The Sun.
London, England, 1833-12-12 00:00:00

She might have been repaired in a fortnight. Did net
know that the crew, except the master and mate, were
discharged. Dill not know the age of the vessel. She
was built in America of pine. She was now worth 400/.
or 500/. Would not give that for her, but would give 250 k
Re-examined—Did not wish to speculate in ship fH
She was worth to the plaintiff 4001. or 5901. N°
unnecessary expense was incurred in repairing her.
Norris was recalled, and stated that the only ona of the •
crew that left the vessel was Quin. Just before they
sailed they discharged the rest of the crew and shipped
other men. There was no unnecessary delay in repairing
the vessel, and as there was a cargo on board, she could
only be repaired when she was dry. It was nearly a
month before the repairs were completed. She did not
leave Fa'mouth until October, because the voyage to St.
Michael's was entirely broken up.
Mr. Hercules Jenkins, an old master mariner, 510
deposed to the improper conduct of the master of the
Elizabeth, taking the situation of the twe vessels as de'
tailed by the two first witnesses.
Sir JAMES SCARLETT addressed the Jury for the defen-
dant, and contended that the accident arose from the
plaintiff's negligence. He stated that the Elizabeth
had come ft om Miramichi with a cargo of timber, and
seeing the Good Intent, hoisted the signal to speak, and
ascertain the longitude from her. It was very usual for
homeward bound vessel to inquire that of an outward
bound vessel, in order to ascertain if the former's calcula-
tion was correct. The usual course was to chalk the figures
on a board, and exhibit it on the sides of the vessels nearest
to each other. It appeared that no one was on the deck Of
the Good Intent but Quin the helmsman and a boy. The
Captain of the latter was below. The Elizabeth, as
would be proved, hauled to, in order to allow the Good
Intent to come nigh enough. To his surprise, instead
of the Good Intent coming alongside the Elizabeth, she
bore up, and ran across the bows of the latter—got
thereby entangled, swung round, and then the Good
Intent received the damage in question. It would be
proved that the accident was occasioned in that way, and
that the plaintiff might have prevented it. The Learned
Cocunapsetlaitnhenj.caLlleadrnbth,e
mfoalslotewrionfg
twhietnesses
Elizabeth,— stated he
had been 32 years at sea. She was, on the occasion
in question, loaded with timber, from Mirarnicbi. The crew
consisted of eight. Their berths were in the cuddy. When lie
hoisted the signal to speak, the Good Intent did not
answer it; he then hauled down his jib, hauled up the
foresail, and hove the mainsail up : the helm was hard
down. That hid the vessel a•back stationary; she so
continued about half an hour ; he directed a board to he
held up tin the foretopmast back stay on the starboard side,
with "29 West" marked on it; the schooner came on,
and witness expected her to pass close by his stern ; 55
she neared he observed but one man at the helm ; another
man went on deck with a speaking trumpet; the
schooner could then have passed astern, or, by alter-
ing her helm, she might have gone to wind-
ward as witness's vessel was stationary; she however
went across witness's bows. Heard the person with the
speaking trumpet call " Luff," viz., to put the helot
down. His helm had been down for half an hour. When
he came across witness's bow, his anchor stock came
across the plaintiff's main rigging. The witness then
described the damage to have occurred by that accident.
Witness's head gear was damaged. The plaintiff ought
to have afterwards put her helm up to have worn round,
and then to have repaired the damage, instead of which
he hoisted his peak, and so occasioned the loss of his mast.
Witness offered to give him assistance if he wanted anything.
and the plaintiff said " I want every thing ; I don't know'
what I want."

Re-examined—His damage was about 201., but be
made no protest when he arrived at Torquay. The wind
was fair for witness. If witness had altered his course be
would have gone to leeward of the Good Intent about a
mile and a half. While he was lying to he had five sail!
set. The Elizabeth lay like a log on the water. His
bowsprit got in the schooner.
Jacob Hoare, the last witness's mate, gave similar testi-
mony; as did William Northay, the second mate.
Verdict for the plaintiff—Damages 230/.

COURT OF EXCHEQUER.-(THIS DAY.)

(Before Mr. Baron GURNEY and a London Common Jury.)

BERRY V. FLINN.
This action was brought to recover damages for a breach
of contract.
Mr. Sergeant STEPHEN appeared for the plaintiff, so
said his client was a young man in the coal trade, and in
1832, being about to enlarge his business, he took a wharf
from the defendant, at 47, Lower Shadwell, where be
intended to carry on business by Laving craft of his own.
He was to have a frontage to the water, but when he entered
upon the possession, he found the tenant of the next wharf
claimed a right to the use of the whole frontage, an 4 ac-
tually used it, so that, up to the moment the plaintiff bad
not been able to use any craft of his own, and was obliged
to take advantage of the time that the wharf was clear, An
that it cost him much more to carry on his business than
it otherwise would, so that be was obliged to charge more
to his customers. That the frontage was valuable was
proved by the defendant himself actually receiving 181.
a year from the person who enjoyed the privilege of land-
ing at it. He then called
Sarah Russell, plaintiff's mother—Went with him in
January, 1832, to li,ok at the premises in question, when
they saw the defendant. Some barges were before the
wharf, which she noticed, and defendant said, if the wharf
was let, they would be removed, for Mr. Floyd was rather
encroaching. He was then told that the premises were
intended for the coal trade. Hail been frequently on the
premises since her son took them, and the barges were
still nearly two-thirds over the whole frontage.
Charles Berry, a flour-factor, father of the d. fendant,
was present when the agreement between the parties was
drawn up. He also confirmed the testimony of the
former witness as to the understanding about the bargee,
and also that they were still moored there. His son had
not room to land any goods.
Mr. Robert Floyd, coal.merchant, resided next wharf
to that of the plaintiff, and his barges were constantly
moored across defendant's premises ; one of his barges
filled the whole of it, and there was no room for him to
land anything ; he claimed a right to moor his barges
there under an agreement between him and Mr. White.
Had paid 18/. per annum to Mr. Flinn, the defendant, as
rent for that privilege.
Cross-examined by Mr. PLATT-When he made that
agreement with Mr. White, he did not see Mr. Flinn.
When he paid the money, he paid it to Mr. Flinn in
witness's counting-house. Had seen the plaintiff unloading
hit goods, but ould not say from whose" barges. That
was only as he could find space left by witness's barges.
It certainly was not a free use of the wharf.
Charles Berry recalled—Had given his son the greater
p irt of his business for the last two years. He paid hint
6d. a sack for landing. At other places he got it done
for 4d. The reason was that they had access to the crane.
Cross-examined—His son had no craft of his own, nor
any carts.

Re-ex imined—His son had the means of purchosint
craft if he could use it beneficially, and could du so had ha
room to land the goods.
William Kinchin, a lighterman, had been employed by
the plaintiff frequently. Many wharfs charged 6d., but
the greater part only charged 4d. The plaintiff's situation
was a good one, and the charge there should only be 4d.
He had lightered for him 300 sacks of flour in a week,
and if he had craft of his own be would save ld. per sack.
On the coals he would save nearly 7s. upon a barge of
f lateen tons.

John N.cholls, another lighterman in the coil trade..a
On one occasion he took a punt of coals for plaintiff, b t
a barge was lying before his wharf, and be was oblige t to
take them away again.
Another witness proved that the plaintiff lot nee. ly
3001. a-year by the want of the wharf in his coal trad
Mr. PLATT made many objections in point of law. He
contended that the written contract had been varied, and
that there was no evidence to support the other coun's in
the declaration.
His LORDSHIP overruled the objections, but gave the
defendant leave to move the Court upon the points.
Mr. PLATT then addressed the Jury for the defendant,
and after commenting strongly upon the evidence, a afed
that the question was, whether the defendant had any know..
ledge of the agreement existing between Mr. White and Mr.
Floyd. He had acted as agent for Mr. White, and there was
no proof that at the time of his making the agreement in
question he knew anything whatever of the former agree-
ment as to the frontage, which was proved by his signing
it, not as an agent, but in his own name. He called upon
the Jury to look at the time the action was commenced,
the very day after a year's rent became due, which was not
paid to that day.
His LORDSHIP left it to the Jury to say the amount of
damages that should be given for the loss that the pl Mita
had suffered. There was no doubt that he was entit'ed to.
some for the breach of the agreement, which he considered
clearly proved. It had been said for the defendant, that'
he knew nothing of Mr. Floyd's right at the time of
making the one in question, and only knew of it by letter'
the mottling that he c died upon Mr. Floyd for the rent.
If that were so, he could at once have put an end to ,he
action by putting that letter in evidence.
The Jury, after a short consultation, retuned a rot' lik
for the plaintiff, damages 2001.