Northern Times.
Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1859-01-08 00:00:00

applause returned thanks, observing that the kindness
he had received was the more grateful to him since he
had come among them comparatively a stranger three
years ago. He declared that they must not attribute
the success of the library to him, as the advantages
of such an institution were now so apparent
to every one that it had but to be established to secure its
success. He would not attempt to deny, that he had
bestowed some time and attention upon it, for it must be
i
evident that there was much to be done in ts original
formation, its gradual development, and in the selection
of the 5,000 volumes which it contained. He was glad
to endorse what had been said regarding
Mr. James, and to award to him the honour of
having been the originator of the library,
and having called the meeting of ratepayers by which its
establishment was resolved upon. Mr. Dutton, in warm
and eloquent terms, expressed his thanks for the
testimonial he had received, and his deep sense of the
kindness which had dictated it.
Mr. Verelst moved, and Mr. James seconded a vote of
thanks to the chairman, which .having been passed by
acclamation, the proceedings terminated.

COURT OF PASSAGE. V
BEFORE EDWARD JAMES, ESQ Q.C. ASSESSOR

ACTION FOR RENT. BOURNE V. DALY.—.-This case,
which was partly heard on Thursday, was proceeded with
yesterday morning, when evidence was offered to the
effect, that there was no contract between the plaintiff
and defendant, that the defendant should pay rent for the
premises in question, (which are situated in Bevington-
bush), and that the tenancy was held, not under the
plaintiff, but under a Mr. Nichol. Verdict for the
defendant.

A BETTING CASE.—DECOSTA V. COLE.—This case,.
which was partially heard on Thursday, was resumed
yesterday morning. Mr. Aspinall appeared for the
plaintiff, and Mr. Brett for the defence. The action was
brought to recover the sum of £6. On the night of the
26thof September, 1858, a match was got up at the house
of the defendant for £lOO aside, between two horses, and
the defendant was made shareholder. The plaintiff
deposited £lO with the defendant, and now sought to
recover that sum, less £4, which he owed to the defendant
upon another transaction. George Breeze said he was
present at the transaction, but could not tell whether it
was Friday or Saturday night. It was either in Novem-
ber or December. A wager was made by Mr. DeCosta
and Mr. Cole for £lOO a side; £lO was put ou the table
and Cole took it up. The horse witness was backing
died before the race came off. Cro3s-examitied by Mr.
Brett : The horses that were to run belonged to DeCosta
and a parson named. Witness had no engagement with
, _ I_,

'the owner of the horse that he suoutct Let ner
pan. The match /vas between DeCosta and himself.
The ownet of the horse had. nothing to do with the
affair. Mtn Roberts, clerk to Mr. DeCosta, said he
remembered going to 'the defendant about the money he
owed DeCosta, about ten months aga. He went and
asked Odle what was the meaning of the letter he had
spot to DeCosta for a sum of mono, Defendant said

the money had been owing for eight in nine months, and
was en two shipping notes. Mr. Brett then addressed
the jury for the Eefence, and remarked that the jury would

either one side or the other would actually be telling an
Naitruth. lit would call witnesses who would state
that this occurrence did take place on the Saturday night,
mad that money had been paid by the plaintiff for the
cltpenses of tie night. Mr. 'Cole, the defendant, said he
`swag a lieenEed victualler, -and carried on business in
Waterloo-road. He had ' nl^'

Known the plaintiff
for some time. Latterly he had a dispute with
the plaintiff, in consequence of his conduct at
his cwitness) house. He complained to the
plaintiff 'of using bad language, and told him he
would not allow it. It was about four months ago
since they had the dispute. After that he received
a letter from the plaintiff, but. he had lost it. He recol-
lected the £lO depoSit, but he had forgot the transaction
until a 'day or two since, when it was mentioned to him.
The transaction took place on the 26th September, 1857,
on the Saturday night ; £lO was left with him on the
occasion. They were all rather " fresh" together, in
consequence of which witness was in bed all day on
Sunday and part of Monday, and on the Monday evening
plaintiff went to his house and said to him that he
thought there would be no match. Witness then put
his hand in his pocket, and gave the plaintiff the £lO,
when he said; "after all their blowing they dare not go
on With it." The money was paid in sovereigns. Mr.
Cole was standing at the bar at the time the money was
paid, and told Mr. DeCosta that there was £l6s owing
from the Saturday night previous. DeCosta then gave
Mrs. Cole two sovereigns, and she returned him the change.
The money was deposited in his hands as shareholder.
The boy Roberts did not go to him to ask for the money
for DeCosta. By Mr. Aspinall: Plaintiff never deposited
£lO with me on any other occasion. Mrs. Cole said she
recollected the transaction about the £lO. All the parties
in question were in the house on the Saturday evening.
During the Monday following, DeCosta called to see her
husband, and after some conversation her husband gave
him Xi 0. Plaintiff then gave her two sovereigns, out of
which she took the money he owed her. The council
having addressed the bench, the jury found a verdict for
the plaintiff for the full amount claimed, £6.

LIVERPOOL COUNTY COURT.—YESTERDAY.
BEFORE J. K. BLAIR., ESQ., JUDGE
COLLISION CASE.--JAMES THOMPSON, V. JAMES FRYER
AVD JAMES Atm:l.—This was an action to recover £lO
Ss 6d, for damage sustained by the plaintiff, the mate of
a fiat, which was damaged by a steam-tug of the defen-
dants, who are the representatives of the Steam Tug
Company. Mr. Aspinall, barrister, appeared for the
plaintiff, and Mr. Lushington, barrister, for the defen-
dants. It appeared that on the first of May, 1858, the
steam-ctug boat Albert, was towing a ship up the river
in a flood spring tide, when, as it was alleged by the
plaintiff, the tug took an unusual course, and ran amongst
the fiats, which were lying about 3.50 yards from the
shore, near the Duke's steps. The plaintiff was called,
and described the collision, attributing all the blame to
the tug, which ran in a wrong and unusual direction, and
struck the flat, which soon afterwards sunk, the plaintiff

watch and clothes, which he lost, and for the value of
which he now sued, Before the tug ran into the Rock,
on board of which the plaintiff was, she struck another
flat that was lying near the Rock. After having struck
the Rock, the tug came in collision with two other flats,
which were lying in the same smack with the Rock, there
were also at the time several steamers and coasting vessels
anchored near the flats, Thomas Prichard was next called,
and deposed that at the time of the collision, which he saw,
he was master of the tug Voltigeur. He had been en-
gaged in the navigation of the river for some years, and
knew it well. The tug Albert took an impossible course,
and tried to tug a ship over ground where shins never

were tugged; and it was not possible for the tug and ship
to pass through the fiats without collision. The tug went
into a very improper course, and was the sole cause of the
collision. Mr. Mundy, the master of the flat, was next
-Called, and deposed that the tug took an improper course,
and was responsible for the collision. This being
plaintiff's case, Mr. Lushington addressed his Honour for
the defence, contending that when a tug was towing a
vessel, and under the command of a pilot, the owners of
the vessel, and not the owners of the tug, were respon-
sible for any consequences that might ensue from the
directions of the pilot being carried out. In confirmation
of this view, he read the decisions in several cases in the

Admiralty Court, reported in the Ist, 2nd, and 3rd vols.
Robinson's reports, namely, the case of the Duke of
Sussex, Ist Rob., p. 272; the case of the Gipsey King,
2nd vol. Rob., p. 542 • the case of the Kingston-by-sea,
3rd vol. Rob., 'p. 153 ; and the Christiana,- 3rd Rob.,
p. 29. Mr. Aspinall replied that he considered the
judgment in the last case was in his favour, because it was
held that where the orders of a pilot were evidently
absurd, a master of a tug could overrule them. If a pilot
were to direct that a tug should run against a wall, the
master could disobey that order. Mr. Lushington said
he had quite another defence if this were not sufficient,
namely, under section 388, of the Merchant Shipping Act,
1854, under which the owners of the vessel were not
responsible for any collision caused by the fault or incom-
petency of a pilot, in districts where there is compulsory
pilotage, and he would show that they had a pilot in
charge. In the second volume of Robinson's Admiralty
Reports, page eleven, in the case of the Agricola, it was
held that where pilotage was compulsory, the owners of
the vessels were exonerated. Part of his defence was
also under the 25th and 32nd sections of the Merchant.
Shipping Act. If there was any fault on the part of the
defendants, it was the fault of the pilot. Mr. Aspinall
asked to have the points of law deferred for full discus-
sion at some other time. The facts however might be
gone into now. Mr. Lushington agreed, but remarked
that this action was only a " feeler,' and if it succeeded,
several others would, he had no doubt, very soon follow it.
The law of the case was of considerablewiu. \i.
importance. His
i
Honour : Very well ; you can arrange Mr. Aspinall
inall
as to when the question of law shall be discussedthe
case has already been several times adjourned. Mr.
Aspinall : Bat this, I kope5 will be the last time. John
Hughes, mate of the tug Albert, was then called, and
said he obeyed the orders of the pilot, in the management
of the tug, at the time of
hthe collision ; he was acting as
captain at the time.
There
steered
erflatsedt
a lyingraig
o,outside theere landing-stage, and
aandnumthbeeyr
t towjs them, intendin of w course,reng
te
to clear them. Witness himself knew itg4a
a
go that way, but followed the orders of the pilot, because
11owed
there were so many ships in the right road which was