The Sun.
London, England, 1845-12-18 00:00:00

Dr. Addams and Dr. Jenner appeared for, the owners
of the Topaz ; Dr. Curtis and Dr. Bayford for the
owners of the Batavier. _ _

The Trinity Masters (by whom the Court was assisted
on the que:,tion of nautical skill) expressed their opi-
nion there was no blame imputable to the Topaz in her
mode of anchoring ; that the collision occurred through
the bad steering of the Batavier, but that the fault
could not be laid to the charge of her master and crew,
as they had acted, as they were bound to do, under the
control and. direction of the licensed pilot who was en
board.

Dr. ADDAms then submitted that the ordinary con-
struction put upon the Pilotage Act with regird to the
liability of the pilot himself, and the non-liability of the
owners who had been obliged to employ him; did not
apply to this case. Here, though the owners had been
compelled to employ a pilot, they had exercised their
own choice, and had always selected this particular man.
Ile had thus become their agent or servant, and for his
misconduct they were fairly liable.
Dr. LUSIIINGTON thought otherwise. The Act of
Parliament compelled the owners of vessels sailing up
and down the Thames to take a duly licensed pilot o
board, and it would be most unjust to make them re-
sponsible for the conduct of a man acting in their ser-
vice under such circumstances. it did not affect, and
would not remove, that injustice—that the master or
owners had selected one particular man, and always
employed him. Their selection was confined to a cer-
tain class of men, in whose appointment they had no
control, and such a selection could not fix upon them a
liability so opposed to natural justice. The Trinity
Masters had held that the blame of this collision was
attributable to the pilot alone, and that the master and
crew were open to no censure—had been guilty of no
misconduct. Under such circumstances, the Court could
not hold the owners responsible, and must dismiss the
present suit.

INSOLVENT DEBTORS' COURT, Dec. 17.
(Before Mr. Commissioner Law.)
IN THE MATTER OF WILLIAM DAVIES.
Judgment was pronounced in this most extraordinary
case, which was on the last occasion before the Court on
the 11th inst. The facts require to be succinctly nar-
rated in order to understand the judgment given. The
insolvent had figured as an attorney's clerk and potato-
salesman. Subsequently he became a house-agent and
an accountant at Hoxton, where he lately resided. His
debts were under 500/., and he told a marvellous tale
about losing by robbery a sum of 2,0601. His principal
debts consisted of two claims for law costs, one by a
Miss Parkin, for whom be had acted as agent, and against
whom he had brought an action for upwards of 7001.,
which was referred to arbitration, and in the course of
the investigation thereon he swore in February last to
the then possession of 2,0001. An award was made
against him, and the costs followed, which with the costs
of his owe attorney (Mr. W. H. Smith), exceeded 4001.
As an applicant to the Court from these claims,
it was incumbent on him to show that he had
been deprived paying them out of the 2,0001 which he
stated he possessed in February last, and he alleged
that he had been robbed of the money. The two cre-
ditors (Miss Parkin and Mr. Smith) refused to credit
the story, and opposed his application to be discharged.
A lengthened inivestigation took place into the circum-
stances before the Learned Commissioner, who expressed
himself of opinion that the statement was an absolute
and atrocious falsehood. The story told was that the
insolvent, after the award was made against him, went to
Ostend, accomlsanied by a foreigner, whom he had met
at Gravesend, to enter into a partnership at Paris, and
he tosok 2,060'. with him in his portmanteau, which,
after ho got 'into a private house at Ostend, was broken
open, and th e contents abstracted, with the documents
relating to title intended partnership. He presumed the
wine he drN el: was drugged. read no complaint to
the polies, ,ut got 21. from a person in the house, and
came hnnie . He afterwards met the same person in
London, arid, at his instance, went to Antwerp in search
of the gal tg by whom he had been plundered. On the
last occasi, -)n the Court requFsted, that some evidence
should be c btained from a savings bank, in order to form
is to what sum he had actually possessed.
an opinion
It appeared
that he had possessed a number of lease-
hold houses %
t Hoxton, which he had disposed of to a
1,
Air. TAslo