Northern Times.
Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1859-01-11 00:00:00

245 hogsheads, as per -bill of lading, and the master
might :then either have, left the hogshead in his owu

tu,._ no ques-
cion that en his 'return to Boston he might be sued
for the value of .it by the consignors. If, there-
fore, he had no remedy with the Dook Com-
-- f

Or the damage, who was he to look
The law involved in this case was of great
importance, and it was very desirable that the point should
be settled. Mr. North said the custom- at-this port was
quite different to what had been represented by Mr.
Houghton. Here, according to the bill of lading, 245
casks of molasses were delivered to Baring Brothers and
C 0..; and the custom with respect to surplus cargo was,
and always had been, this—when a cask or two, or a
small quantity of merchandise, is shipped above the bill
of lading, the custom had always been, if it was clear
that the surplus was intended to be a rim. the

aav
signment, to deliver it to the consignee of the rest of the
goods, believing that he would state it in his account to
the shipper. That was the course taken in this case.
The surplus was notified to Messrs. Baring, who made no
claim whatever. He conceived, therefore, that Mr.
Houghton was out of court in contending for any
property in the surplus cargo on the part of
the master of the ship. Under such circum-
stances, with regard to merchandise so situated, it was
perfectly clear that it was in this case the property of the
shipper in America If the dock servants had been guilty
of any negligence in the handling of this cask, which he
did not admit, they would be liable to the consignor.
His Honour : If it is set up that this was an unavoidable
accident, I must have evidence. Mr. North said that
point was not now in question. The principle he had
stated had been recognised by his Honour's predecessor,
who had adopted Mr. Mansfield's judgment in a similar
matter, where the mate of an American ship had been
apprehended and brought before him, on a charge of
felony, for improperly appropriating to the use of the ship
ten casks of flour. The circumstances were precisely
similar to those in this case. There was a mistake of the
shipper sending goods in excess of the bill of lading.
Mr. Mansfield, in that case, said no charge of
felony could ha hr ~a,14 +I,A „,„so,
he gave orders to the police to impound the
remaining surplus for the benefit of the rightful
owner. If that principle were right, it would be a suffi-
cient answer to this action. But there were other
circumstances which might influence his Honour's
decision. He would not say whether the master of the
ship had or had not any special property in the cargo ;
but the custom on the arrival of a ship at the Albert
Dock was this ; a copy of the manifest of the ship,
signed by the captain, is delivered to the superintendent
of the warehouse; and at the foot of the manifest was
the following statement :—" I declare the above to be a
true copy, of the manifest of the cargo of the above ship,
and hereby authorise the trustees of the Liverpool docks
to deliver the same to the holder of the bill of lading."
The very existence of surplus cargo could not be ascer-
tained--and seldom if ever had been—intil; probably
a ship had left the dock several days ; and then,
when it was so . ascertained, the surplus was
dealt with in the way he had mentioned ; and
in such a case as this handed it over to the con-
signees to whom it was intended to be addressed ;
and that, he submitted, was done in the present case to
the full extent that the circumstances permitted. They
could not, of course, deliver the cask that had been
destroyed, but they informed the consignees of the acci-
dent, and they made no claim whatever. Again, as to
the question of special property, a washerwoman being
trusted with the custody of clothes, could defend her
right to the same against a wrong-doer : but here the
master intended, before the accidenehappened, to deliver
all these goods to the superintendent of the dock, to be
delivered to the holder of the bill of, lading. This conrst
having been followed, he conceived that the consignor
could not sue the captain. He considered that they had
done all they ought to do, and all that they considered
just under the circumstances. Mr. Houghton : 'With
regard to the memoranditun delivered by the captain,
it merely requires " the dock company to deliver
the goods claimed ; and, in this case, that memoran-
dum and claim was satisfied by the delivery of the 245
hogsheads. But that does not at all touch the surplus
cask, which Baring
.Brothers could not claim. As to the
question of special • property, he called his Honour's
attention to a case in Ist Strange's Report, where is was,
held, with regard to the finding of a jewel, that the finder
of the property could keep it against all the world except
the rightful owner. The same principle was held by Mr.
Justice Pattison, in the case of Bridges v. Hawksworth.
Upon the sti ength of those decisions, he contended that
the captain in this case was entitled to recover the value
of the cask. Mr. North said they were liable to the con-
signor, but if the principle contended for by his friend
were held to he good, they would also be liable to the
captain—liable to two parties. Mr. Houghton said the
consignors and the captain had their own liability. His
Honour said he should have to look into sonic acts of
parliament, as the point was an important one. He would
give judgment on Ist February,
QUINE AND OTHERS V. WILLIAM CORKAN. The
plaintiffs iu this case are John Quine, 'William Hum-
phreys, and James M'Cormick, shipsmiths, and the
defendant 'William Corkan, of Upper Mann-street, Tox-
teth,park, shipsmith. The plaintiffs, as trustees of the
Shipsmiths' Benevolent Society, claim for themselves and
the other members of the society the sum of £4 175.,
being money received by the defendant for the use of the
society, on the 6th day of November, 1857; the plain-
tiffs also claim £4 178 on the unliquidated balance
of the partnership account between the defendant
and the said society. Mr. Wilson appeared for the
plaintiffs, and Mr. Husband for the defendant. It
appeared that the defendant and two other persons
were trustees of the society in 1857, and after the stop-
page of the Liverpool Borough Bank they drew out the
sum of £l4 odd, which they divided into three equal
stuns of £4 175., each trustee holding one sum. Two of
the trustees had paid their money over to the society, but
defendant refused to do so. The secretary of the society
and other members were called to prove these facts ; and
in cross-examination, Mr. Husband endeavoured to show
that the society was an illegal one—a combination of
workmen, who were in the habit of fining and dictating
to what were called• black-sheep," or non-members:-
The witnesses stated that money was allowed to men on
strike, and the names of persons " out of benefit" were
published and sent round to the various shops in the
town. The name of the lodge was "The Royal Mersey
Lodge,- and the present plaintiffs' were alleged, accord-.
ing to the minutes► to be trustees of the society. Mr.
Husband, for the defence said, the society sought to con-
trol employers and employed, and was an illegal com-
bination, which ought to be put down. It was shown by
the books that men had been fined for working over-time
and
that £9O had been paid by the society to men on strike.
His His Honour said the society had also paid considerable sums
as relief to sick members, and for other benevolent pur-
hposes. Mr. Husband said the "benefits" were merely a
liud to conceal the other proceedings of the society.

He admitted the defendant had'reeeHved the money as
alleged. His Him Our said, he did not see any legal
ground of action ; but he was anxious to do justice in the
case, and would take time to, consider his decision.
Thero mos one or two objectionable features in

the. case : to impose on working men, as that
society did, a scale of the rate of wages at which they
should work, the hours which they should work, and for
whom they: should work, was a species of tyranny
which it was impossible to tolerate, though there could
be no doubt the society had exMsed. that power. He
would give judgment on the Ist of February.

LIVERPOOL POLICE INTELLi

BEFORE MR. MANSFIELD,

VERY "DOUBTFUL

-A I

apparently about 10 years (

officer Gray, 645, who said he
t or

Church-:

tree., on Satnrda%

was 'or,

.ht up by
T•ging; in
A woman

boy and his mother lived

1'..4t1 no neee,..
mother be -wen
andviwith
her,
ewr was nt ho..ew ladn 'to his

In reply .tt) H
that the lay
felt ratl%,,

orship,

he woman said, very simply,
a father. His Worship
*biz -nn;nt

tre.ssrA his opinion that t
e- then in court if he had not had a fathE
etuk at one time he had a fathe', who dii

boy would not
the woman

.d said he only wanted to

in an hospital

Denny to

go with
He was

another lad to a penny "hop," in Dale-str
admonished, ,and then discharged.

brought

lup for having 'assAUlted Aune. Lo'vett,. and breaking,
her windows, in Chisenhale-street. • It appeared that, on

aturnay, tne- prisoner naa come out of jail, wnere sae
had been for fourteen days, for breakingthe complainant
windows, and, on her arrival in the street, she went
to Lovett's house, and asked, in a friendly way, " Mrs.
Lovett, have you got your coffin and grave ready? " Mrs.
'Lovett not I:leing. at all prepared with these 'requisitesi,
informed the quenest that she had not either ready at the
time, and ventured to enquire,--why it was she had asked
the question? When the prisoner replied, I came to be
your butcher, so you had better prepare.the coffin and.
grave at 'Once. At this intimation,, the - complainant
attempted to get away, when the prisoner assaulted her
and broke her windows again. The prisoner was fined
• £2, or, in-. defanit .of payment, two. months imprison-.
ment.

, .
WIFE ilEATlNg.—"William Harrison, a , fireman Oil
board a steamer, and who lives in 37 Court; Ford-street,
was charged for having beaten his wife and daughter.
He went home on Saturday night in a state'of intoxica-
tion, and commenced beating his wife

0 -.- Hung' a mu
g
at her, but instead of hitting her, it strtick his daughter
in the arm, inflicting a severe wound.lrc then kicked
his wife, and the assault was witnessed by a poliCeman.,
Ills Wershin thought the awful f.tf, nr the _

hung for his wife, ought to prov6nt-rnelfrOarn
beating their wives. He fined the. prisoner £lO, or be
imprisoned for six months.
TEE BRIDEWELLS.—MR
Tit nm.—Two

MANSFIELD' S OPINION OP

Henry Howarth, said to be compositors, were charged
for being drunk and disorderly.. The only thing remark-
able in the case was a speech made by one of the
prisoners, the amount of which was that himself and his
friend were locked up with all sorts of "miscellaneous
characters " in bridewell. There was one fellow there
mr;4l, n , • .

choked him.
ment he bad

r,, who wound it round him and nearly
lie complained very much of the treat
_

cu in LUC nriaeweit. His Worship
condemned the present system in the Bridewell, of locking
up all sorts of people in the same apartment. He was of
• opinion that at a very small expense a great improvement
might be made in bridewells, by separating the cells,
• He understood that young
.people, in particular, were
more contaminated by one night's confinement in bride-
well, than by three or four months in gaol. He trusted
something would be done to remedy this evil. He, dis-
charged the prisoners.
A girl, named Maria Steward, was reported to have
stolen £164 from her master, and a reward of £2O has
been offered for her apprehension.
A Swimins.—A well dressed person about 28 years
of age, named Alfred Clarke, was charged with having
obtained upwards of £3B worth of bacon and cheese from.
Mr. Gilmore, provision dealer, Copperas-hill. Mr.
Black defended. It appeared from a statement made by
Mr. Clough, and the evidence of Mr. Gilrhore, that
early in December, the prisoner called at Mr. Gilmore's
establishment, and represented that he was about com—
mencing business at St. Helens, and asket4fora month's
credit, on the usual terms. Mr. Gilmore said if he
brought respectable references he would give the goods.
Tl.O F,L,utict ,411,11 tam, tutu brougnt letters
from a Mr. David Gamble and a Mr. George Scott,
both well known and respected persons in business at St.
Helens, highly praising the prisoner. lie then got the
goods, and, as Mr. Clough said he would prove, the day-
after a portion of the goods were deposited by the. priso-
ner with an auctioneer for £lO. Mr. Gilmore went to
St. Helens, and found that the prisoner had no shop at
all there. He demanded his goods, and the prisoner sent
eight sides of bacon back. The prisoner was remanded
until Mr. Gamble and Mr. Scott could be present to
prove that the letters purporting to be written by them
were forgeries, and on the genuineness of which the pri-
soner obtained the goods.

ASSAULT ON A CRIPPLE.—A man named Alexander
W. Tressell, was summoned for having assaulted a little
boy, named Thomas Dearin, a cripple, in a delicate state
.of health. The complainant stated that about a week
ago the defendant met him in the street, and said he was
one. Witness asked him, " one of what ?" when the
'defendant replied, "one of the boys," and then struck
him, knocked him down, and kicked him twice. The
evidence of the boy was corroborated by a woman and
her daughter, who witnessed the assault. The defendant,
who pleaded that he accidentally tumbled over the boy,
was fined 20s. and costs.

INDUCING A NAVAL i7OLUNTEER TO DESERT. —P. J.
Daly, boarding-house-keeper, appeared to answer an
information laid against him at the instance of the
Admiralty. Mr. Aspinall, barrister, appeared to support
the information, and Mr. Cobb fdr the defence. 1 here
was also another information against the defendant--
that of. trying to conceal the seaman. It appeared that
on tha22nd of May last the seaman went to the naval
rendezvous, and offered himself as a naval volunteer.
He was accepted, his name entered on the books, and he
was sent to the rendezvous. A few days after the defen-
dant went to the rendezvous to see the seaman, and
asked him io go to his house, and, when he got there,
the door was shut, and locked. The defendant told
Corry (the seaman) that' he had no business to ship in
the navy ; it was all a humbug, and he must go to
New Orleans, in the vessel he had already shipped.
The man had shipped in the John M. Wood 7
for New Orleans before he was entered in the navy, but
1L
he then wished to go in the navy. Defendant
should not go, kept him locked up iiiN;rico,r,to,(2s iti said
mnitil
l cart.ncat
day, and then took him to the John M.
return nw to
LT
ihvee
rspeaomol,ani
nw eanntottoh
eNr evwesOserll,Cainns,
Daenede,mobne
rhliass
emet
rmaaingeadinthbeyrtehleodckefeedndup anut,natinldotiaek6etnh instant.
his house.
He had
tiouse. He
again signed articles to sail in the Antarttc, and was on
his way to the ship, in a spring cart, when he was
stopped by an Admiralty officer and taken into custody,
and produced as a witness against the defendant. Mr.
Cobb applied for an adjournment, and the magistrates
at first refusing, inflicted a penalty of £5; but, upon
finding no power to mitigate the penalty under £2O,
adjourned the case till Wednesday.

BANKRUPTCY COURT.-YESTERDAT

BEFORE MR. COMMISSIONER PERRY

In re CHARLES BARLOW. —This bankrupt, who was a
hatter, in Price-street, Liverpool, applied to pass his last
Jones, who appeared for the
examination. Mr. Oliver
assignees, examined the bankrupt shortly, with references-
to his interest in certain property left him by his father,
and stated in the balance-sheet to be of no value, which
he explained was in consequence of its being mortgaged.
No opposition being offered, His, Honour allowed the
bankrupt to pass, and fixed the certificate meeting for the
7th of February.

In re RICHARD THOMAS.—The bankrupt, late a ship-
builder at Conway, came up on his adjourned last exami-
nation. Mr. Evans, who appeared for the assignees,
offered no opposition, and the bankrupt passed. The
certificate meeting was fixed for the 7th February.

BURNT TO DEATH.—Miss Annie Fowler, the favourite
and talented columbine at the Grecian Theatre, died on
Friday morning. We are not yet in full possession of the
sad particulars, but we hear her melancholy and sudden
decease was caused through her clothes accidentally
catching fire.—Era.
FRIGRTRUL ACCIDENT BY FIRE TO A YOUNG LADY.—
On Saturday morning a frightful accident occurred to Miss
Fanny Swan, aged eighteen, residing in the Derer7roadt,_
London. The unfortunate young lady was sitting by the
o ve yed to
firrae,te.wheTnhe inmatesshewasesimzeedllin with itfihrea,
,fivt;natndintfoellthinetroootmhe
g
and found Miss Swan's dress on fire, and the young lady
fiightfully burnt. She was extricated from herurpioessitsiohne
and the flames extinguished.
ouch arengsuuished. theS h thenxteewasensNi,e injuries n
Guy's Hospital, b
has received, that faint hopes are entertained of her re-
covery.