The Sun.
London, England, 1849-02-22 00:00:00

LIVINGSTONE V. PROUDFOOT AND OTHERS.

The further arguments in this part-heard appeal were
resumed this morning, and occupied their Lordships the
whole day. The appellant was the minister a short time
ago:of the Church of Cambusnethan, in the Presbytery of
Hamilton, in the county of Lanark, and the res-
pondents represented the members of the Presbytery
of Hamilton. It chanced that in the year 1835, a re•
port had become prevalent in the parish, to the effect
that the ministers had been guilty of certain acts of
theft. A lengthened negotiation was the result, in
which the heritors of the parish took a leading part,
with the hope of making such au arrangement of the
matters as would prevent any public exposure. These
negotiations not terminating b a way that was satisfac-
tory to the present appellant, he then made an appeal
to the General Assembly, by whom, i❑ compliance with
his request, the matter was remitted to the
Presbytery of Hamilton, accompanied by instructions
that the case should be investigated in accordance
with the rules of the Church. The Presby-
tery of Hamilton was composed of the ministers
of what were denominated quoad sacra parishes. This
tribunal adjudged against thu appellant. These parishes
were created iu all parts of Scotland, by virtue of a law
which passed in the year 1834, and had never been chal-
lenged until the year 1840. From the judgment of that
tribunal the appellant made a further appeal to the
Synod of Glasgow and Ayr, by whom the judgment of
the former was affirmed, with the exception of one par-
ticular charge. The appellant thereupon entered a pro-
test, and applied for leave to appeal to the General As •
sembly. Ultimately the matter came before the Court of
Session, and from the judgment of that Court the present
appeal had been made.
Mr. Bethell and Mr. Anderson were Counsel for the
appellants, and Mr. Holt appeared for the respondents.
The arguments occupied the Court the whole morning

COMMON PLEAS.—(THIS DAY.)
(Sittings at Nisi Prins, at Guildhall, before the Lord
Chief Justice WILDE and a Special Jury.)
EINCAIRD AND ANOTIIER V. WILLIS.
In this case Mr. Crowder, Queen's Counsel, Mr. Ser-
geant Channel, and Mr. Greenwood were counsel for the
plaintiffs, and Mr. Sergeant Byles represented the de.
fendant.
Mr. CROWDER, in stating the case, said the plaintiffs
were the owners of a vessel called the Baboo, of 500
tons, which had been in the habit of trading to China.
The defendants, who were the Shipowners' Towing
Company, were sued by their secretary, who was the
nominal defendant, under the provisions of an Act of
Parliament; and the Shipowners' Towing Company
having a number of tugs for the purpose of towing ves-
sels, were the owners of a tug called the Newcastle ;
and this action was brought to recover a compensation
in damages for the injury which had occurred
to their vessel the Baboo from the misconduct
and mismanagement of the defendant's servants engaged
in navigating their tug, the Newcastle. The Baboo had
returned on its homeward voyage from China in April,
1847, and having occasion for repairs was towed up to
the dock of Messrs. Wigram, for the purpose of under-
going those repairs. On that occasion the Ship-owners,
Company was employed for the purpose. Baying un-
dergone the necessary repairs at Messrs. Wigrams'
dock, on the 20th of April, 1847, the Baboo was taken
to the London Docks, and remained there until it had
completed its cargo, and was engaged by some pas-
sengers to go on an outward voyage. It was in May that
the arrangements had been completed, and the vessel
was about to proceed from the London Docks on its
voyage. On the 13th of May all the neces-
sary preparations had been made. There were
twelve passengers to be taken out, and the vessel
was then destined for Sydney. On the evening of the
13th May it was necessary that some steam-tug should
be engaged for the purpose of towing the vessel out of
the London Docks and down the river, and the de-
fendants' tug was engaged on the following morning. It
was necessary that advantage should be taken of the
state of the tide, and the vessel ought to have left the
London Docks somewhere prior to one o'clock. It
seemed that in consequence of some mistake having oc-
curred with the captain of the Baboo, in not having had
an opportunity of giving the necessary intimation to the
defendants for the purpose of sending their tug, no
tug arrived. In that emergency one of the plaintiffs en-
gaged the steam-tug called the Lion, belonging to
an-
other and a rival company, the Thames Towing
Company. It was arranged that the Lion was
to take up a position just outside of the
Ishadsvoll entrance to the London Pocks. QUt cf