The Sun.
London, England, 1858-09-01 00:00:00

and the Board of Trade, who proved that he examined the
vessel in the craving Lek, and found that she had broken
her hack abaft the mainmast. She was a very strong ship, I
and, indeed, he had never seen one with so strong a kelson.
She could not have sagged, for a vessel of her construction
would rather have hogged. A long ship would nut have a
greater tenelztney to sag than a short one.
Mr. Edward James, upon the part of the defendants, said
this case was one of very great importance to the port of
Liverpool. They were nutsimply inquiring whether the plain-
tiffs had damage done to their vessel and the guano that was
in it, but their verdict would have a considerable bearing on
the shipping interest of the port as to vessels being allowed
to go into the docks. Because, if the harbour-masters were
to be told that there was danger in docking a ship whet)
there were only 14 inches of water under the keel, it might
be that they would not undertake to dock a vessel that
entered when the depth of water between the dock sill and
the ship's keel was only six or eight inches. The question
was whether the vessel should lie in the river until some
state of the tide which should render it undoubtedly and
perfectly secure to enter the dock. Now, the point lay in a
very narrow compass, and it was a very clear and simple
question indeed—was there or was there not upon the 16th of
April, 1855, when the vessel was attempted to be docked, a
bank of mud upon which that vessel was propelled'? If
there were no such bank there, then unquestionably the de-
fendants were not responsible. The question was whether,
on the 16,h of April, 1855, a mud bank of such a nature as
to be likely to touch the vessel, and when she was likely to
ground, was there, and that with the knowledge of the dock
trustees. lie would not dispute there was mud there,
and that the vessel settled down in the mud, because when
the vessel struck on the sill her head and stem went down,
and her head, of course, settled in the mud at the
bottom of the dock, and upon the point of the marks of
mud upen her bow when she entered the graving dock he
and his learned friend agreed. On the night in question
they were agreed as to what was the height of the tide upon
the dock sill. The vessel, which had been lying in the
river, was brought round to the south entrance, with her
head to the tide, and as she went round by the direction of
Mr. Corley, the dock-master, she rested upon the pier for
some little time. He asked them to consider that, and
for this reason, because it showed that the tide was flowing,
and the vessel continued there for some ten minutes. They
then got her round, and the steam-tug got her under way,
towed her till she got to le entrance, and then left her.
The Sierra Nevada had way upon her, and she went on right
through the centre of the lock until several d, ck-gatemen
and three of the dock-masters beard a grating sound.
That sound was caused by the vessel, according to the
evidence for the defence, striking or grating upon the dock
sill, which was of stone. With that grating noise she came
to a stand ; there was no longer way upon her, and
the dock-master then considered what was the matter.
Ropes were got out from the port and starboard quarters,
and the vessel got right into the centre of the lock. There
was likewise a spring rope out, and as the men aboardship
were heaving away upon 'her quarter the port rope broke.
If at that time the vessel had been stuck in the mud in the
waydescribed by the plaintiff's' witnesses, of course she wool d
have hung by the bow. If the bow held, it was obvious the ves-
sel could not have stuck there, but must have grounded on the
sill. When the rope broke, the vessel clewed round with her
head to the eastward, according to Corley, the dock-master,
several of the dock-gatemen, and two other dock-masters of
adjoining docks, who, when they found that the disaster
had occurred, went up and saw the bow of the vessel round
to the eastward. Witnesses were in court who had seen
the bow move four times after the vessel struck, and that
was ample proof that the bow was not stuck in the mud. The
movement of the bow was three and a half feet on either
side, describing an arc of seven feet, and it was plain, there-
fore, that unless the ship rested with her centre on the sill
she must have been got out of the lock by towing her astern.
A large body of witnesses were called in support of the de-
fendants' case, including the dock-masters and gatemen at-
tached to the docks, and various shipbuilders, who insisted
that the vessel had " sagged" on entering the docks in con-
sequence of her heavy cargo midships. It was also proved
that the mud which had been deposed to was on the south
or west side of the dock, and not in the entrance to the
deck.
Mr. Baron Martin, having carefully summed up the
whole case, reading over the whole of the evidence,
The jury retired, and, after an absence of an hour, re-
turned the following verdict :—" We find the evidence very
conflicting and unsatisfactory on both sides, but, as the
proof of sagging' has failed, we find for the plaintiffs."
The trial commenced on Saturday afternoon and termi-
nated this morning.