The Liverpool Standard and General Commercial Advertiser.
Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1839-04-12 00:00:00

RIDGWAY AND ANOTHER V. EWBANK.

This was an action on a charter party.
Mr. CRESSWELL, Mr. ALEXANDER, Mr. WIGHTMAN,
and Mr. ADOLPHUS for the plaintiffs, and Mr. WATSON and
Mr. WARREN for the defendants.

Mr. CRESSWELL stated the case for the plaintiffs. This
was an action brought by Messrs. John Ridgway and Co.,
shipowners in this town, against Messrs. Francis Ewbank
and James Jamieson.

After fhe evidence had been gone through. the jury retired,
and after consulting for an hour and ten minutes, returned a
verdict for the plaintiffs—damages £ll5O.

BENTHAM'V. COOPER.
Verdict for the plaintiff, for £2OO, subject to the case.
HIGGINBOTTAM V. MOSLEY.

This wan an action to recover compensation in damages
for an assault.

Mr. CRESSWELL for the plaintiff, and Mr. ALEXANDER
for the defendant.

Mr. CRESSWELL briefly stated the case. Mr. Joseph
Higginbottom, the plaintiff, was a wine merchant near Man-
chester, and Thomas Mosley, the defendant, a coach proprie-
tor at Macclesfield. In the month of September last the
plaintiff, accompanied by Mr. Lingard, his traveller, was
returning home from Macclesfield. They stopped on the
road at a public-house, kept by one Salt. While there they
saw the defendant drawing up to the house. Mosley was
indebted to the plaintiff in the sum of £5 for wine and spirits.
Lingard accosted the defendant, and asked him whether he
was prepared to settle the account. Mosley answered " no ;"
on which Lingard said it was high time the bill was settled.
The defendant then struck Lingard and Higginbottam, and
called both abusive names.

Mr. ALEXANDER characterised the action as a paltry one,
unfitted to be brought into court, and ,contended that there
had been mutual provocation.
The JUDGE.—Gentlemen of the jury, you will find for the
plaintiff, for such damages as, under all the circumstances,
you think is deserved in this remarkably important case.
Verdict for the plaintiff—damages ls. costs, Is.
The court adjourned at twenty minutes to six.

(Before Mr. Baron PARKE.)
His LORDSHIP took his seat on the bench shortly after
nine o'clock.

HAMILTON AND OTHERS V. LODGE.
Mr. Sergeant ATCHERLY and Mr. CROMPTON appeared
for the plaintiffs; Mr. WIGHTMAN and Mr. WATSON for
the defence. • . .

The plaintiffs in this case were Messrs. Hamilton, Jackson
and Co.' merchants, of this town, and the defendant, Mr.
Adam Lodge, as chairman of the Marine Assurance Com-
pany. The action was brought on a policy of insurance ef-
fected on the ship Princess Elizabeth, on her voyage to Africa
—the policy to become effective from 24 hours after the ar-
rival of the vessel at Africa. The vessel had been lost, and
the loss was alleged to be the damages of the suit. The de-
fendant pleaded that he had paid £4OO into the court, which
was sufficient to cover the extent of the loss.
Mr. Sergeant ATCHERLY said the action was brought by
the plaintiffs, who were respectable merchants in this town,
against Mr. Adam Lodge, who was chairman of the Marine
and Life Assurance Company. The policy bore date 2nd of
October, 1834. The policy effected was £lOOO upon the ship
Princess Elizabeth, captain Hogarth, and £lOOO upon her
cargo—commencing 24 hours after her arrival out. During
her stay in Africa, liberty was given to trade back and for-
ward, &c., and the policy was in force till her arrival in
Liverpool. The assurance was effected at 6 per cent. pre-
mium. The ship had originally been purchased for £l6BO by
the plaintiffs ; and in May, 1833 she was thoroughly overhaul-
ed and repaired. The policy bore date May, 1834, in which
month she left Liverpool on her outward voyage. She arri-
ved in July at Benin, and dropped down to Cameroon, where
she dropped anchor on the 15 of that month. Hefe the cap-
tain and supercargo began to barter, and remained to the end
of the year. As they came down from Cameroon, the vessel
grounded in the river, and sustained some damage ; never-
theless she proceeded on her voyage to Barbadoes. It was
found on this passage that she made a considerable quantity
of water. When she arrived at Barbadoes, it became neces-
sary to have a survey. To effect this, it became necessary to
discharge part of her cargo. She was surveyed accordingly,
and the expense incurred at Barbadoes was seven hundred
and odd pounds. After this she sailed on her voyage to
Liverpool. Soon after this she encountered a severe storm,
in the course of which two men were washed overboard.
They tried to return to Barbadoes, but could not succeed, so
that they were obliged to put into the island of St. Lucia.
They found, after the best opportunities which that island
offered were exhausted, those opportunities being very scan-
ty, and altogether insufficient, that it was not worth the while
of any Prudent man to attempt to repair her. She was there-
fore sold at St. Lucia, and the present action was brought to
recover thb money on the policy. The defendant did not
pretend to dispute that the damage was sustained by the per-

ils and dangers at sea ; there was no such plea offered. He
said, " We have paid into court £4OO, and that is all you are
entitled to." He (the learned Sergeant) understood they
intended to say that she was an old vessel. This was not
material ; she had been thoroughly repaired : the underwri-
ters knew all the circumstances, and the premium paid was
no less than six guineas per cent. She was originally built
for a government packet, and was, of course, of the very best
materials. It was said, he believed, that the vessel was old,
and that something connected with her timbers would pre-
vent them claiming a total loss. The truth was, she could
not be repaired at St. Lucia at all, and it would be for the
jury to say whether they could not recover a total loss on the
ship, and an average loss on the goods.
The examination, under a commission, before Henry Law-
rence, barrister-at-law, of Captain Hogarth (now deceased)
was put in and read.
William Swan Hamilton, brother of the plaintiff, who went
the voyage as supercargo in the vessel, gave testimony simi-
lar to that contained in the record of the above commission.
This testimony was to the effect that she was fully and
thoroughly repaired previous to the voyage, that she grounded
in the Camaroon river, when she had taken in a cargo of palm
oil, red wood, coffee, and ivory in exchange for one of salt,
Manchester goods, guns, &c. ; that she sailed to Barbadoes,
leaked on the passage, was surveyed at Barbadoes, put to sea
for Liverpool, encountered a severe storm, put into St. Lucia,
where, under direction of Lloyd's agent, Mr. Muter, she was
condemned, and sold for about £539. 125., Mr. Muter hav-
ing given orders for the sale. Her cargo was discharged and
sent home in another ship.
Respecting the cargo, Mr. CROMPTON said (in answer to
a question from Mr. WIGRTMAN) they went for an average
loss on the goods.
John Lythgo stated that he was well acquainted with ship-
ping, having been connected amongst ships all his life. He
was once sole manager and part owner of the ship in ques-
tion. In 1833 or 1834 she was opened throughout. Her tim-
bers were found to be perfectly sound. Under the directions
of Mr. Hamilton and the inspection of all the insurance sur-
veyors, she was repaired thoroughly, his orders being to put
her in the best and most perfect condition, as a sea-going
ship, for a voyage to Africa. She was originally built of the
best oak and elm, and he found it all, perfectly sound. He
sold her afterwards to Mr. Hamilton for £l6BO. Witness
produced a piece of sound oak which he had taken out of her.
Thomas Carwin, -a master shipwright, corroborated the
above testimony as to the soundness of the timbers and the
extent of the repairs. . _ _

The bill of lading was put in, specifying the return cargo.
The counsel on both sides, at this stage of the case, agreed
that the loss arising on the average of the cargo should be
settled out of court. If there turned out to be a total loss
upon the ship, that part of the case would be at an end, and
the defendants would have to pay the amount of the policy ;
the average on the cargo then to be settled out of court. If
the loss on the vessel turned out to be a total loss, then the
average on that also, it was agreed, should be settled out of
court.

Mr. liTicryrmAN, after oontending that the evidence was,
considering the case, exceedingly slight, and commenting
thereupon, proceeded to say, that he would prove the vessel
to have been a very old one, and that her loss did not arise
from the dangers of the sea, but from the rotten and bad state
of her timbers.

The evidence of certain carpenters and others, taken at St.
Lucia under commission, was put in and read. The person
who had purchased her, and those who had taken her to
pieces, testified that on opening her timbers they were found
to be in a very bad and rotten condition. Some of the tim-
ber-ends were stated to be entirely rotted through into
" touchwood" at the ends.

Mr. Sergeant ATCHERLEY replied, dwelling upon the ex-
pensive repairs which the vessel had undergone previously to
her departure, and also at the island of St. Lucia, upon the
excellent state of her timbers, as proved in the evidence of
respectable witnesses, who were only contradicted by a few
carpenters, on direct questions from the defendants' agents,
and on the circumstonce of Lloyd's agent, Mr. Muter, not
having been examined under the commission.
His LORDSHIP, after stating to the jury what were obvious
total losses, ( for it was alone the question, whether this was
or was not a loss, that the jury had to decide,) said it was
now held that a loss was total when, by the dangers of the
sea, a vessel was so damaged that she was not worth repair-
ing. The test of this usually was, the consideration whether
the owner would have repaired her if he had not been insured.
The jury, having consulted for a few minutes, expressed a
wish to retire. They left the court at half-past twelve o'clock,
and returned in about ten minutes, and gave a verdict for the
plaintiff.