The Sun.
London, England, 1854-06-07 00:00:00

LAW INTELLIGENCE.-(TIILS DAY.

COURT OF QUEEN'S BENCH.
Sittings in Banco.—Before Lord Campbell, Mr. Justice
Erle, and Mr. Justice Crompton.)
THE QIIEEN V. HARRISON.-BIGHTS OP NAVIGATING THE
RIVER BY NON-FREEMEN OP THE WATER3IEN AND
LIGHTERMENIS COMPANY.
This case came on in the shape of a special appeal, for
the opinion of the Court upon the construction of the
acts governing watermen, lightermen, and wherrymen,
to navigate boats, vessels, and wherries upon the River
Thames, between Windsor and Yantlet Creek.
The defendant in this case had been convicted by Mr.
Ingham, magistrate at the Thames Police-court, for
navigating a steam-tug, he not being a freeman of the
Watermen and Lightermen's Company. The offence
he had committed was that of having towed The Pacha
of Egypt packet from Blackwall to Gravesend, he not
being a freeman of the said company. The appeal had
not been carried to the Quarter Sessions, but had by
consent been made special.
Sir F. Thesiger, who appeared to support the appeal
against Mr. Inghams's conviction, contended that the
Lgislature never contemplated that large vessels should
be governed by this act, which, although it set forth,
wherries, lighters, and other craft, did not include
steam-tugs which were used for a special purpose.
Mr. Ballantine having been heard in support of the
conviction,
Lord Campbell said that he was clearly of opinion
that this conviction could not stand. There was no
doubt the Legislature intended to include a steam-tug
within the meaning of the act, but this was not a ves-
sel employed to carry goods or passengers, and it was
never intended that the act should give a monopoly to
the Watermen's Company, and extend their functions to
those which did not belong to them.
M r. Justice Erle was of opinion that the penalty could
not be recovered, as the defendant had not navigated a
lighter, wherry, or other craft within the meaning of
the act. A. steam tug might be called a craft, but it
was evident that, used for the purpose it was, namely,
to tow the hull of a vessel down the river, did not come
within the intention,of the Legislature.
Mr. Justice Crompton said be entirely concurred with
his learned brothers, and thought that no penalty could
be recovered.
The appeal was allowed, without costs,

COURT OF BANKRUPTCY.
(Mr. Commissioner Fane was the Commissioner of the
day, but the only cases were audit meetings not requir-
ing the attendance of his Honour).

SECONDARIES COURT.
(Before Mr. Secondary Potter.)
THE GARRAS LEAD MINE.-COLLINS AND OTHERS V. COI,
The plaintiffs in this case represent the Garras Lead
Mining Company, near Tavistock, and the action was
brought to recover the value of a certain rope, which
defendant by allowing judgment to go without pleading,
admitted he had unlawfully converted to his own use.
Mr. Harcourt and Mr. West appeared for the com-
pany._

It
did not appear from the statement of the learned
counsel how defendant became possessed of the rope,
but as ho had not pleaded the only question was the
damage sustained.
Mr. Harcourt submitted, on the authority of cases
Harrison v. Harrison, and Carrington v. Payne, that in
an action for trover, which was merely to recover the value
of property unlawfully converted, and without requiring
contingent damages the plaintiff was entitled to the
fullest value. The learned ;counsel rather humorously
put the case to the jury, and said the action was not
for special damage, but as the plaintiffs could not get an
old rope to suit, they were entitled to a new rope, at the
present rate of prices, which have considerably increased
since the war.
Mr. J. Diamond, Mr. Fox, and other mining agents,
were called to prove the value.
The Learned Secondary, in addressing the jury, said
he was always inclined to tell the jury that in such
cases they should take a liberal view, for, in many in-
stances, the intrinsic value of an article might be light,
but the loss might be severely felt.
The Jury gave a verdict for 601., being the amount
estimated by the witnesses.