Star.
London, England, 1818-05-30 00:00:00

1.4 W INTELUGiS=

CON'GISTORY COURT, DOCTORS' COMMONS.
SULLIVAN, AUAISST MARIA IIU4LIVAII,
111.1111IRIVIIIE QLDAKEit, ?MAW CAIAISSWOO
SULLIVAN.
The further hearing, on this important question
of nullity of marriage, on the ground of minority,
fraud, misnomer, rsci non-consent on the part of me
Right Honourable -Sohn Sullivan' father ani natural
guardian of John Augustus Sullivan, the minor,
(who was married by- banns in the parish church of
St. Olave's, Southwark, on the 15th July. 1816, to
Maria Holmes Oldaker, natural daughter of Thomas
Oldaker, huntsman to the Berkeley Hounds), came
on yesterday.
• • •

a time. egnsldeiing the Jew state of the ride; she 4
consequence struck against the bottom.
Joseph }Wield, a caulker, was present at the time
tips Barosa was uied. at the request of the plaiatif4
.and
considered her fit to sail to any part of the work'.
excepting for the state of the keel-seam, which the
defendant, who is a ship-builder, would nut have
touched. Ile considered all the men who had been
called to •pr9ve the case, its excellent workmen,' and
had heard the plaintiff, on the Sunday after the ves-
sel was launched, tell the defendant that he had ex-
pected the leakage ; and the defendant did not deny
that he had been remonstrated with before respecting
the blind seam.
Mr. Serjeant Huttoest shortly addressed the Jury
on the improbability of the defendant's giving orders
nhich must evidently entail upon him additional ex-
pense. He should prove, by witnesses to the trans-
action, that in point of fact the vessel leaked at every
seam, and she was obliged to be uncoppered and un-
caulked, at an expense of upwards of 1104 If then
they were of opinion that the defendant had given
Orders that the keel-seam should not be touched, he
should still be entitled to a verdict, if the repairs had
not been done in a workmanlike manner. The Lear-
ned Serjeant then called
George Levasker, who hadteen a long time in the
employ of the defendant. He found that the vessel
was leaky in forty or fifty places, on the next morn-
ing after she was launched, some of them four or five
feet above the keel. The whole of the vessel was un-
coppered and uncaulked by Mr. Elliot, which would
not, have been necessaryliad the leakage been confined
to the keel-seam ; in fact, no water could penetrate
through that seam into the hold, because it was a false
keel, and if taken entirely off no water could get in,
as the main or real scan: was made close by %slat arc
called stop-waters.
On his cross-examination, he admitted ti at the
main-keel seam was not caulked at all in the first in-
stance; but that when the vessel was taken to Mr.
Elliot's dock-yard, it was judged necessary that it
etould undergo the operation which the plaintiff re-
commended in the first instance.
Mr. Justice PARK instantly stopped the proceed-
ings, observing, that the case was over, and the Jury
were hound to return a verdict for the plaintiff. He
had thought at first, that as this vessel seemed to be
a new speculation- in the art of ship-building, the
plaintiff was not entitled to recover, as he had been
a party to the sending out of a vessel that was not
sea-worthy, at the request of a person ignorant of
what was essential to the salvation of the lives and
property which might be put on board. But it turned
nut at the course of the proceedings, that the defen
dant was a ship-builder himself, and must be pre-
sume(' to know his business ; as the repairs had been
made according to his own express directions, he WAS
alone responsible; the Jury would therefore give the
• plaintiff his full demand.
The jury immediately returned a verdict fur the
plaintiff.—Damages, 321. 10s.