Northern Times.
Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1859-04-20 00:00:00

THE ORTHERN 'TIMES., WEDNESDAY, APRIL 20 1859

BEFORE MESSRS. CEANT AND PARRER.

SALVAGE CASE.— oapt..Clisholm, of thesteanitug Great
Conquest, claimed £1;60.10s from Captain €weitzer, of the
ship Corinthian, an American vessel, for salvage. Mr.
Deighton, barrister, appeared for the ekimant, and Mr.
Squarey for the defence. The evidence • for the ; plaintiff
went to show that, on the 14th inst. the ship, which is
1,192 tons, was in •tow of another steamer at Birkenhead,
but that, owing to an-adverse tide, aneDthe insufficiency of
the hawser, she was going on the pile~ at the head. The
hawser broke, and the claimant's boat slipped in, and towed
off the ship, and for -this the claim was brought. A sam of
£2O had been offered. for the service, bat was refused. The

defence was, that the ship was not in danger, and that the
steamer that had her in tow when the hawser broke would
have come lan again, had not the claimant's steamer put in.
After the hearing of the evidence, the Magistrates awarded

£2O, thinking that enough, as they did not consider the
ship in danger at,the time.

LIVERPOOL COUNTY COURT. YESTERDAY.
BEFORE IV. A. HULTON, JUDGE.
IMPORTANT TO LIME CONSUMERS.—HADFIELD V. RA-
vENscßorr.--,The plaintiff in this case was Thomas
Hadfield, lime and cement dealer, of Penyfields, Vauxhall-
road, and the defendant was George Ravenscroft, contractor,
Elizabeth-street. The plaintiff sought to recover the sum
of £2 lOs 9d from the defendant, for a number of empty
lime barrels, whiehlie had supplied full of lime, and had
not been returned when empty. Mr. Grocott appeared for
the plaintiff, and Mr. Mine on the part of the defendant.
It appeared from the evidence that a quantity of lime had
been supplied by plaintiff to defendant, and on the account
being furnished to the latter, he refused to pay one item which
amounted to £2los 9d for the empty barrels charged 143 d each,
alleging that the plaintiff should have sent for the empty
barrels. A number of witnesses were called by,Mr. Hime,
to prove that this was the custom. One of these witnesses,
however stated, that though that was the usual practice, it
was a matter of convenience with the seller who need not
send for the barrels if he did not care to trade with the
buyer. His Honour gave a verdict in favour of the plaintiff
for the amount claimed.
CROSSLEY AND OTHERS V. TURNER. The plaintiffs in
this action were, Richard Crossley, Henry John Ryley,
W. Tilsley, Jane Askew, Thomas Askew, and John Askew,
(the three last named being executors of the late Christopher
Askew) ; Charles Turner, and Henry Dansnn, assignees of
the estate of James Lewin, a bankrupt ; Henry Rowland
Hughes and Alice his wife, the said Alice being executrix
of John Taylor deceased ; Wm. Geddies and John M'liie,
executors of John Burbie, deceased, and W. Wary Estlen,
executrix of Thomas Rice, deceased. The defendant was
William Turner, and the plaintiffs sought to recover from
him the sum of £22, which they claimed as a contribution on
a loss sustained upon property, of which the defendant was
a joint-stack holder with the plaintiffs. Mr. Deighton
(barrister) appeared for the plaintiffs, and Mr. Payne on
behalf of the defendant. Mr. Deighton, in his opening
statement, said that, in the month of January, 1846, fifty
persons joined together in 14joint stock company to purchase
certain property situated in Brook-street, Birkenhead, and
the plaintiffs in the present action were shareholders
in the speculation, either represented by them-
selves or their executors or assignees. They now sought
to recover from the defendant a contribution in respect to a
loss sustained upon that property, which, under certain
conditions, they had been compelled to sell at a loss, and they
had been compelled to pay a proportion of that loss, and
they now considered that the defendant was liable to refund
to them his proportion, they all being connected in this
joint speculation. It appeared that the shareholders had
arranged that two of their number, James Lewin and Thos.
Blackburne, should purchase the property as trustees of the
general body. The property was purchased for the
sum of £2,500, and it was agreed that £1,600 of

that sum should remain upon V mortgage, it being
understood that each individual shareholder should
be liable to contribute his fair share and proportion of the
£1,600, which still had to be raised, in order to complete
the payment. Power was given to Lewin and Blackburne
to mortgage the property, and they accordingly entered
into a mortgage deed for that purpose with a Mr. Hunter.
The property was, unfortunately, not so productive as the
fifty gentlemen had anticipated, .and it became very much
deteriorated in value, and the mortgagee proceeded for
payment. The property was sold, and the plaintiffs, un-
der the pressure, paid the balance of the amount lent on
mortgage, and that which the property then realised.
Under these circumstances, they now sought. to •recover
from the defendant his proportion of that money • which
they had not paid, Mr. Turner being one Of the gentlemen
who executed the original indenture, giving Lewin and
Blackburne authority to mortgage the propertyi• Mr.
Richard Crossley was examined, and stated : I am one
of the parties who executed the indenture which has been
put in. This property was mortgaged to a person named
Hunter. £2,500 was given for the property when it was
first purchased. The property was sold by the mortgagee
for about £1,200. It might be more or less. I paid Mr.
Hunter the £525 on the mortgage. Other money had been
paid besides that for interest, resides the rent. The account
was made out by Mr. Holt, the accountant. The amount
which has been paid over and above that, Mr. bolt will
sneak for. -What has passed through my hands to Mr.'
Hunter is £627 13s. Of that, £525 was principal, and the
rest interest. Cross-examined by Mr. Payne: The money
paid was paid by the 50 gentlemen in equal proportions,
I think my proportion was about £22. 2s 9d. The other

gentleman's,- at that rate, would amount to about the, £llO.
The reason why this.property was purchased by 50 people
was to 7et a freehold vote of 403 Ido not think' that it
realised the £lOO for more than three years. The rent was,
received by Mr. Hutchins. I kept, the cash accounts.
Messrs. Lewin and Blackburn were the cash keepers in
1846. There were six or eight houses 'that were empty,
and not a whole square of glass in them...l signed that bond
to Mr. Hunter in consequence of his etarnier in the money. I
signed that bond, with the other sharehdleers, to prevent the
property from being sold. The bond was given in Novem-
ber, 1848. The interest ein the £1,600 is ',£Bo. For three
years we were entitled to our votes, for during that time it
yielded a hundred a year, and then fell off. Mr. Hunter
was pressing for his interest or we should not have . given
him that.bond. I was not a leading man in this transaction
till 1853, when I was. called. upon by the mortgagee. The
property was put up for sale by auction, but was afterwards
sold by private contract. At present I have no interest
in the property, nor could. I tell that it is now realising
the sum of money -when the property was sold. The defficiency
I paid to Mr. Hunter when the property was sold. TheAole
of the money was not paid by me. Mr. Tilsly paid £76;
Mr. Astley, £76 ; Mr. Geddis, £76 ; Mr. Askew, £75 16s ;
Mr. Riley, £76 ;Mr. Taylor, £76 ; and myself, £76. The
loss was thus made up in equal proportions amongst us.
The reason why I paid my share was, because the attorney
who sold the property compelled me to do it, in consequence
of having signed that document. I suppose be thought I'
was able to do so. The reason why Mi. Turner did not pay
his share was, because he would not do. it. Re-examined :
At first, the property let at Bs. a week, and afterwards it
came down to 3s. 6d Mr. Hunter took proceedings,
against Mr. Lewin for the mortgage money.. Mr. George
Holt was the next witness examined. He said, he was an ac-
Mr Crossley to go through I

n employ

the various items. This closed the case for the Plaintiffs.
Mr. Payne, on behalf of the defendant, complained' of the
;tatement of accounts which had been given, as not being
efficiently detailed, and that the shareholders were, left in
e dark, as the expense upon which the plaintiff's claims

The plaintiffs bad,no right; to bind themselves
together to sue the other shareholders, and if they had any
standing there at all it was by suing individually. Besides,
they were not at all thankful to Mr. Crossley, and the other
gentlemen, for signing the bond to the assignee,, for, if they
had not done so, the probabibility was that better terms
might have been coma to. He contended. that the share-
holders were not at all, and if they were liable to any one,
it was to Lewin for the fiftieth part of. the £76 which he
had paid, as the shareholders only gave power to Lewin and
Blackburne' and if Lewin had individually applied; in all
probability his claim would have been met, but he had no
right to put himself with the present plaintiffs in the claim
been now made. His Honour said he.would
dement till the 10th May.

tsliich has

AO SHIP SHOULD GO TO SEA without one of Saunders
find Co.'s Patent Self-cleansing Charcoal Filters, eased and
atted-up expressly for use on board ship. Note the address,
SAUNDERS & CO., 16, Parker-street, Liverpool.
FOUR LIVES SAVED BY THE ROYAL SOCIETY'S
—Saturday morniner ' ',,(l‘; a tin

etween two and three o
the premises belonging to Mr. Peperron,
p keeper, High-street, Peckham, London. A
ed an alarm,_ and by repeatedly knocking at

liandler's-: