Northern Times.
Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1857-07-24 00:00:00

BEFORE E. JAMES, ESQ. Q.O , ASSESSOR.

COMCITAM V. HIGGINSON.—This was an action for an
excessive distraint for rent. Mr. William Corkharn, a
shipwright, was the p'aint.iff, and Mr. Thomas Higginson,
the defendant. On the 20th of June, 1855, the plaintiff
took a house, 122, in Bedford-street, Toxteth-park, from
the late Mr. Yates through the defendant, as agent.
Thelhouse was taken on a monthly tenancy at the rate of
£l9 per annum. In September, 1856, the plaintiff said
there was a balance of 153 81 due for rent. The defendant
at this time levied a distress for £6 16s 4d. For that
amount he distrained upon the whole of the furniture,
worth about £6O or £7O, besides other articles. For the
defence, it was contended that none of the goods were
removed, and as there was a certain amount due, the
defendant had a lien upon the goods until the sum was
paid, and therefore he was perfectly justified in what he
had done. A verdict was given for the defendant.
ASSAULT UPON A SEAMAN.—ROBERTS v. SEDDON.—
This was an action brought by John Roberts, a seaman,
to recover compensation for an assault and imprisonment
of the defendant, William Seddon, the master of the ship
Tapley, sailing from this port. Mr. Temple appeared
for the plaintiff, and Mr. Conway for the defendant.
The defendant pleaded not guilty, and that as the master of
the vessel, he was justified in using moderate correction to
a seaman. In this case it appeared that the plaintiff ship-
ped on board the Tapley from this port to Old Calabar,
on the coast of Africa. The defendant was the master of
that ship. They sailed from hence at the latter end of
August, and ended the voyage in about ten weeks. While
on the Coast of Africa, the plaintiff was transferred from
the Tapley to the Petrel, both ships belonging to the same
owners• The Petrel went a short voyage and returned,
and on the 16th of the same month the defendant went on
board the Petrel, which was under the command of Mr.
Armstrong. At that time the plaintiff was enraged at
the pumps. In consequence of an accident which hap-
pened to a rope, which the plaintiff was told to let go, it
fell down and struck the defendant, who thereupon called
the plaintiff a " lazy, skulking, scoundrel." The plaintiff
replied that he was not lazy, but that he had been ill.
The defendant said—" I know how ill you have
been, and I'll cure you," or something to that effect.
He struck the plaintiff again, and plaintiff, in
endeavouring to protect himself put out his hand and
caught defendant by the shirt. The sleeve of the shirt
became torn, and upon this defendant ordered plaintiff to
be tied up to the rigging by some of the Kroomen on
board, and with his own hand he gave him 75 lashes with
a rope's end. The first rope he used broke, and he then
took another. The plaintiff was allowed to remain tied
up for two hours exposed to the sun, by the defendant's
order, and kept in confinement for that night on bread
and water. The plaintiff's back was severely lacerated,
and he accordingly sought to recover damages for the
injuries he had thus received. It was contended by the
plaintiff's counsel that defendant had no authority what-
ever over the plaintiff at the time, inasmuch as he had
been transferred from the defendant's ship to the Petrel.
The plaintiff was examined, and deposed to the facts
mentioned. His statement was corroborated by John
Knowles, a seaman, whose depositions were read and put
in evidence. Mr Evan Thomas Evans, honorary surgeon
to the St. Anne's Dispensary, was examined as to the
nature of the injuries inflicted on the plaintiff. He deposed
• that they must have been of a very severe character,
inasmuch as the marks which he examined only the pre-
vious day, were still so distinctly perceptible that the
appearances which seemed to have been produced by
the corners of the rope were traceable. Mr. Conway con-
tended, on the part of the defence, that the defendant had
authority over the plaintiff, by virtue of an arrangement
among traders on the African coast, which conferred, in
cases where several vessels belonging to the same owners
were on the same part of the coast, an authority upon the
senior captain equivalent to that of commodore. He
further urged that the punishment was fully justifiable,
on the ground that the conduct of the plaintiff amounted
to mutiny. The defendant was called, and deposed that
the conduct of the plaintiff was very bad on the voyage,
and that there was a disposition to mutiny on the part of
some of the crew. On the occasion quoted, he stated that,
the plaintiff refused to obey his orders, struck him, and
seized him by the throat. The plaintiff had shipped as an
able seaman; but defendant stated that in reality he was
not so. The evidence of the defendant was corroborated
by that of the mato of the vessel. The jury found for the
plaintiff, with damages £lOO.
Avis v. ROGERSON.—This was an action brought by
William Avis, shipwright, of Liverpool, to recover the
value of certain repairs done to a ship. The defendant
was John Rogerson, merchant, of Newcastle-upon-Tyne.
Mr. Aspinall appeared for the plaintiff, and Mr. Brett for
the defendant. In April last the plaintiff was ordered to
execute sortie repairs for the barque Heart of Oak,
by Captain Heron, who then commanded her. While the
work was proceeding, Captain Heron left the ship, the
command of which was taken by captain Nicholson, to
whom the plaintiff was introduced by captain Heron as
thenew captain. Additional work was done to
the vessel by captatu orders subsequently.
It was contended on behalf of the defence, co.. ...nu...
captain was authorized to bind the defendant for repairs.
The court directed a nonsuit.

Nicrtem,s v. BYRNE.—The plaintiff, Thomas Nicholls,
claimed the sum of ,e 9 as the balance of an account for
work done by him as a painter and glazier for the
defendant, Dennis Byrne, a builder. Mr. Thompson ap-
peared for the plaintiff, and Mr. Brett for the defence ;
£l4 6s had been paid, and the defendant refused to pay
the remainder, on the gronnd that the work was impro-
perly executed. The jury found for the plaintiff, with
£4
damages.
NICHOLLS v. BYRNE.—The parties to this action were
the same as the previous. Mr. Thompson appeared for
the plaintiff, asd Mr. Brett for the defence. It was an
action for slander, and 4'loo damages were claimed. The
allegation was that when the bill for doing the work
mentioned in the previous action was sent in to the
defendant, the latter declared that.plaintiff was a swindler
and a thief, and that. he made this statement to
several persons whom he knew to be likely to employ
the plaintiff. In direct conseqnence of these state-
ments the plaintiff alleges that he had lost two dis-
tinct contracts, one from a Mr. Brett, and another from a
Mr. Russell. All the witnesses, however, who were
called for the plaintiff, concurred in stating that they had
never heard any such language used as that on which the
action was founded. The case was, therefore, non-suited
amid great laughter.
Grace v. FERGUSON —ln this case, Mr. Grice, the well
known auctioneer of this town, was the plain'iff, and the
action was brought to recover an amount of commission.
Mr. Simon appeared for the plaintiff, and Mr. Aspinall for
the defence. The case for the plaintiff was, that in
February last Mr. Ferguson asked the plaintiff to sell
some lots of house property for him. The plaintiff told
the defendant his terms, 2 per cent, and defendant agreed.
The plaintiff introduced a person namen Stoll ;to the
defendant, and by means of that introduction one lot was
sold to Mr Stoll. Some time after Stoll spoke to the
plaintiff about purchasing anoth-r lot, and the plaintiff
accordingly went to the defendant, and told him he
thought Stoll would purchase a second lot. Subsequently
the defendant himself went to Stoll and sold the property
to him. The plaintiff claimed his commission on the
ground that it was through his means the sale had been
effected. The defendant, however, declined to pay any
commission, stating that he had made the sale himself.
The action was accordingly brought to recover .elB 10s,
beisg commission upon £950, the amount for which the
second sale was effected. The commission upon the first
lot was not disputed. The jury rotted for the defendant.
The court adjourned at six o'clock.