The Sun.
London, England, 1855-05-28 00:00:00

GILLESPY V. THOMPSON AND OTHERS.

Mr. Watson Q.C., showed cause against a rule ob-
tained last term for a new trial on the ground of the
verdict in this case being against the evidence. The
action; which was tried at the last assizes at New-
castle-on-Tyne, before Mr. Baron Parke, was
an action upon a charter party. The vessel in.
(ideation, about 460 tons burthen, was to load a cargo of
coals at Sunderland, to proceed to Constantinople for
orders, and deliver her cargo at Varna, or some other
port in the Black Sea. The vessel being three masted
was obliged to have her larboard shrouds and backstays
loosened to take in her cargo, and was in that state
taken into the roadstead to be put all atant, with a part
of her crew and a number of Jumpers on board, and a
pilot, who at the time was intoxicated, when a gale
came on, and she was driven on shore, every soul on
board, except one, being drowned. The declarition
stated that the defendant wrongly and improperly sent
the vessel to sea, in an unseaworthy state as regarded the
vessel and crew, whereby she was lost, which the de-
fendant by his pleas denied.
Mr. Knowles, Q.C., having been heard in support of
the rule,

The Court directed its discharge.

THOMPSON AND OTHERS V. GILLESPY.

This was a cross action for the freight, and the point
reserved for their lordships' opinion was the sailing of
the ship. Mr. Baron Parke, at the trial, held there
had been no sailing within the meaning of the charter
party, and it was contended by the defendant that the
taking the vessel into the roadstead was not a sailing,
but that she was removed there to get her all right,
and procure a crew with which to sail. The bill of lad-
ing
had not been signed.
The learned counsel had not concluded their argu-
ments when we went to press.

uawy
rd
sneaeedTfsdoe
hnroc e GUOVE V. nAs2n.
(Before Mr. Justice Wightman and a Common Jury..)
This was an action to recover possession of a hors It
hearse, mourning coach, and some harness, seized by tb e
sheriff of Surrey unfler an execution.
Mr. Chambers,,Q.C., and Mr. Prentice were far tb e
plaintiff ; and Mr. Sergeant Shea and Mr. Quain for tb.e
intiff in this action carried on business !in
eideatptnaltalstreet, Covent-garden, and it appeared that Ii
acquainted with a person named Burridge, • e
undertaker,asionaliy ofto trn
assisti ou-swtri :bet,
small Borough,ioan g el
a
certain s
oviihrtioratoanle3llo
,r..
vious to the last advance, sold to tahnemps.l
h ahniniother horse, which were removeat
from
eur
question,
ut irorni
d,advancingg
with
, si t
'ainiltinffrrthidegaer'tiPenle:s
premises to those' of a person named
Perry, the plaintiff paying the expenses on them up to
the time of their seizure—
oßeurrid ge, however, with the,
consent of the plaintiff,
iouau y using them. In.
April last the Sheriff of Surrey ad
the
ert
sheriff's fron i a person.
ofao
named Baker against Burridge,
seized all the goods, with the an
exception of a black mare,
on which the plaintiff claimed them as his. The sheriff's
officer then said he had seized the black mare also, when
the plaintiff applied for permission to enlarge his
claim, but as the expense of doing so would be more
than the mare was worth he abandoned it. The ques-
tion for the jury was the validity of the plaintiff's claim.
The case was not concluded when we went to press.

BAIL COURT.

(Before Mr. Justice Wighttnan.)

There were only two cases on the paper to-day for
hearing, and Which were devoid 01 any publionterest.
His lordship will sit tomorrow at Guildhall, for the
rial of Nisi Prius cases.