The Sun.
London, England, 1832-08-21 00:00:00

SUMMER ASSIZES.

NORTHERN CIRCUIT—LANCASTER, Aua. 16,
PASSENGERS' ACT.

BECICETT AND OTHERS V. LENS.

This was an action to recover damages for a
breach of contract. Mr. C. CROMPTON opened the
pleadings, and Mr. POLLOCK stated the case to the
Jury. The plaintiffs were Messrs. Beckett and Co.,
brokers,_ in Liverpool, and the defendant was the
owner of a vessel, called the Sir George Murray,
sailing from that port. In the month of February
last, the plaintiffs employed Messrs. Robinson, who
were also brokers in Liverpool, to hire the vessel
of the defendant to go to America, and an agreement
was entered into and signed by the parties, accord-
ing to the terms of which the plaintiffs were to pay
the sum of 1001. for the between decks of the Sir
George Murray, for passengers, the plaintiffs fitting
up at their own expense the deck and berths, and
providing water, water-casks, fuel, and cooking ap-
paratus; half of the 1001. to be paid on the M inday
following, and the remainder before sailing; arid the
vessel was to sail on the 25th of March, taking with
her on behalf of the plaintiffs as many passengers
as she was entitled to carry from her registered
tonnage, according to the Act of Parliament.--
By the 9th of Geo. IV. c. 21, it was enacted,
" That no vessel sailing from Great Britain with
passeners to his Majesty's possessions in North
America should carry more than in the propoz-
tion of three persons to every four tons, the
master and crew being included in and form-
ing part of the prescribed number; that two
children under fourteen years of age should be
reckoned as one adult, three under seven years
old, and that an infant under twelve months
should be reckoned with the mother as only one."
According to this Act, therefore, the Sir George
Murray registering 327 tons was entitled to carry
245 persons, and the plaintiffs having hired the vessel
to take as many passengers as the law allowed, and
having gone to the expense of fitting her up for that
purpose, had a right to expect that they might put
on board at least 224 persons, which they had done
on the 25th of March, by which time, according to
the terms of the agreement the vessel was to sail.
They fulfilled their part of the contract, and were in
no respect answerable for the delay which tcok
place. Some time in the month of April, the d(-
fendant said that his vessel should not stir on her
voyage until the plaintiffs took out of her 100 pas-
sengers, assigning no other reason than that it was
his pleasure not to sail with so many as the plain-
tiffs had sent aboard.

After some delay, part of the passengers were ac-
cordingly taken out; the vessel proceeded on her
voyage with the remainder, and the plaintiffs were
obliged to pay back the passage money to those who
were left behind, besides the expense to which they
had been put in providing accommodations for the
number of passengers allowed by the law, and which
they were entitled to send according to the agree-
ment between the parties. He did not know what
the line of defence would be, but it was most ridi-
culous to say i►► a commercial country, that the de-
fendant having, by contract, let his vessel for the
purpose of carrying the number of passengers al-
lowed by law, was not bound to provide the neces-
sary accommodation for their luggage and provisions.
He contended, therefore, that as thero had been a
positive contract between the parties, and the de-
fendant had, by breaking that contract, occasioned
considerable loss to the plaintiffs, they were undoubt-
edly entitled to recover compensation at his hands.
Admissions were then put in, that the agreement
had been signed on the part of the defendant; that
the defendant was owner of the Sir George Murray,
Captain Beverley, master; and that the vessel re-
gistered 327 tons.

Different witnesses proved the rest of the plaintiff's
case, and that they had paid to the passengers taken
out of the vessel for their passsage money, lodgings,
and expenses, the sum of 1661. 2s.
Mr. WILLIAMS for the defendant contended, that
on every principle of law and justice his client was
entitled to a verdict, as he had fully and legally
abided by the letter and spirit of his contract.
Even according to the statement given by the wit-
nesses for the plaintiff, and the terms of the agree-
ment itself, it was quite clear that the plaintiffs did
not contract for the whole vessel, but only for that
distinct portion of it called the between decks,
being the space between the lower hold and the
main deck. If the plaintiffs, having taken only the
between decks, had not room for the luggage of the
passengers taken by them, that was their own look-
out; they could not claim any other part of the
vessel than that which they had hired, and the rest
remained free for the owners to make what they
could of it, in the way of freight or otherwise. He
should prove, from the testimony of the surveyors
to Lloyd's, at Liverpool, who had examined the
vessel, that the people were crowded pestilentially
together, and that it was in consequence of their
advice that the captain refused to take more than
130, which was the utmost limit he could take,
consistent with their own health and safety, and
that of the crew. According to the lowest calcula-
tion, these gentlemen had received 2701. for the
130 passengers taken out, and if they had thought
tit to take a greater number of passengers, and to go
to more trouble and expense than they needed to
have done, that was theii own affair, the defendant
ought not to be a loser by it, and was therefore en-
titled to a verdict.
Witnesses were called for the defence, who
proved that the luggage and provisions being stowed
between decks, there was not room with safety for
more than 120 or 130 passengers.
Mr. Baron BOLLAND, in summing up the evi-
dence, remarked, that his attention had now been
called for the first time to this Act of Parliament,
and as a man of humanity lie could not help re-
gretting that such a law had ever passed the legisla-
tuye. So long, however, as it remained on the
statute-hook, they were bound by it. It appeared
to him, that according to the terms of this agree-
ment, the defendant engaged to take as many pas-
sengers as the law allowed, and the allegation that
the only part of the vessel for the stowage of provi-
sions and luggage was the space between decks,
was met by the 2d Antl34 clauses of the Act, the first

of which specified the quantity of provisions an(
water for each passenger; and the other declares
that in no vessel, having her full complement of pat
sengers, should any part of the cargo, provisions,
stores be stowed between decks—the space allottet
to the passengers, but that for every passenger shor
of the full number stores might be stowed then
in the proportion of three cubic feet of space fo
every person so wanting of the full number. Ii
this case it appeared to him that the defendan
was bound to find room in some other part of the
vessel for stowing the principal part of the luggagi
and stores, and that in refusing to take the number
offered, which was below the number allowed bl
the law, he bad broken the contract, and the plaintiff
were therefore in point of law entitled to a verdict
the question as to the amount of damages being fol
the decision of the Jury.
The Jury, after consulting together in Court foi
some time, retired at seven o'clock to consider of
their verdict. They returned in about 20 minute:.
with a verdict for the plaintiffs.—Damages, 40s.