The Sun.
London, England, 1859-07-12 00:00:00

EVENING, JUL Y 12, 1859.

there must be some,enormous difficulty in the way
of adopting. this principle at the Admiralty if we
are to judge.fro'ln the length of time the Board has
had this principle before •it -.without adopting it,
This principle was recommended by a Commis-
sion in 1806; but the recommendation has not been
acted upon to this day. It may be admitted that
it would require for carrying it .out an addition to
the existing official machinery of our Dockyards ;
for, if you fix on four price beforehand, •you must
make -soinebOdy or other responsible for that price
not being exceeded. You may .say that, the Ad-
miralty is responsible, but to Make a man respon-
sible to himself is not•doing much; you Must have
some official personage, who bindshimSeli to a par-
ticular sum as the cost of labour in building a vessel,
and who, it' it exceeds that .. cost, must take the
excess upon himself. That is the sort of personage
you want, as supplementary to the existing service
of the Admiralty for working this principle,: and
applying the merchant sytem* to" the labour in our
Dockyards. A private shipbuilding firm does not,
of course, want any supplementary personage of
this kind, because it takes the office upon
When the sum is fixed that the Ship should ebst; the
firm is its own guarantee that it shall Cost no tifOre;
if it does cost more, the shipbuilder pays it, and
bears the loss. , That is the strongest setairity
against careless expenditure which yell-can have.
.But the Admiralty does not stand in :this ..position
towards the vessels it builds; it may -fix before-
hand on the cost, but if the cost is exceeded, the
Admiralty does mot lose, but the•public:. What
you want, then,' is some personage ,who shall lose
if the co,t of the labour in buildinc, a- ship exceeds
the proper estimated one, who binds himself to a
given surd,-and is responsible, for ;the exectis-it mare
is spent. • You want in fact a -sort of, work con-
tractor—one who does on the single article of ,la-
bour what your shipbuilder does upon the *Hole
field of material and labour together. ,
This application of the " merchant system" is
now being again recommended to the Admiralty,
and the recommendation conies from - high quar-
ters. It is simply, in essence, that of contract or
purchase. The principle of contract is already par-
tially used by the Admiralty ; it contracts for its
steam-engines, it contracts for its anchors; nay, it
-has just contracted for the most extraordinary
piece of work it ever undertook—=the new Steam
Ram. The Admiralty does not, and indeed is hardly
expected, to throw itself wholly upon this prin-
ciple, for the reasons above mentioned. It picks its
firms with which to deal, and picks them, as Mr.
Lindsay observes, much too timidly and exclu-
sively the consequence of which is that it'pays
£6O for an engine which it knight get for £4O, and
only the other day paid £3,500 for 17 anchors—
/. e., nearly £2OO a-piece. This is to make the Ad-
miralty contracts a monopoly: Still it -is an ac-
knowledgment of the principle of contract, and
there can be no reason why this principle should
not be applied to the subject of labour. If•the Ad-
miralty cannot throw' itself wholly upon this prin-
ciple, and buy its ships altogether
.for fear of being
cheated in the material, it may still do so partially,
and apply it on the simple article Of labour.—
Times.

LA TV INTELLIGENCE--July 11.

• COURT OF QUEEN'S BENCH.
(Sittings at Nisi Prius, in London, before Lord
Chief Justice Cockburn and a SpeciAlJary.)
THE QUEEN V. BUSH.

This was an indictment, charging George Bush,
an attorney's clerk, with pe►jury, alleged to have
been committed on the trial of an action of " Smith
v. Wisby" before Mr. Justice Erle, in January last.
The prosecutor, Smith, is a builder, carrying on
business at Bishop Stortford, and it would seem
that in the month of November, 1850, he was ap-
plied to by a person named Wisby, a resident in
the same neighbourhood, and who was about to
take a small farm from a gentleman named Haw-
kins, to go over the farm and see what repairs
were required in the building 3 upon it. Ultimately
Wisby took the farm, Mr. Hawkins agreeing to
allow £5O out of the rent for repairs. Upon that
Wisby gave the order to Smith to execute the
needful repairs, and Smith's bill came to £lO. As
Smith had some difficulty in getting hts money, he
employed a Mr. Ley, an attorney at Bishop Stort:-
fora, to take proceedings for him in the first place
against Mr. Hawkins. Mr. Hawkins, however,
paid the plaintiff the £5O which he undertook to
allow Wisby out of the rent, and denied his further
liability. And now commenced the second action,
that of " Smith v. Wisby," for the balance of the
account, amounting to some £29 or so. At the trial
the contention on the part of the defendant was
that Smith had undertaken to do the whole of the
repairs for the sum of £5O ; that his contract was
with Mr. Hawkins, and not with Wisby ; that
Hawkins had paid him the £5O due, and that it
was quite an afterthought his attempting to charge
Wisby with the balance said to be due.
In support of Wisby's case, the defendant, Bush,
who had been a clerk of Mr. Ley, the attorney ori-
ginally employed by Smith, was called, and he
swore that in November, 1857, he had seen Smith's
books at Smith's house, and that the entries in the
hooks having reference to this transaction made no
mention of Wisby's name at all ; but that Haw-
kins's name stood by itself. That showed that this
attempt to make Wisby share in the outlay on the
repairs was quite an afterthought. On the other
hand, the books being produced showed Wisby's
name coupled with HaWkins's in every entry bear-
ing upon the transaction. If, therefore, Bush's evi-
dence was true, Smith must havo altered the books
subsequently to his determining to sue Wisby. At
the trial, the jury, unable to reconcile the testimony
on both sides, was discharged without coming to a
verdict.

To-day the question which the jury had to deter-
mine was, did Bush knowingly and wittingly swear
to what was untrue, when he declared that at the
time he saw Mr. Smith's books there were no•such
entries in them as when produced at the trial ; Or,
allowing for the lapse of time which had intervened
between his alleged inspection of the books and the
trial of " Smith v. Wisby," was he simply mistaken
as to what he saw.

The jury, without leaving the box, found the
defendant not guilty.
Mr. Hawkins, Q.C., Mr. Sleigh, and Mr. G.
Francis, appeared for the prosecutor; Mr. Sergeant
Parry, Mr. Robinson, and Mr. J. M. Howard, for
the defendant.

SECOND COURT.

Sittings at Nisi Prius.—(Before Mr. Justice Black

burn and Common Juries.)

BAYLE Y. GRAYSON-A SCENE IN COURT.

This was an action to recover £3O, the value of a
bill of exchange accepted by the defendant and en-
dorsed to the plaintiff, The defendant pleaded

fraud.

Mr. Pearce appeared as counsel for the plaintiff,
and Mr. George Francis for the defendant.
From the state of the pleadings the defendant,
who is an attorney, was examined in support of
his plea, but in his cross-examination his replies
were in direct contradiction to an affidavit he had
made.

•Mr. Justice Blackburn asked the learned counsel
for the defendant if he thought the jury would,
after this evidence, give him credence ?
Mr. Francis believed the matter was capable of
explanation.
The jury said they could not believe the defend-
ant.

The witness was at this stage of the proceedings
taken suddenly ill, and had to lean on the bar in
front of the witness box for support, and would
have fallen if a juryman had not jumped out of the
box to his assistance. The officers of the court also
supported him, and he was led into the air.
Mr. Justice Blackburn desired that the defendant
should be detained in custody, and on his recovery
brought before him. His lordship then said to the
defendant's counsel he thought it was his duty to
commit the defendant for perjury, and left the
court for the purpose of consulting with the Lord
Chief Justice, who was of opinion that as there
would not be proper evidence in support of the
charge of perjury, it would be better not to commit
him. When
Mr. Justice Blackburn returned he stated that
the Lord Chief Justice and himself both regretted
that under the circumstances it would be useless
to commit the defendant for perjury.
He was accordingly discharged out of custody,
and a verdict was immediately returned for the
plaintiff, his lordship granting immediate execu-
tion.

NOBLE Y. DAVENPORT.-ALLEGED NEGLIGENCE OF

A SURGEON.
This was an action brought to recover damages
for the alleged negligence of the defendant, who
pleaded not guilty.
Mr. Lush and kr. Hannen were counsel for the
plaintiff; Mr. Tindal Atkinson and Mr. Murphy
represented the defendant.
Mr. Lush, in opening the case, said that the
plaintiff was a blacksmith, carrying on business at
Abridge, in Essex, where the defendant practised
as a surgeon. One Sunday evening in August the
plaintiff's wife and son were riding in a cart when

PI'UOR 41). STAMPEIii,

the horse fell, and the N.7ife,' who is sixty years of
age,,mef with an accidoit to her wrist. • Ou reach-
ing home, the defendant was sent for, anti on exatni-

ning the arm,- he said it was broken about three

- inehles below 'the'elhow, and that something was
also the matter with Vie wrist. . But in point of
fact the conclusion was wrong, for in reality the
wrist.bones had, been dislocated,"and,required
mediate re-setting. The defendent-iinmediately
put the arm between. two "spliiils* anti bandaged
it tightly, and applied some lotion. He
continued. to visit the plaintiff's wife from clay
to day, still keeping the;arni in liariddges, using
bran" poultices, fomentation.q, iotions,&e„but he did
nothing to the wrist. ,The plaintiff's-wife continu-
ing in great pain and getting worse daily the sug-
gested that
.further4iodical ad.vice'should be 'called
in; .Dr.• Thomas was accordingly scut for, and, ac-
cepting.the defendant's account of the nature of the
injuries as the right one, he expressed his oriinicn
that .the plaintiff's wife: w :uld 'soon got better.
Afterwards Dr.- 13owring was called in, but did not
examine het arm., as he tools the defendant's'aecciunt
to be correct. He, however, advised the application
of leeches. ;The plaintiff's, wife continued to get
worse up to-the 30th of October, when the. plaintiff
told the defendant it would be useless for hitn to
cantitine his attendance, -and•again called 'in Dr.
Bowring. The case being :then under . his imtne-
diate care, Dr. &wring .examined the Arm, and on
removing the splints he discovered that the arm
had never been broken, but that. the wrist had been
dislocated, and it was then, from the lapse of time,
impossible to relset it. The wrist was cratnped with
the tight bandages and the want of,setting, the
fingers were so' stiff that one of them cracked in the
attempt to straighten—it, 'and the plaintiff'S wife
continued to get Worse. In December Mr. Turner il
was called-in, and he and Dr. 13owring continued
to attended the woman. Her sufferingswere so in-
tense that they affected the nervous system, and.a •
most. lamentable result had followed, but whether
from the-neglect in the. treatment. or 'not it was!
impossible to say. She was unable to get any sleep •
for 14 days and nights, and when at last sleep came.
on her she awoke a maniac, and was now in a
lunatic asylum with no chance of recovery. • Under
these circumstances the present action was brought.
Evidence was adduced ia support of the above'
facts, and from this it also appeared that-the- de-
fendant had sued the plaintiff in the
.county court
for the amount of his bill for attendance, but had
not succeeded in recovering it.
Some of the witnesses stated that the arm had
not been broken, or the wrist dislocated. • , -
Mr. T. Atkinson, at the conclusion of the plaintiff's
case, submitted there was no evidence to rro• to the
jury; but the objection was overruled, and the learned
counsel then addressed the jury for the defence..
He contended that one of the bones of the arm had
been broken, and had been properly- treated, so
much so that the woman could now work at her •
needle in the asylum. He commented on the fact
that this action had not been brought until after
the lapse of four years, and after the defendant had
sued the plaintiff in the county court-for his bill for
medical attendance. Nothing could he more un-
grateful than the plaintiff's conduct ; but when • • '

" The devil was ill, the devil a monk would be,
The devil got well, the devil a monk was he."
(Laughter.) The learned counsel said that the real
cause of the lunacy of ehe poor woman was that she
had 'caught cold and had taken gastric fever, and
he would call Dr. Campbell, of Brentwood Asylum,
to prove this..

Evidence was then adduced to prove that the arm
had .been broken and had been so treated that it
was as well now as could be expected in a woman
of the age of the patient, and that the lunacy was
in no way attributable to the negligence of the
defendant.

The learned judge summed up, leaving it to the
jury to say whether the defendant had exhibited
proper and reasonable skill and care in his treat-
ment of the plaintiff's wife.
The jury, after a brief consultation, iound a, ver-
diet for the defendant.

COURT OF COMMON PLEAS.
Sittings at Nisi Prius in London.—(Before Lord
Chief Justice Erie and a Special Jury.)
GREEN T. MACNAMARA AND OTHERS.---:OMNIBUS