The Sun.
London, England, 1862-11-06 00:00:00

LOSS OF THE MAIL S7EAMER LIMA.

An official inquiry, instituted by direction of
the Board of Trade, under the provisions of the
Merchant Shipping Act, commenced yesterday, at
the Greenwich police-court, before Mr. Trail!, sti-
pendiary magistrate, and Captain Harris and Cap-
tain Brown, as nautical assessors, into the circum-
stances attending the kiss of the mail steamer Lima,
Captain Henry Wyld, belonging to the Pacific
Steam which was totally lost
on h
bstriking on a group of
te Navigation a
Julytion Companylast
rocks about 57 miles south of Cobiga, while con-
veying the mails between Panama and Valparaiso.
_ _.

Mr. Cumberland attended on behalf of the Board
of Trade, Mr. Winkworth appearing on behalf of
the Pacific Steam Navigation Company, and Mr.
Chamberlain for Captain Wyld.
Mr. Cumberland, in opening the proceedings,
said the Lima was a vessel of 1,165 tons burden,
built at Govan in 1851, and was employed in carry-
ing the mails on the West Coast of South America,
between Panama and Valparaiso. On the 24th of
June last the vessel left Panama, having to call at
various intermediate stations, amongst others at
Cobiga, in Bolivia, where she arrived in safety be-
tween nine and ten o'clock on the night of the 10th
of July, resuming her voyage the same night at
11.30, having taken on board the usual mails, and
some passengers and specie, having at the time be-
tween 300 and 400 tons of cargo, and a full comple-
ment as a crew. The weather at this time was fine,
rather cloudy, but no wind, and the course having
been shaped as usual, she proceeded on her voyage.
All went on well until 5.30 on the following morn-
ing, when, with scarcely any warning, the ship
struck upon one of a group of three rocks laid down
on the chart, although not named, and situate about
57 miles south of Cobiga, and 11 miles from the
main land. The ship began to fill rapidly; but the
boats having been lowered, the passengers between
40 and 50, the specie on board, and some other pro-
perty, and the crew succeeded in reaching
the main land, where they remained five days,
until taken off by the steamer Guayaquil,
also belonging to the Pacific Steam Navi-
gation Company. The Board of Trade con- ,
sidered the circumstances attending the loss of the
vessel on a known rock, and in fine weather, of so
extraordinary a character, that they had deemed it
necessary to institute the present inquiry, as it was
asserted a contrary course was steered on the night
in question to that usually taken, and which,
to-
gether with the question as to whether a proper
look out was kept during the night, would be the
points upon which the inquiry would depend. He
(Mr. Cumberland) would further remark that, by
an act passed in the last session of Parliament, the
power of cancelling or suspending any
certificate
held by the master or other officers of the ship,

Rule refused accordingly.
MARSHAL V. GOLBY.
This was an action brought by the plaintiff, an
attorney at Cheltenham, to recover possession of
two race-horses from the defendant, the well-known
trainer, who had them in training for Mr. Talbot,
and refused to give them up to the plaintiff, who
claimed a right to them under the conditions of an
agreement entered into between him on the one
part and Mr. Talbot on the other. The action was
tried before Mr. Justice Mellor, and resulted in a
verdict for the plaintiff.
Mr. Hawkins, Q.C., now moved for a rule calling
on the plaintiff to show cause why the verdict
should not be set aside, as against evidence, and a
verdict entered for the defendant, or why there
should not be a nonsuit. The agreement recited
that the plaintiff :ent Mr. Talbot £l,OOO on inte-
rest, and received from him, as security, a bill of
sale, authorising him to claim and obtain possession
of the horses if default of payment should occur. A
condition precedent was embodied in the document,
that in the event of default seven days' notice should
be given by plaintiff to Mr. Taibot, and that on the
expiration of such notice plaintiff would be at liberty
to enforce his bill of sale, and entitled to possession
of the horses ; but until such default happened, and
notice agreed upon was duly served upon Mr. Tal-
bot, that gentleman was to retain possession of the
horses. Mr. Talbot was, at the time of default in
payment, stopping at an hotel in Cheltenham, but
being in pecuniary difficulties, plaintiff was unable
to meet him, and make direct service of the seven
days' notice on him. Plaintiff was also unable to
see and serve the notice on Mrs. Talbot, and failing
in his efforts to serve either, he then applied to
Golby for possession of the horses. Golby refused
to give them up, saying they were entrusted to him
by Mr. Talbot for training, and that he would only
give them up to that gentleman. Notice in accord-
ance with the terms of the bill of sale was served
upon him, but he persisted in his refusal, and hence
the action against him.

The Lord Chief Justice—Golby had a sort of lien
on the horses.

Mr. Hawkins—Yes; and for the defence it was
submitted that Mr. Talbot was at his hotel in Chel-
tenham, and constantly in and out, and that service
of the notice might have been made upon him.
Mr. Justice Mellor—The eNidence of the plaintiff
was that he had frequently called at the hotel, and
that he was never able to find Mr. Talbot at home,
that gentleman, because of his difficulties, finding it
convenient to be out of the way.
The Court having conferred, granted a rule nisi.

- -
proved that in 1845 Mr. Loch complained 11-,t_ltt Mr.
Reeves, Lord Ashburton's agent, was going to tual
him out of possession of the land, saying it was
hard, because Mr. Beadon had said he should have
the land for life. He asked Mr. Milton to intercede
for him, which he did, and afterwards told Lock
that he was not too late to make terms. Mr. Milton
subsequently saw Lock, who told him that he had
given up a portion of the land upon the terms that
he should have the remainder, with the house, for
his life, and that of his wife. In accordance with
this statement Lock did, in fact, give up a portion
of the land. The learned counsel submitted that no
conversation of this kind could bar the plaintiff's
statutable title.
Tne Lord Chief Justice said the learned counsel
was very earnest about the supposed wrongs of his
client, who, however, seemed to belong to a class
which a certain learned judge used to term "land
stealers." (A laugh.)
Sir F. Slade—The predecessors of all landlords
must have been land stealers.
The Lord Chief justice—All he meant to observe
was, that the learned counsel seemed to think that
it was a very meritorious thing to take six acres of
land when nobody was looking. (Laughter.)
Sir F. Slade—His client had made a bog grow
corn, and that was at all events beneficial to the
public.
--The real question was whether
Mr. Williams
a new tenancy at will was created in 1845.
Rule granted.
AUSTIN V. HANCOCK.--LANDLORD AND TENANT.
The plaintiff in this case had rented of the de-
fendant what is well-known in the lace districts as
" standing and power" for certain lace machines—
and he, being in arrears for rent, went out and
locked the door of that portion of the defendant's
workshop where the plaintiff's machines were. The
defendant entered by putting a ledder to the win-
dow, and he then opened the door, no fastening
having been broken. Having done this, the bailiffs
were let in and the machines were distrained for
rent. The plaintiff now claimed damages for it
to the whole amount of the value of the goods ; or,
secondly, for excessive distress. The jury found
for the plaintiff, upon the first ground, for £l5O ;
but if the Court should be of opinion that he could
recover only for an excessive distress, then they
assessed the damages at £4O.
Mr. Sergeant Hayes now moved to reduce the
damages to £4O, contending that the defendant had
a right to enter the premises as he had done, and
the workshop itself never having been demised, the
plaintiff was wrong in locking it against his land-
lord.
Mr. Justice Williams—But a distress must be
upon the " demised premises," and what were the
' demised premises in this case?
Mr. Sergeant Hayes submitted that they con-
' , sisted of the ground upon which the machines
I stood.

Rule granted.
STOTT 'V. GLENN.—INJUNCTION.

The plaintiff was the owner of a colliery, and he
had entered upon an agreement with the defendant,
who rented a turnpike, that the plaintiff's carts
should pass the turnpike for three years in considera-
tion of a certain quarterly compensation. The de-
fendant subsequently refused to perform the agree-
ment, alleging that he had been induced to enter
into it by a false representation. The present a tion
was commenced to enforce the agreement, and
Mr_ Justice Mellor granted an injunction to
compel the defendant to allow the carts to pass,
pending the litigation.
Mr. Mellish now moved for a rule to discharge
the order for an injunction, and submitted that the
court would not compel the defendant to act on the
agreement, inasmuch as such agreement was pro-
bably illegal, because it was an arrangement to take
other than the ordinary tolls.
The court granted the rule, suggesting that the
carts should pass as usual, and that an account of
the amount of the ordinary tolls which might be-
come due should be taken.