Northern Times.
Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1859-05-23 00:00:00

THZ
LAND AT WALLASEY POOL.

CLAIM AGAINST THE MERSEY DOCK BOARD

On Saturday morning, the inquiry into this matter was
„mimed in the Grand Jury Room, St. George's Hall,
Viontique Edward Smith, Q C., M.P., umpire, presided.
The arbitrators, J. Stewart, Esq., of Liverpool, and J. G.
hammock, Esq., of London, and the council on both sides
were present, as well as a number of gentlemen interested
sn the proceedings.
Mr. Wylde put in a number of documents showing the
price of land for some time past. A portion of the Neff.
t) the extent of 24,630 yards, had been sold in 1845, at
he rate of 20s. a yard.
Mr. Lloyd said he would tan a number of local witnesses,
than whom there were none more competent to judge of
the value of land on both sides of the river. There would
be some questions of law which they would have to discuss,
but he would not then bring that before them.
Mr. John Bernard Hartley was then called, and said, be
had been the engineer of. the Liverpool docks for a great
number of years, and all the docks, with one exception,
had been made under the superintendence of his father,
or of himself. He was not connected with them
before they became the property of the corporation
in 1845. The docks were as nearly as possible
five miles in length, from end to end, and some of those
opposite the centre of the town, the ground of which cost
them a great deal more than other places. The recent
improvements had been almost entirely on the north side of
the town. The quantity of land for the proposed dock ex-
tension in 1845, was about 100 acres. It was then con-
templated that it would take ten years to complete the
works. The land for the scheme at that time was to-have
cost nothing. The shore land on which these docks were
to be made was to be given by Lord Derby, and in return
he was to get reclaimed land. Taking the dock estate as
it now is, it cost at the rate of 13s 6d a yard, exclusive
of what was given. They were not to understand
that the shore land was excluded, as they had to pay
for other land, given in return for it to Lord Derby.
In 1844 Mr. Rendal's scheme was brought before parlia-
ment. This plan shows the scheme as we proposed to carry
it out. We proposed to put a dam across the old Wallasey
Pool, and excavate it to twelve feet below low water. The
great peculiarity of the scheme was that a ship should
remain afloat provided she had only water enough to cross
the bar. The idea was to render the Birkenhead side
superior for docking vessels by having a greater depth of
water in the docks. The area of the proposed basin was 27
acres. There were to be a series of sluices to be employed
simultaneously to drive any cedement out into the
river that might from time to time accumulate.
Up to the time that this was proposed, nothing had been
effectually carried out in Great Britain of that kind. He
had always thought that this sluicing system would not suc-
ceed. It had been tried lately on the same principle at
Sunderland, and had failed. The depth can only be main-
tained by dredging the basin, so as to gain access to the
great float, but that would interfere with the ships going
In there, He had an object in view, that of rendering
them free from the interference which he had mentioned,
by having other entrances. There was no advantage in
the entrance to the Morpeth Dock over the Liverpool
side, as the basin was only five feet below the old dock
sill, which is the average on the Liverpool side. The
land purchased under the act of '55, cost altogether
£1,143,000, and the quantity of land was 1,784,083 yards.
That includes the water area, and all other land excepting
the north reserve. At that price, for the quantity of land
already mentioned, the cost per yard would be 12s 9d on the
whole. The land for Herculaneum-dock is about 194,305
yards in extent. It is at the extreme south end of the dock
estate, and is included in the 12s 9d cost. To complete
the wall in front of the land in question, to level and
make good the quays, would cost, according to his
estimate, about £44 per linial yard. It would take
me to develope the *value of the Birkenhead docks, ,
as it entirely depended on whether the trade would
go there as readily as it would to any new docks made on ,
the Liverpool side. In twelve or fourteen years the Birk-
enhead docks might be as well filled as those of Liverpool.
They had always been behind the demand for dock accom-
modation at Liverpool, but now they were obliged to make
these docks, not by degrees, as they had been doing, but
within a certain time.
Cross-examined by Mr. Wilde : The land near a dock
was of much more value when the dock was made than that ,
required for the dock itself. There was a time when dock ,
accommodation was more wanted that at present. He was
not prepared to say That £2 was given for some of the land
for the north docks. He believed the Birkenhead works
would have been a failure had not the Mersey Docks and
Harbour Board obtained an act to complete the works. It
was necsssary that there should be warehouses for the
accommodation of goods. The land from the Waterloo to
the Clarence docks inclusive contained 284,829 yards,
obtained under an act in 1846, at a cost of £126,824, which
averaged 8s 10td a yard ; in 1844, 220,000 yards north of
the Clarence dock, at 91d a yard. The highest price given
for land north of the Clarence dock was 29s sd, and the
lowest' 7d per yard, better than half being shore land.

At this stage of the proceedings, the enquiry was
adjourned to the 2nd of June, when it will be resumed in
London.

LIVERPOOL POLICE INTELLIGENCE.-SATURDAY

BEFORE MESSRS. J. DLYON AND HUTCHISON

BASE COlN.—Mary Henderson, and Jane Guy, were
charged for having attempted to pass base coin: Mr.
Blackhurst appeared for Henderson, and Mr. Cobb for Guy.
The prisoner Henderson went into the shop of Mr. Powell,
of London-road, and in payment for some pork, she ten-
dered half-a-crown, which turned out to be bad, and then
she tendered another, which proved also bad. She had also
seven others, all bad. The prisoner Guy was merely in her
company, and it appeared she did not know anything of the
matter, and Mr. Cobb urged her discharge, and she was
liberated. Mr. Blackburst said the coins were found by a
girl, and given to the prisoner. The prisoner was remanded
for further inquiry.
Robert Lemond, a sailor, was brought up by Superin-
tendent Murphy, of the local marine board, charged for
having neglected to join his ship, the " Ocean Wave,"
which he should have done on the 14th instant. The
prisoner was sent to jail for twelve weeks.
A CONFUSED COTTON CAST.--One of the most confused
eases that ever came before a court, was the following.
Andrew Hart, a master stevedore, and John Tracy, a
marine store dealer, in Vauxhall-road, were charged on
suspicion of having. stolen about 15 cwt. of cotton, from the
ship W. D. Sewell. Mr. Cobb was for Hatt, and Mr.
Snowball for Tracy. The case lasted nearly two hours,
when it could have been disposed of in about six minutes,
and from the moment it commenced, until it terminated,
the confusion which at first shrouded it, increased to such
an extent, that no human being could undertake to unravel
it. The only thing that could possibly be collected was,
that Hart was discharging the ship, and that the captain
(Morrison) gave him liberty to take away what was
called the sweepings of cotton, which he imagined
to be about 101bs., but it subsequently
out that quantity was about fifteen cwt. The consignees
complained that the weights did not agree with the weights
received from America, and this was the case. The consig-
nees claimed the cotton, and several witnesses were produced
by Inspector Kehoe, who examined them, but every attempt
made to proceed in the case or clear it up, had the effect of
involving it in more confusion. The legal gentlemen pro-
tested in strong terms against the way the case was con-
ducted. The captain of the ship proved that he told Hart
to take away the sweepings of the ship, but did not know
there was so much there. Mr. Kehoe then endeavoured to
implicate the captain but utterly failed, and at the con-
clusion of two hours Babylonish confusion, (in the details of
the case) the magistrates remanded the prisoners and refused
to take bail for them,. a proceeding which was loudly
complained of by Mr. Snowball and Mr, Cobb

CHARGE AGAINST A PAWNBROKERS ASSISTANT.— James
E Carter, a respectable-looking young man, late an
assistant in the pawnshop of Mr. Byford. pawnbroker, was
charged with having plundered his employer. Mr. Martin
appeared for the prosecution, and Mr. Deighton, barrister,
instructed by Mr. Black, appeared for the prisoner. Mr.
Martin stated the case, from which it appeared that, the
prisoner, with Mr. Byford's son, and an apprentice, named
William Preston, were the persons employed in the shop.
The duty of the prisoner and Mr. Ilyford's son, was to take
in goods, give out money, to give out bundles of goods when
redeemed, and take in the money. When tickets came in
for bundles, the money was taken by either the prisoner or
the son, the tickets handed to Preston, who got the
bundles up-stairs, and handed them, with the tickets again,
to the son, or the prisoner. The tickets were then put into
a drawer and kept until night, when these were compared
with the cash and all properly balanced up. lie was sorry
to say that pawnbrokers young men were in the habit of
plundering their employers, and it seemed, he said, the
prisoner had adopted the usual course, of keeping the
money and destroying the tiehkets, so that alloy traces of
1 e money, of cose, being
the plunder was destroyed.
kept, and the ticket destroyed, the pawnbroker could not
ascertain his deficiency till the end of the year. On
Thursday, a watch was kept on the prison,er
in consequence
of something that bad previously transpired. A woman
pease in on that day, with two tickets, one for a 3s. and the