman not having presented
herself, her brother withdrew the money and cancelled
the ticket, but Mr. Stewart contended that as long as the
woman held the ticket, and hal not been advised
that it was cancelled, so long were the de-
fendants liable to her ; and besides this, the
ticket was in force up to the Ist March.
Ur. Stewart, however, admitted that he had no complaint
to make against the house during the three years which
he had held the office of E migration officer. He argued,
however,•that it was the duty of the defendant to inform
the woman that the ticket was cancelled. Mr. Harvey
argued the contrary. Donnelly paid the money in Now
York, and it was with him the contract was mule, and
not with the women. Donnelly thought proper to cancel
the contract, and got back his money, and there the
matter terminated. If the woman had presented herself
whilst the ,contract was in force, of course she would
have got: her passage, although, in reality, the defen-
dant never had anything to do with the passage of the
woman at all. Donnelly should hare advised her that
he had withdrawn the contract, andg t bier: his money,
as that was not the duty of the defendant. The defen;-
dant was, in the first instance, simply advised that
Donnelly had paid the passage, and again, that he had
withdrawn the money, and so ended the transaction so,
far as the defendant was concerned. If the defendant
was now compelled to give this woman a passage, it
would open a gigantic channel of fraud ; for a person,
in America would have nothing to do but pay a passage
there, send a contract ticket to his friend in England or.
Ireland, tell hini to keep it for some time, and
then withdraw the money, advising his friend then to
apply for a passage, after the money was got back. It
would be monstrous to.think of such a thing. Out of
ten thnusand prepaid passengers (paid in America) which
the defendant had, there were only four complaints, and
those quite different from the present case. He trusted
that his Worship would see the injustice of the present
demand, and dismiss the complaint. Mr. Mansfield said
it was quite clear that Mr. Guion had not the power of
communicating with the wontan. They knew nothings
of her, except what they were advised from New York..
It was at Donnolly's option to write to her or not, the.
same as he did when sending her the ticket, and
he ought to have informed her that he, withdrew,
the money and cancelled the contract.. It was
clear she was not entitied to a passage, and he
must dismiss the case. Mr. Guoin's manager said
he would pay the woman', nassa(re back to Ireland%