The Sun.
London, England, 1851-02-18 00:00:00

ttrlT Xtittion

SUN OFFICE, Seven o'clock.

QUEEN'S BENCH..—(THIS DAY.)
(Sittings at Nisi Prins, at Guildhall, before the LORD
CHIEF JUSTICE and a Special Jury.)

Oir lING V. BROOKS AND ANOTHER:
This action was brought to recover the value of a
schooner which was totally lost at sea, and, as was
alleged, through the negligence of the defendants.

Sir Frederick Thesiger, Mr. Sergeant Shee, and Mr.
Phipson conducted the plaintiff's case, and Mr. Watson
and Mr. Unthank appeared for the defendants.
It appeared from the evidence that a schooner -limed
the Harriet Emma, belonging to the plaintiff, left Sun-
derland on the 29th of May, 1850, with a cargo of coal
for Wisbeach. She was brought to anchor next morn-
ing, and remained at anchor until noon, when she again
started on her journey. The weather at this time was
rather foggy, and when in full sail near Seaham the
crew saw another vessel coming fast upon them. They
put the helm about, but before the lapse of many minutes
the vesselcatne in violent collision with the Harriet Emma,
striking her with her stern on the larboard bow. The
Harriet Emma went down, and all the crew were
lost, with the exception of two seamen, Mason and
Stollibrass, who escaped to shore in the long boat. The
other vessel, including the whole crew, was totally lost.
The plaintiff now attributed the loss of his schooner to
the negligence of the crew on board this vessel which he
alleged to be the Kate, of Newcastle, an iron schooner
trading between that port and Rotten, and belonging to
the defendants. In order to identify the vessel, evidence
was produced on the part of the plaintiff, froth which it
appeared that a fisherman belong', to Seaham; while
fishing about seven or sigh Wire IM the
gist of-Ma , ,*. . .1"` .7-'-f`r••
; -110thanie

• beef cask cask and a steep-tub, and other trticles, branded
with the name Kate, and also a boat containing
the dead body of a sailor, with the name Kate of New-
castle painted on the stern outside, and Nicol Harvey
in the inside, that being tho name of the captain who
commanded the Kate.

Mason and Stollibrass, who were .called, said the
moment the Kate was seen the helm was put about, and
that if the crew of the Kate had ported her helm the col-
lision would have been avoided. On these grounds the
plaintiff contended he was entitled to recover from the
defendants the value of the Harriet Emma, as well as the
cargo on board, both having been wholly lost.
Mr. WATSON, on the part of the defendants, said their
vessel,lthe Kate, left the Tyne at six o'clock in the morn-
ing on the 30th May, and had never been heard of since,
except as regarded the boat and other articles which were
picked up by the fishermen at Seaham. Therefore, although
he was disposed to admit that the circumstances seemed
to point to the Kate as the vessel which came in colli-
sion with the plaintiff 'a schooner, he contended, even if
it were so, that the accident was inevitable, and arose
out of the dense fog which prevailed at the time, and
that no blame attached to the crew, who, unfortunately,
all went to the bottom, not a single one on board being
saved whom he could call before the jury to give his
own account of the fatal occurrence.
Several mariners were called ,who were at sea on the
30th of May in the near vicinity of the spot where the
two vessels were lost, and they all agreed in their state-
ment as to the existence of a dense fog.
The Learned JUDGE having summed' np,
The jury returned a verdict for the defendants.