Northern Times.
Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1859-03-29 00:00:00

the Catherine and the Spartan. He did so, and bought in
both vessels. Mr. Copping advised him to take the Cathe-
rine, and as be said his hands were quite full, Copping said
he could obtain £lOO of Mr. Cunard for the purpose of
paying the deposit. He listened to the offer, and Mr.
Cunard did advance him the money, but there was no
express stipulation that they should sell the vessel for him.
He allowed them to advertise the Catherine in their list,
but they had tot the excliisiVe riglif"Or selling her. One
Captain Lyons was introduced to him, and they came to an
agreement about the Catherine. he was to be gold for
£1,200, £450 of which was to be in cash, andthe remainder
£750 in approved bills. When the bills where presented
to him he refused them, and the contract fell to the ground.
Afterwards, Messrs. Curry, Kellock and Co. introduced a
purchaser to him, and he paid them their commission.
The £lOO was paid. He further stated that payment of
commission, when contracts fell to the ground, was not
usual in their business. Mr. diellock, who is a partner in
the 'firm of Curry, Kellock and Co., gave evidence to the
fact, that he had seen many contracts similar to those in
dispute, and when the bills was not approved of and the
eontract was cancelled, the broker's commission was not paid.
Mr. Aspinall replied on behalf of the plaintiffs.
He contended that his clients had done their work, gone to
a great deal of trouble, introduced a purchaser, and placed
Mr. Roberts in a better position than he previously was, as
he (Mr. Roberts) could, if he had thought fit, have made
the party to whom he sold his vessel carry out
the contract in all its integrity. He, therefore,
was clearly of opinion that Messrs. Cunard, Wilson,
and Co. were entitled to a verdict. His Honour said he,
would take time to consider his decision, and would ael4er
judgment on Monday, the 28th of March Yesterday his
Honour delivered the following judgment :—ln this case
there will be judgment for the plaintiffs. A sale of the
defendant's ship was effected by the plaintiffs, as his brokers,
to a particular individual, who would have been bound to
take the' ship, and pay for her in the mode agreed on —by
bills—the parties to which were specified. The defendant
signs the contract, with the memorandum on the margin,
brokerage of 1 per cent. to be paid by the seller, and is due
to the broker on this agreement being signed. This con-
tract between the seller and his broker is explicit, and I do
not see how it can be affected by the circumstance of there
being introduced into the contract between the seller and
the purchaser a stipulation which would enable the former,
but not the latter, to cancel the agreement on a certain
contingency, namely, the sellers non-approval of the bills
by which the vessel was to -be paid for. This is a matter
not depending on the brokers, and the subsequent cancelling
of the contract, on this ground, would not affect their
right to the remuneration for their services which
they had stipulated for, and which the seller had actually
agreed to pay. It was agreed that the agreement for the
sale depending on a contingency stated in the face of it—
the memorandum in the margin—must, as well as the re-
mainder of the document, be read with reference to that
contingency, and on its occurrence preventing
,the contract
being carried out, the brokers commission would fall with
the contract on which it was founded. But this is fallacious.
The contract between the buyer and seller is made, it is
true, to depend on a contingency, but that between the
seller and his broker is absolute. The latter has performed
a complete service for the seller, and obtained a contract
by which the purchaser is bound to take the ship on certain
specified terms. The defendant by his signature bas recog-
nised the broker's title as complete, instead of, as he might
have done, introducing stipulations making the right to broker-
age contingent on the ultimate carrying outof the principal
contract. Under these circumstances the evidence of the
practice of brokers in such cases—however strong —would
only show that in circumstances such as these, brokers often
find it polite not to insist on their strict rights. I have
no effect in modifyin,,,,_,, a contract so express in its terms
as that before me. The words of the defendant's engage-
meat to the plaintiffs are clear and unambiguous, and I am
bound to give effect to them. Verdict for the plaintiffs,
£l2 lls.

THE WIRRALL WATER WORKS -BILL.
TO TIIE EDITOR OF THE NORTHERN TIMES.
Sir,—Allow me to make a few remarks on a letter
which appears in this day's NORTHERN TIMES, on
the subject of water for Tranmere and the Wirrall
Water Works Bill, and signed " A Lover of Clean
Water, and Plenty of it.",

The writer appears to be lamentably ignorant, not
only of what the inhabitants of Tranmere really
want, but also of who the parties are that are.
opposing the Wirrall Company's bill ; and that he
may not so far commit himself again, I purpose
enlightening his more than Egyptian darkness.
First, then, as to who Mr. Richard Lee,' and what
the writer presumes to call the "unwashed," are,
et: nri n that they

compose nine-tenths of the ratepayers inif-OWiiers
of property in Tranmere, and that, at two several
public meetings of ratepayers and others, the Wirrall
scheme was most , emphatically condemned, and
resolutions in favour of adopting the local act
carried each time by large majoritim • The rate-
payers believe, and are well advised, that the
local act gives power to a township to supply
itself with water notwithstanding the late opinion
given by the learned Hope Scott. They are
also wider awake than "A Lover of plenty of Water"
gives them credit for. They also love clean water
and would rejoice if they could have plenty of it
to-morrow, but they object to pay more for it than
they can get it for under their own feet, and they
have a most particular objection to pay " A Lover of
Water " and his friends at the rate of ten per cent.
as their share of the profit, in addition to some-
thing like one-third more pro rata for each house
than the proposed local company can supply it for.
" A Lover of Water " likens Tranmere to an Irish
village, and would deluge us with water for a con-
sideration ; but where has he been during the last
ten years, when water has been so very much
wanted ? He cannot surely have been waiting until
the rapidly increasing population would justify
himself and his friends in making the supplying,
of water to Tranmere a paying speculation ; if so, it
says much for his prudence. But what about his
philanthropy ? In conclusion, let me advise " A
Lover of Water " to be a little more choice in his
expressions, or his friends will be apt to imagine that
he has taken something stronger than aqua pura, or
that he has graduated at that most respectable
locality yclept Billingsgate.—Yours, &c.,
A LOVER OF FAIR PLAY.
^l. March 28th, 1859.