The Northern Daily Times.
Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1857-01-09 00:00:00

SALVAGE CASE.

Yesterday, at the police court, before Messrs. Bean and
liolme, Captain Merryman, of the American ship Arabia,
appeared by Mr. Conway (his counsel), to contend against
a claim made by Mr. Dautic, agent to the' Steam Tag
Company, who claimed .e 125 salvage for services rendered
to:the defendant's vessel on the morning of the 13th of
December last. Mr. Ruffs was for the plaintiff. The
ship broke from her anchors on the morning in question,
and drifted, but the steam tugs Sampson and Tartar went.
to her assistance and got her safe into port, for which
services the sum was claimed. There was no dispute
about the matter, e*cept that it was contended on the
part of the defendant, that the ordinary sum paid for
tugging was sufficient paythent in this case. The magis-
trates after hearing the evidence on both sides, decided
on making an order for the sum of ess, with ordinary
costs in the case.

ARCHDEACON D.ENISON ON .711 E . STATE OF
THE CHURCH.

The Archdeacon of Taunton has issued the following
remarkable document, on what he terms a The position of
the Church of England as constituted by Courts of Law, at
the close of the year 1856" :—" 1. That a benefice with
cure of souls may legally be held by a priest who denies
the doctrine of holy boptism— (sentence of the Court of
Final Appeal, March, 1850). 2. That a benefice with cure
of souls may not legally be held by a priest who affirms the
doctrine of holy communion. (A. Finding of the Clevedon
commission the commissioners refusing to hear the defend-
ant by counsel or in person upon the question before the
court. B. Sentence of Diocesan Court of Bath, presided
over by the Archbishop of Canterbury, acting pro hac vice
as Bishop of Bath and Wells, the Court refusing to allow
the defendant to show from holy Scripture and from
antiquity that his interpretation of the article 'Of the
Sacraments' is the true interpretation.— October 18, 1856.
C. Appeal from sentence of Diocesan Court at Bath refused
by Diocesan Court of the provines.) a. That the cross may
not legally be set up in a church, and that where so set up,
it ought to be removed—(sentence of Diocesan Court of
London, December. 1855 ; sentence of Court of Appeal of
the Province, December, 1856 )—Signed, GEORGE AN-
THONY DENISON, M.A., Vicar of Met Brent, Somerset,
and Archdeacon of Taunton."

THE MURDER OF A RAILWAY CASHIER IN DUBLIN.-It
is now stated, that so far from any progress being made
towards the discovery of the assassin of Mr. Little, the
search has been for the present abandoned es hopeless.
The woman, Catherine Campbell, it is alleged, persists in
her original statement with regard to the identity of the
murderer, but in the total absence of corroboration, her
evidence is, of course, worth little or nothing.
THE MERCANTILE LAW CO:,FERENCE.—A Conference
about to be held for mercantile purposes, will discuss and
bring under the notice of Government, Parliament, and
the public, those imperfections in the mercantile laws of
the United Kingdom which most require amendment. It
will collect information from the various bodies repre-
sented at the• Conference as to the•best legislative remedies
for these imperfections. it will consider the practical
steps which ought to be adopted for obtaining such legis-
lative measures. Among the subjects of discussion will
be :—the Law of Bankruptcy, the Law of Partnership, the
Law of Merchant Shipping, the Law of Principal and
Agent, the Seventeenth Section of the Statute of Frauds,
the Law of Banking, Assimilation of the Commercial Law
of England, Scotland,Cand Llreland Tribunals of, Com-
merce, fic.l

COUNTY COURT.- YESTERDAY.

BEFORE JOSEPH POLLOCK, EEQ., JUDGE.

BAGOT v. Wubems.—This was an action to recover
damages for injury done to the flat Sarah, the property of the
plaintiff, by the brig Brilliant, in July last, owing, it was
alleged, to the incapacity of the apprentice of defendant, a
master pilot,' who was in charge of the brig. The flat was
putting cows into the steamer Armenian in the river, and the
brig was coming• down at the same time. Owing, it was
alleged, to the mismanagement of the pilot, the brig struck the
flat, and damaged her to the amount of £4 is 6d. In addition
to this sum £6 2s was claimed for loss of the service of the
flat, making in all £lO 3s 6d. The defence was that the
collision was owing to unavoidable accident, as a storm •came
suddenly on which turned the vessel's stern, and drove her
against the flat. Mr. Frodsham appeared for the plaintiff, and
Mr. Jenkins for the defendant. His Honour postponed his
judgment until Tuesday week, expressing his regret that in
the hearing of such cases he was not afforded the aid of
qualified nautical advice, as in the courts in London.
TROMPS 111 AND ANOTHER V. THE LANCASHIRE AND
YORKSHIRE RAILWAY COMPANY.—This was an action
brought to recover £l5 for the loss of a quantity of essence of
bergamot, entrusted to the defendants, as carriers, and alleged
to have been lost through their carelessness. Mr. Hime
appeared for the plaintiff:, and Mr. Forshaw for the defence.
The plaintiffs, Messrs. Thompson and Bagnall, of Manchester,
who received a quantify of bergamot essence through their
agent in Liverpool, to be forwarded to Messrs. D.iglish, whole-
sale druggists, Newcastle on Tyne. Mr. Topless, the agent'
in Liverpool, received the goods at the Stanley Dock, and
delivered the case of bergamot at the office of the defendants,
in Dale street. He got a. receipt stating that the case was
received in good older and condition, weighing 1 qr.
I4lbs: When the case arrived, it was found that up-
wards of 4011 w. had leaked out. It was . alleged that
this loss had arisen through the carelessness of defend-
ants servants, and the action was accordingly brought.
The defence was that the copper vessel had not bean properly
packed in the case, and that it was from that circumstance and
not from the carelessness of the company's officials, that the
accident had arisen. Several witnesses were called, and their
evidence fir' ly supported this view of the case. His 'Honour
said ho was clearly of opinion that the verdict 'should be for
the defendants. He considered that the case had been badly
packed, and that the people at the Stanley dock warehouse
wore the parties really to blame. In signing the document
with the words " received in good order and condition," all
that the company pledged themselves to, was that the outer
case, as far as they could see, was in good order and condition.
He agreed with Mr. Himo that there was no leakage at that
time, but that it occurred between Normanton and York, but
that leakage had been caused, not by any act or neglect on the
part of the defendant's servants, but from the careless manner
in which the case bad been packed. He was not at all clear ,
that the people at the Stanley dock warehouses were not liable
for the damage, but as the case now came before him, the
verdict should be for the defendant, with costs.
SIDEBOTTOM AND OTHERS V. THOMPAON.—IMPORTANT
TO THE COTTON TRADE. This was an action brought to
recover £5 6s 3d, for deficiency in the weight of two bales of
cotton, bought by the plaintiffs from the defendant. Mr.
Bell appeared for the plaintiffs, and Mr. Anderson for the
defendant. Mr. Bell said• that the plaintiffs were Messrs.
Sidebottom Mottram and Co., cotton spinners, of Manches-
ter, and the defendant was Mr. Thompson, cotton broker,
of Liverpool ; and the claim arose for deficiency in the
weight of two bales of cotton, part of a lot of 51 bales
purchased by the plaintiffs from the defendant, On the 24th
of last March, Messrs. Francis and Cowan, acting as brokers
for the plaintiffs, purchased from the defendant 51 hales of
cotton, at 6:Td per lb., and part of the cotton was delivered
oe the same day from the Stanley dock warehouses. The
custom was for the buying broker to get a delivery note
from the selling broker, which the buying broker sent down
to the Stanley dock warehouse, and the parties
there weighed the cotton themselves, and sent slips
to the selling broker. From these weights the invoice is made
out, and sent to the spinners in the country, who frequently
paid for the cotton long before it was rewcighed at its place of
destination, which was always done on its arrival. When the
cotton was in the warehouses of the dock committee the brokers
never interfered with the weighing, it being left altogether to
the authorities to sly whether the cotton was correct or not,
but it was usual at times to send down a clerk to get the
weights, but in no manner to check the weights. It was then
forwarded to the spinner, and if on reweighing it be found defi-
cient from the invoice weights, ho at once sent the account to
the buying broker, and the matter was soon settled. Of the
51 bales thus forwarded to the plaintiff, two were found, on
reweighing, to be each I cost short, and accordingly
the plaintiffs now claimed from the defendant
for 216 lbs, allowing 8 lbs. for tare, which, Bt
the price would be £5 lOs 3,1. The question, then was, whe-
ther the warehouseman weighed them correctly, or whether
the bales were pilfered He would' prove that they could not
have been pilfered to the extent of 1 cwt. each without it
being at once seen. The two bales were now in Liver-
pool, and on examination they would, as they had already beetle
be found to he in exactly the same state as when delivered
from the Stanley Dock warehouse. All the bales, on being
weighed, were found to be somewhat less than the invoice
weights, ranging from 4 lbs to 61135, and for that deficiency
also a claim was made, but the plaintiffs finding that it was Ito
unusual thing for cotton recently imported to lose to that extent
in weight when exposed for a month or so, restricted their claim
to the deficiency of 1 cwt. in each of the two bales. In Octo'
ber the defendant wished to bo supplied with the plaintiffs
weights, to see whether some of the bales would not weigh as
much over as to make up the. deficiency. A slip containing
those weights was furnished to him, but he still refused to settle
the claim. Mr. G. Comer examined : I am a partner in the
house of Francis and Comar. On the 24th March last I bought
fiftv.one bales of cotton from Mr. Thompson for the plaineffs-
Delivery was taken on the very same day, and twenty bales
were sent off at the same time, the others following. Tim
twenty bales lost an average of 6 lbs per bale, and a claim was
made for it, but was withdrawn. I have seen the bales
which are each short 1 cwt. They were sent back TO
Liverpool, and any one conversant with cotton could swear that
they are in the same state as when they left Liverpool.
Mistakes in weight ate of daily occurrence. The first operation
in such a case is for the selling broker, admitting the possibility
of a mistake, to allow the landing weights to be examined and
compared with the re-weights, which generally settles the
question. In this ease there was no check of that sort, and it
was left for us to show that they wore deficient. The claim
for the short weights was given up. There was no doubt that
new cotton would lose 3 or 4 lbs• a bale. John Davit
examined : I am warehouseman to Messrs. Francis ana
Comar. I have seen the two bales in question. I swear that
nothing could have been taken out of them without its being
' seen. One hundred weight could not be taken out of a bald
without its being discovered. Mr, John Harrup, (.104
to the plaintiffs, deposed that he received the cotton, an 3
found, on re-weighing it, the two bales 85 and 8911 cwt each
short ; their weights were-3 ewf, 3 qrs 14 lbs, and 3 eel
2 qrs 25 lbs. On cross-examination, he said that it would
be impossible to undo a bale, take out 1 cwt. and make ix
up again without detectien. This closed the plaintiffs
case. Mr. Anderson, for the defence, observed that
Messrs. Francis and Comar's clerk was present at the
weighing at the Stanley dock warehouse, and that he tong
, a check note of the weights. The foreman weigher of the
warehouse would state that the weights were taken is
the clerk's presence, and that the invoice was made out
according to these weights. The defendant would abet/
that he had purchased the cotton a few days previous/9
' from another firm in Liverpool, and that he paid in the
same amount as he charged to the plaintiffs. It was, then.
for the court to decide whether the plaintiffs, the cotton
having been taken to the railway, carried some forty miles
into the country, and allowed to remain at the station foga
week at least, as it was sent on the 24th of March, and
did net return until the 2nd of April, could now justly
and legally maintain this claim against the defendant. Mr`
Tims, foreman weigher at the Stanley dock warehouses
was examined: He said that he weighed all and re-weighed
some of the bales on the 24th of March last,. The 20 bales
were weighed in his presence, and among them the one
marked 85, which weighed 4 cwt 3 qrs and 14 lbs; and 89,
which weighed 4 cwt 2 qrs and 25 lbs. There was a
clerk from Messrs. Francis and Comer present when 014
weights were being taken. The clerk called them out'
and in the course of the day he also checked them, anu
they corresponded. Cross-examined by Mr. Bell : soma
of the bales were re-weighed in consequence of the wart"
houseman having called out the wrong number. Peon
his books all the weights appear to have been altered
down to "69," but neither "85 '' nor "89 '' was altered,..
Tho error arose in "84,'' which.with " 85,'' "86," "87," a"
88," re
tiehed. Such mistakes are not frequentli
made at t Stanley dock warehouse. The witnes3
explained that he had no special recollection of 85 having
been re-weighed, but was led to believe that it was because
of its being among those ticketed off in his book. 11:;
Thompson, the defendant, was then examined. He sal"
that the invoice was made out for the slips furnished 1)9
' the parties at the Stanley' Dock warehouse. The witness
was then briefly examined as to sending back short weigh;
cotton, but it appeared that no general custom prevalle;
in the mailer. This was the ease the defence. 11'4,
Honour said that the question hefor had to decide Was;
whether Mr. Harrup, who was not shown to have ma "
any mistake, was more likely to be wrong than the persoat
who was shown to have made a mistake ? He thought
the person who was proved to have made no mistake a
all, was much more likely to be right. A mistake was,
,
made at the Stanley Dock warehouse; and was correete,;,
and the party who made one was more likely to rea":s
another. On that ground, having no other evidence befo
.
him, he was bound to give a verdict for the plaintiu'd
Oo looking over Mr. Tim's book, his Honour observe,
that he was bound to say there were very few erasures 1:5
it, and that there could be no doubt that Mr. Thompson'
clerk should have been more attentive when the weig" 5
were being taken. It appeared, however, that he was,
mere boy sent there to learn business, it being the Plug
tice to take the dock warehouse weights as genera
correct.

MO]

317-
185
£3.,

to recover
)perty of the
wing, it was
defendant, a
:'he flat was
ver, and the
ring, it was
g struck the
In addition
,rvice of the
was that the
storm came
id drove her
daintiff, sad
ostponed his
;ret that in
the aid of

(SHIRE AND