The Sun.
London, England, 1860-02-09 00:00:00

COURT `OF COMMON PLEAS.

(Sittings at Nisi Prins, in Middlesex, before Lord

Chief Justin :e Erie and a Special Jury.)

COMER V. Fl VESSEL RUN ASHORE.

This was an act i ,onto recover an insurance upon the
collier brig Symut, otry, which had been run ashore
near Whitby.
Mr. O'Malley, M .r. D. 0. Keane, and Mr. D.
Brown appeared for the plaintiff; and Mr. Wilde
and Mr. Honyman far the defendant.
The Symmetry left Sunderland for Lowestoft on
Tuesday, the 23d Nov'-ember, 1858, and was in the
neighbourhood of Scai•borough on the 26th. The
plaintiff's case was that' the wind had been favour-
able up to that time, Nit afterwards it chopped
round to the southeast, and blew very hard. The
ship could not proceed on :her voyage, and she was
in consequence put about, and the captain made for
Whitby roads, where he mild safely anchor ; she,
however, missed stays twice, and an attempt to
wear her round failed. At this time it was sud-
denly discovered that she had seven feet of water
in her, and the captain, in order to save the lives of
the crew, ran the vessel on shore. The crew took
to the rigging ; but so rough was the sea, that they
had to remain there for about an hour before they
could be rescued. The vessel could not be got off,
and the only property saved realised £ll2, the
charges being £lO4. The plaintiff had had the vessel
for 20 years, but about 1851 or 1852, £l,OOO was
spent in repairing her after an accident, and some
years later £lOO more was spent on her.
The defendant's case was that the vessel, which
was 138 tons burden, was worth to sell only about
£3 a ton, she being 40 years old. Her value to the
plaintiff was about £6OO. The insurances upon her
amounted to £1,350, in addition to £2OO upon
freight. It was not true that the vessel missed her
stays and would not wear, nor was it true, as sworn
by the plaintiff's witnesses, that the crew were at
the pumps when she was coming up from Whitby.
There was nothing in the weather to make the
position of the crew dangerous; they passed with-
in 100 yards of a small boat with two men, who
could easily have taken the crew ashore in a few
minutes ; and, indeed, there was nothing to pre-
vent the crew from going ashore in their own boat.
Another circumstance deposed to was, that the ves-
sel had no appearance of being waterlogged, and,
in particular, was not very deep in the water.
The Lord Chief Justice, in summing up to the
jury, said that the question raised for their corsi-
deration upon the record was, whether the ship
was intentionally cast away with the sanction of
the plaintiff. His lordship also commented upon
the evidence, and made some severe remarks upon
that given by the plaintiff himself.
The jury retired to consider the matter, and re-
mained absent for nearly an hour.
The foreman, on their return, said we find, with
very great regret, a verdict for the plaintiff, and we
hope that he will receive no benefit from it.
FEB. 8.
(Sittings at Nisi Prins, in Middlesex, before Lord
Chief Justice Erle and a Common Jury.)
HUGHES V. DREW.—ASSAULT.
The plaintiff in this case is a workman in the
employ of Mr. Dickinson,:a coach-builder in Drury-
lane, and the defendant is an oil and colourman in
the same neighbourhood. The action was to re-
cover damages for an assault.
Mr. Cole appeared for the plaintiff, and Mr.
Digby Seymour and Mr. Prendergast for the de-
fendant.
On the 27th of December last the plaintiff and a
fellow-workman, named Skinner, on returning after
their dinner-hour, went under an archway in Wild,
street, for a necessary purpose, and whilst there
they were pelted from the defendant's workshop up
the yard. They thereupon went to the shop to
complain, and White, the defendant's workman,
struck the plaintiff, who is a small man. Skinner
interfered, and a struggle took place, and they fell.
The plaintiff went to pick up his friend Skinner,
whereupon the defendant gave the plaintiff a vio-
lent " upper-cut" upon the eye. The plaintiff was
so hurt that it was necessary to take him to a sur-
geon, and thence home, where he was confined to
his bed for eight days, and was unable to go to his
work for a fortnight. The blow caused the eye to
" strike a light ;" and a similar light often re-ap-
peared still when the plaintiff was doing work
which required a strong exercise of sight.
Mr. Jones, the surgeon, who dressed the wound,
said that there was a "little" swelling under the
eye, a " few" drops of blood on the apron, and a
" little" blood on the cheek. He applied lint and
cold water. He also dressed the defendant's
knuckle. There was no blood upon that. He put
some sticking plaster on it ; the skin was cut.
The foreman under whom plaintiff worked said
the blow was a "terrible" one, and it made him sick
when he looked at it. There was blood all down
his front and on his face. There was a cut laying
open under the eye. When the plaintiff came
to work at the end of a fortnight, he was obliged
for some time to wear a shade over his eye.
The defendant's version was, that the first he
heard of the matter was that the plaintiff and
Skinner noisily demanded an apology for being
pelted ; and no apology being offered, they threat-
ened to " clout" White's head. There was a
squabble, and witness ordered the plaintiff and
Skinner out. The next thing he saw was a struggle
between White and Skinner, and witness expected
himself to be the next victim, though he was not
much afraid. White came to the ground in a sit-
ting position, and while he was there the plaintiff
struck him in the mouth. Witness, seeing the affair
could only be brought to a termination by force,
interfered, and struck at Skinner. He also struck
the plaintiff, and pushed them both out of the place.
Subsequently he saw that he had hurt the plaintiff,
and expressed his sorrow that he had hit him so
hard, and sent him to Mr. Jones, the surgeon.
White also gave corroborative evidence.
The Lord Chief Justice directed the jury that the
question raised upon the record was whether the
defendant had committed the assault in defence of
his servant White; or whether he had used more
violence than was necessary to defend White.

The jury, having considered the matter for up-
wards of an hour, found a 'verdict for the plaintiff
—Damages £2O.

COURT FOR PROBATE CAUSES, FEB. 8.
(Before Sir Cresswell Cresswell.)
ANTHONY V. ANTHONY.
Dr. Spinks applied to the Court on behalf of the
petitioner, Mrs. Anthony, who had entered a peti-
tion for permanent alimony, that under the present
state of things it would not disturb the grant which
had been made pendente lite.
On behalf of the respondent, who is an artist, it
was urged that although his income had formerly
been £333 a-year on an average of three years, it
had since become reduced to a sum below £2OO
a-year.
The Judge Ordinary said it had been stated by
the respondent in his original answer that he had
property by him to the amount of £l,OOO. It was
not said how that property had been got rid of. It
also appeared that Mr. Anthony spoke of under-
going great expense in the production of many
works of art, expense of frames, materials, and so
forth, and yet had not given any information as to
what the result had been. Under all the circum-
stances he (the learned Judge Ordinary) should not
at present disturb the rate of alimony. He could
not allow the present motion to go without remark-
ing what the respondent had thought fit and proper
to state in his answer. Mr. Anthony stated there
that his wife was a governess before their marriage,
and she might now assist in her own maintenance
by taking the situation of a governess again: He
(Sir Cresswell Cresswell) must say that if she
should. ever be engaged in such a capacity, no
thanks whatever would be due to her husband:Mr.
Anthony, from the fact that during the progress
of the suit he had done all in his power, although
unsuccessfully, to destroy his own wife's character.