The Liverpool Standard and General Commercial Advertiser.
Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1841-04-13 00:00:00

after, she had vialted her brother-in-law, and he had permit-
ted her to be on terms of intimacy with his wife ; but after
the lapse of three or four months, a different state of things
arose—the intimacy ceased—the husband got out of employ-

and all the sharebrokera acted in accordance with them.
Mr. ALEXANDER requested the learned judge to take a
note of the objections. He then addressed the jury for the
defendant, contending that the sale, after the defendant had
refused to take the shares, should have been. earlier. Had
that been so, the-,loss would not have been more than £54
on one day, or £7O on a day still later.
The JUDGE then summed up, and the jury found for the
plaintiff, damages £l6l Is.
OF A WRECK

merit, and she herself was the person who had maintatneu
him. She appeared before the court as one who had unfortu-
nately been then coerced into the second marriage by the
man who, before all others, was bound to interpose between
her and infamy ; for she, having tied herself to him, and
having cherished for him an affection, with the strength of a
woman's nature, preferred supporting him by prostitution to WESTHEAD AND ANOTHER.
suffering him to be in want. And now, he would ask, what . aiessrs. Brown and Ilaskayue ship-Chandlers, of this
constituted bigamy an offence in the eye of the law ? The town, brought this action.against 111 r. Peter W'esthead, pub-
law regarded two classes of individuals in a case of the kind. Bean, of Waterloo, and another person, for having converted
It regarded the original husband on whom the injury was to their own use some timber, the part of a wrecked vessel,
committed, and it also regarded the entrapped husband ; but called the St. Andrew, which they had purchased. The case
if he should satisfy them, in reasoning on the evidence, that was perfectly uninteresting. It ended in a verdict for the
no injury had been inflicted on either party, and that plaintiffs, damages £4O, with leave to Mr. Crompton, for
Smith had acted in a manner which showed him to be the the defendants, to move for a nousuit.
willing dupe of the woman, then would they agree in opi- FREIGHT AND DENIIIRRAGE.—N,--
nion that it did not affect him to any material extent. He
would shortly dismiss the case of the husband ; for the way
in which he had intermingled himself with the transaction
showed plainly that he had been animated throughout by the
base motive of providing himself with the means of subsist-
ence by her prostitution. The jury found that she had gone
to the house where he lodged, after her marriage with
Smith, with provisions to maintain him during the week, so
that, in pbint of fact, disgraceful as it might appear, she was
a woman, who, by her prostitution, was maintaining her
husband. If that were so, could it be said that he sustained
any injury. If,,instead of being on that side of the court,
the jury were on the other, was there any one of them that
would give one • halfpenny domages to a husband for injury
done to his wife, with such facts before them as appeared
throughout the present cause? Aud how stood those facts ?
It appeared that Mr. Smith met a person walking in a pub-
lic garden in Liverpool, and that he sat on a public chair
along side of her. He might be called a fortune-hunter, for
he was going about seeking whom he might devour. Having
found her in the first instance in a meretricious dress, he sub-
sequently drank with her in a public-house, and asked her
what was the amount of her property. He learned that
it was £5B a year, and that she had repudiated Mr- Lee.
He then rushed forth to borrow £5 to buy a licence. He
walked five times to the church to get married to her, and
on the fourth or fifth occasion he smelled a rat, because she
happened not to be habited in a suitable bridal dress! (Con-
tinued laughter). At length lie Married her ; and it ever
there was a man who had swallowed the hook with the bait
on it, Mr. Joseph Smith was that indiVidual. (Laughter).
In fact everything in his conduct had been ineffably disgust-
ing. Finally, he never went before the Marriage to see
whether the pretended inheritance had been secured to her ;
but, after it, when he found that it was all moonshine he had
been marrying instead of £B5 a-year, off he went and had
the woman arrested. -
Mr. WiLiciNs next addressed the jury on the part of the
male prisoner. He commenced by saying that the case, so
far as Mr. Smith appeared in it, exhibited a pretty specimen
of Cmlebs in search of a wife. It appeared that he went out;
met an elderly and a young lady ; entered into conversation
with them ; and without any more ado, made up his mind,
as it would seem, that the younger was to be the future Mrs.
Smith. Then he went on to talk about her subsequent agi-
tation, sufficient, as Mr. Murphy observed. to remind one
of Mr. O'Connell's constant agitations ; his own anxiety
about her inheritance which resembled, to carry out Mr.
Murphy's idea still further, to Mr. O'Connell's anxiety
about the rint, and he concluded by stating that when he
found her robbed of her virgin purity, his languishments and
sufferings withered, and blotted out his affections. (Great
laughter). The jury had perceived from the case that the
wants of Mr. and Mrs. Daniels had driven the male pri-
soner to resort to the basest modes of procuring subsist-
ence • that, from some cause or other, he had fallen from the
standing in life he once held ; that he had lost all respect for
himself; that he had not philosophy nor christianity enough
to bear up against the tide of misfortune which had set in
against him ; and that he gave himself up as a lost man. He
(Mr. Wilkins) was not there to urge anything in the shape
of a palliative for that of which he believed Daniels to have
been guilty ; but, at the same time, he thought him not
guilty of the charge alleged against him in the indictment.
He did not believe that he had adopted any expedient to ac-
complish this second marriage ; and the jury would bear in
mind that the indictment charged him with having coun-
selled, incited, and promoted it. He did believe that he had
been living on the wages of her shame ; but he could not
find any evidence which would justify any man in corning to
the conclusion, that he knew the marriage was about to take
place, or that it had had his. sanction. Mr. Wilkins then
proceeded to say that the male prisoner had denied to Smith
that his name was Edmundson—that he went to the church
to prevent the marriage from being solemnised—that he had
written a note to his wife, telling her to consider what she
was about, that Smith wa§ mad—and that he had used va-
rious expedients to prevent her from having anything to do

BROWN AND A.NOTII ER V

PURCHA

Si AND OTHER!

BROWNING

This was an action brought to recover £52 Gs. from the de-
fendant for freight and demurrage.
Mr. Cresswell and Mr. Crompton were for the plaintiffs;
Mr. Murphy for the defendant.
It appeared that the plaintiffs are the owners of a sloop,
'called the Raven, and the defendant is an Irish merchant.
The defendant chartered the Raven to convey a cargo ofcoals
from Liverpool to Dundalk, in December, 1839, at 7s. per
ton, the vessel to be discharged in five days, and demurrage
at the rate of 355. a day if she was detained. When the ves-
sel arrived at Dundalk, Martin, the consignee, refused to
discharge the coals, and the vessel was kept by him thirteen
days on demurrage. The freight and demurrage amounted
to £55 6s. £3 had been paid on account, and the action was
brought to recover £52 6s. the balat.ce.
Mr. Mu upny, for the defendant, go itended, that the de-
murrage had been caused by the plaintiffs own neglect.
lie called no witness. The jury tound a verdict for the
plaintiffs, damages £52 6s.
The Court adjourned at six o'clock.

CROWN COURT,

.-SATURDAY

„..„
The whole of the criminal business having been disposed of,
Mr. Justice Maule sat for the trial of civil cases. The first
called was that of

WALMSLEY V. WILLIAMS

This was an undefended action for debt. Verdict for the
plaintiff for the sum claimed. £39 9s. 9d.

RIGBY V. JONES

This also was an uifdelended action brought to recover the
sum of 4:25 17s. '3d. for goods sold and delivered.—Verdict
for the plaintiff for the amount claimed.

BOLD V. MARSHALL

Mr. KNOWLES (with whom was Mr

Murphy) stated the

•
case. This was a breach of contract for fort] tons hoop iron
and a smaller quantity of another description, to be deli-
vered by defendant to plaintiff. The article rose in price and
he did not deliver the iron, and the loss to the plaintiff was,
consequently, considerable. The price of the iron to be
supplied was £9 10s. per ton. The defendant afterwards..of-
fered to pay the plaintiff the sum of £6O in consequence of
its non-delivery. The amount was not, however, -paid,
though the offer was agreed. to ; and the action was brought
to recover that sum. The iron, as specified by letter, was to
be delivered in three weeks. The rise in the interim, in the
price of the iron hoops, was front fifteen to twenty shillings a
ton. The case having been proved, the jury returned- a ver-
dict for the plaintiff, damages £6O, costs 40s.

ATTWOOD AND OTHERS V. MAW

This was an action to recover the amount of a promissory
note, or bill, endorsed by the defendants, which they refused
to meet, on the plea, that it was not duly endorsed. Proof
was given of the liability of the defendants, and the jury gave
a verdict for the plaintiffs for the amount of the bill, £1,700,
and £7O of interest thereon : in all, £1,7;0.

No. 9; Dearden v. Burgess and another, was sruck off the
list 'as being settled.

DERBYSHIRE V. LEVER

The plaintiff in this case is the widow of Mr. John Derby-
shire, cowkeeper, of Toxteth-park, deceased, and the defen-
dant, Mr. John Lever, a tavern-keeper. residing in Lodge-
lane. The plaintiff claimed a sum of about £lOO, which it
was alleged, she had lent the defendant, at various times,
from March to June, 1840. The defendant, it was stated,
had paid his addresses to the widow, and had persuaded her
to break up her business as a cowkeeper, and it was after the
sale of the cows that she bad lent him the money.
Several witnesses were called, who proved, that the plain-
tiff and defendant had been on terms of close intimacy.; that
he had admitted once, when tipsy, that he owed the plaintiff
£BO ; that his conduct had suddenly changed towards her,
which was attributed, by the witnesses, to her having no
more money to lend ; and that he had subsequently married.
Mr. CROMPTON, for the defence, denied that more than
£lO had been owing, and stated, that even that had been
4aid. The proceedings, he said, rose out of the angry feel-
ings of the plaintiff on finding that the defendant had mar-
ried another woman.
The jury returned a verdict for the plaintiff, damages CO,
with interest from the period at which a notice had been
served by the attorney. This was about XI : total

with him.
His LORDSHIP then charged the jury. He thought they
could only come to one conclusion with regard to the female
prisoner, namely, that she had been regularly married to both
Daniels and Smith. With respect to the male prisoner, it
was very material, as bad been remarked by his counsel, to
consider whether or not he had counselled, incited, and pro-
moted the second marriage. His lordship theh proceeded
to read the letters and some portions of the evidence, and
concluded a lengthened charge at five o'clock.
The jury, without leaving the box, convicted the female
prisoner, and acquitted the male,, remarking that they wished
to express the strongest feeling of diSgust at his conduct.
His LORDSHIP then passed sentence on the female pri-
soner in the following terms. He said—Elizabeth Daniels,
you have been convicted, on the. very clearest evidence; of
bigamy, an offence which interferes with the security of the
institution of marriage, which lies at the foun.!ation of all
civil society, and in this country subjects the party guilty of
it to transportation or imprisonment, according to the cir-
cumstances of the case. Yours is a peculiar case. It is
stripped of some circumstances which are an aggravation of
the crime. You seem not to have done any serious injury
to your first husband, because, although I think he may not
have consented to your second marriage, yet he consented to
what must be quite as.painful to any husband who possessed
proper feelings ;—I mean, to your intercourse with other
persons; and, in all probability, he might have written the
letters. Therefore I do not think you inflicted any serious
injury on his feelings ; and with respect to Joseph Smith—
a strange sort of person, easily deceived by the arts you so
successfully applied—l do not know that any great suffering
has been inflicted on him either. Still a violation of the. sa-
cred ordinances of the church, and a trifling with the rite of
matrimony itself, is not to be permitted ; but, at the same
time, taking all the circumstances into consideration, I am
not disposed to sentence you to anything more than the
lightest punishment, and that is to six calendar months' im-
prisonment.
Upon the application of Mr. WILKINS, the male prisoner
was then discharged. •
The trial excited very considerable interest. A number of
respectable ladies were in court during its continuance. The
male prisoner was quiet and reserved, but the female exhibited
a levity of deportment not at all in keeping with the serious
nature of the crime charged against her. When first put
forward she held her handkerchief to her face. and shed
some tears, but she shortly after. became cheerful ; laughed
heartily ; exchanged nods of recognition with her acquain-
tances in court ; amused herself by writing with a pencil on
the boards of the bar; and laughed heartily on receiving her
sentence. She was very respectably attired in a handsome
cloak, bonnet; lace cap and, satin ribbons--appeared about
twenty-four years of age, and had a remarkably handsome
and intelligent cast of countenance,
.CHARGE OF RAPE.
Thomas Twist-and Thomas Penman, two lads about 18
years old, stood:indicted for having feloniously ravished and
carnally knoWn Margaret Prescott, a girl of 16 years of age.
The facts of the case appeared to be,as follows :—The pro-
secutrix was •,a, looker-on at Ackerley's colliery, in this
county. The ,Prisoners were drawers at the same place. On
Saturday, the 10th of last October, the prosecutrix was about
to ascend the shift, but having forgot a spade after her, she
returned for the purpose of fetching it, and took a candle in
her hand. The prisoner Twist then came up to her, took
hold of het by the arm, and used some term of endearment,
such as "my love." She repulsed him, and attempted to
go back, but the prisoners put out their candles and nearly
involved the place in darkness. Penman then came up,
knoCked the candle out of her hand, laid hold of her by the
breast, and knocked her down. The prosecutrix having had
a pair of trousers on (trousers being usually worn by colliery
girls), they then proceeded to unbutton them; wherrone, she
could not say which, effected his purpose. She screamed
violently. When she got to the top of the shaft she imme-
diately informed' thebanksinan that she had been ill-treated,
and then went to her father and informed him also of all the

-ANDNRTON

Mr. ATHERTON, in the absence of Mr. Cresswell, stated the case
to the jury. He commenced by saying, that he deeply regretted
the absence of his truly eloquent friend, Mr. Cresswell, who had
been engaged in this case, but could not attend. He was therefore
thrown upon facts, and he should state them briefly. The plaintiff
kept a public house, at Colne, called the Hole in the Wall. In Fe-
bruary. 18A6, he married a Miss Dyson, the daughter of a respecta-
ble innkeeper. Some time afterwards he left the inn at Cothe, and
entered busiueo°• - He lived most happily with his

as a spinne

circumstances.
Mr. Wilkins defended the prisoner Twist, and Dr. Brown
the prisoner Penman.
The prosecutrix and several witnesses were examined to
prove the case ; after which the jury,. having considered their
verdict. for about twenty minutes, found hoth the prisoners
not guilty of rape, but Guilty of an assault.
His LORDSHIP having been informed that Penman had
been in gaol for the last six months, and Twist for the last
seventeen weeks, sentenced the formen to one and the latter
to two calendar months' imprisonment ; and directed them
to enter into recognisances of .±.40 each for their good be-
haviour for the next two years..
The court adjourned at eight o'clock.

NISI PRIUS.—SATURDAY.
(Continued from the Supplement)

PURCHASE ON RAILWAY SHARES.-STEWART V. CAUTI

The declaration in this case stated, that the plaintiff was
Mr. John Duncan Stewart, and the defendant Mr. Henry
John Cauty ; and the action was brought to recover the sum
of £l6l ls., being the amount of loss which had resulted to
the plaintiff from the sale of twenty half-shares in the Great
Western Railway, which the defendant had purchased from
him, but afterwards refused to receive. - _ _

Mr. Cresswell and Mr. Henderson appeared for the plain-
tiff; and Mr. Alexander for the defendant.
Mr. CRERSWELL, in- stating the case, said, the plaintiff
was a merchant in Liverpool, and the defendant either an
apothecary or a medical man. On the 26th August last, the
defendant employed Messrs. Radford and Co.,'sharehrokers,
to purchase for him twenty half-shares in the Great Western
Railway, at the clear price of £52 per share. Messrs. Rad-
ford and Co. purchased the shares from Messrs. H. Davies
and Co., share-brokers, at £52 per share, being £4O paid
and £l2 premium, to which the commission had to be added.
It was agreed, that the commission should be 2s. Gd. per
share. Sharebrokers in Liverpool had established for them-
selves certain well-known rules, the first of which was, that
the buyer should give the name of the transferer within three
days after sale ; and, if the buyer's broker did not give the
name to the selling broker in that time, the name of the
buyer was to be put in. The vendor was also allowed seven
days after the receipt of the name of the transferer to com-
plete thii transfer. Mr. Cauty, after the sale, was asked for
the name of the tranferer, and he replied, that he was not
prepared to give it. Messrs. Radford pressed him for the
name, and, at the same time, he was informed, that, unless
it was given, his own, as the selling broker, would be put in.
At length Messrs. Radford put in his name, not wishing to
make themselves liable. The defendant afterwards gave
to his brokers the name of Mr. John Whittle, of
Gloucester, gentleman, as the transferer, and, on agree-
ment, his name was substituted for the defendant's.
Mr. Stewart was the holder of these twenty shares, but
had not received the transfer from the person who had
sold to him, and he' had to communicate with that person
Ito enable him to Make the transfer' to Mr. Little. In two
days afterwards Mr. Cauty went to Messrs. Radfords', and
asked for the transfer. He was told that the time for trans-
fer hail not'yet come on, when he said, " Oh, you have press-
ed me for a name, and now I will press you." Mr. Radford
told him it was of no use to do so, as the rules gave the sell-
ing party seven days : be advised Mr. Cauty not to press for
the transfer, as the seller might be offended, and take the
whole seven days. The transfer was got ready on the fifth
day, instead of the seventh. In the meantime shares had
been falling, and Mr. Cauty then said he would not have the
shares. A tender of transfer was formally made, although it
was unnecessary, and the defendant refused to accept it. On
this the, shares were resold, after the usual notice, and the
loss was £l6O. The present action was brought to recover
that amount.
The learned counsel then called evidence in proof of this
statement., In cross-examination Mr. Thomas Radford ad-
mitted that the defendant stipulated, in making the purchase,
that the contract should be completed immediately, and that
he had asked for the transfer several times.
Mr. CRESSWELL thin put in the rules of the Liverpool
Sharebrokers' Association.
Mr. ALEXANDER submitted that the rules of the associa-
tion could not be evidence, as neither Mr. Davies, the plain-
tiff,nor the defendant, were members of it. .

The Learned JUDGE was of opinion the rules were evi-
dence, as the defendaat's attention had been called to them,
•

wife; but the new conceit; not fully answering his expectations,
he wished to resume his former calling. He eventually found an
inn to his mind, the Thorn, in Burnley. and entered upon it in 1838.
They had, at this time, only one child, since dead ; and there was
no complaint against the defendant up to their going to that inn.
The plaintiff's pi ospects were then unclouded, and he little dreamed
that his happiness was so soon to be blighted. The defendant was
a Mr. Chaffer, who carried on a thriving business, as a cabinet-
maker and upholsterer, in the same town, and who had, moreover,
accumulated considerable property. He was then a widower, but
had since married his present wife. From the time the plaintiff
commenced business in Burnley, the defendant became a daily
visitor at the house. He made acqnaintanee with Mrs. Anderton,
and paid her such marked attentions as caused very considerable
annoyance to plaintiff, who, from his anguish of mind, fell into
habits of intemperance, which were unhappily continued while he
remained in Burnley. While he lived at Colne he was a temperate.
industrious, and sober man ; but a change took place : lie became
intemperate, quarrels ensued between him and his wife, and his
happiness was destroyed. His friends apprehended that his habits,
arising from the feelings that preyed upon his mind, would soon be
the means of involving him in pecuniary ruin. He had borrowed
a sum of money front a relation, a lieutenant, lie believed. in the

Life Guards. That individual at length became alarmed for his
money, and the plaintiff consented to make an assignment. The
house in Burnley was then taken in the name of Mi-s_Dyso..- )""
wife's sister, and, after he had made the assignmen't, he was turned
out of the inn by his wife's order. and was not again allowed to
enter it. He went to Manchester, to a friend there, a Mr. EarnshaW,
in whose employ he now was, and who would state that his con-
duct, subsequent to his ejection, had been that of a remarkably
steady, attentive, and sober man. After the assignment was made.
too, the visits of the defendant were more frequent, and there was
less of disguise in his attentions to Mrs: Anderton. He, in fact,
became more and more reckless in his conduct, and used to sit up
with her when all other parties :had retired. The evidence would,
he trusted, satisfy them that intimacies took place between them
of a highly disgraceful nature to both. The learned counsel then
detailed several circumstances shewing the improper conduct of
the plaintiff's wife, and conclnded by an eloquent appeal to the
jury to consider the grave nature of the injury sustained, and to
award an adequate compensation to. the
Many, witnesses were then called, but the evidence is unfit for

publication.
Mr. ALEXANDER addressed the jury for the defence.
The learned JUDGE summed up perspicuously, explaining his
view on the principal evidence adduced.
The jury retired for about twenty minutes, and, on their return,
gave a verdict for the plaintiff, damages £lOO.
The court rose at a quarter before six o'clock.

NISI PRIUS COURT—MONDAY.
STEEL V. MONDEL.
This was a special jury case, and the following gentlemen
were empanelled to try it :—Messrs. James Machell, Sidney
Sherlock, Thomas Bold, Richard Moon, William Dentith,
Richard Sbal!cross, John Billing, Samuel Martin, William
Snell, Ralph Brocklebank, James Stuart, and Samuel
Clough. Mr. Cressweli and Mr. Martin were counsel for
the plaintiff, but in consequence of the latter gentleman be-
ing engaged in the other court, Mr. C. was for some time
time without a junior. Mr. Dundas and Mr. Gleaseby for
the defendant.
Mr. CRESSWELL said the declaration stated that the de-
fendant was indebted to the plaintiff in the sum of £4,000
for work done, for materials found, for goods sold and deli-
vered, and on an account stated. The defendant pleaded
that except as to £2 4s. M. he was not indebted, and that
as related to that sum he had paid it into court. There were
other pleadings ::.nd replications thereto. The learned coun-
sel then proceeded to say that all these would come to
short question in point of fact; and but for the preparations
on the other side, and an intimation that the court would be
occupied the whole day with this case, he should have looked
on it as an undefended one. Nor could he find out on what
ground the defendant' came there to resist the claim made
upon him. The action arose out of a contract for building
a ship. In 1838, the defendant contracted with Mr. Steel
to build a ship, which was to be finished in a certain mode,
for £l3 a-ton. During the building the defendant was at
the yard frequently, and he also appointed a Captain Arm-
strong to act as superintendent of the work. He even went
further, and appointed Mr. Bailey, agent of Lloyd's, to sur-
vey the ship from time to time ; and in the event of any dis-
pute between the builder and contractor, Mr. Bailey was to
determine between them. The vessel was finished in May,
1839, and handed over to defendant. At that time there
had been paid by him £3,521 ss. 6d. On measuring the
vessel she was found to be 277 tons, old measurement, ac-
cording to which she was to be built, and that, at £l3 a-ton,
would produce about £3,668. There remained due, there-
fore, £B6. She had then to be rigged, and in the course of
it ►the defendant required certain extra work to be done.
The direction was complied with, and Mr. Mondel paid the
bill for wages, but refused to pay the bill for materials,
amounting to £l4O. Captain Sproule was appointed to .the
command of the vessel, and in taking her into the graving
dock, managed to give her bowsprit a pretty severe blow
against the pier. In JulyvlB39, she sailed from this port for
Sydney, with a heavy cargo of flint glass, and on arriving
there the captain gave her a bump against the ground. She
then went round Cape Horn to Valparaiso, afterwards re-
turned to Sydney, took on board a heavy cargo of copper
ore, and returned to London, having made a voyage of
about seventeen months. At the end of that period, some
persons in London were employed to examine the vessel,
and they found out many faults. The defendant, therefore,
when called on to pay the balance of £226, said, " Oh, no,
I have paid you already more than enough." Mr. Creswell
stated that a counter action bad been brought by Mr. Mon-
del against Mr. Steel for alleged badness of work.
Witnesses were called to substantiate this statement, and
the contract was put in. At the conclusion, the document
set forth that the scantlings, fastenings, planks, &c, were to
be such as in Lloyds' book, were laid down for a twelve years'
ship. All the witnesses engaged in the construction of the
ship, (which was called the Maia) stated that she had in all
respects been built according to the directions and under the
superintendence of the defendant and Capt. Armstrong ; and
that no fault whatever had been found with her when she
was launched. Mr. Bailey, surveyor to Lloyds', in London,
said that he had been selected by both defendant and plaintiff
to decide all disputes that might arise between them, but he
had never been called on to decide any dispute. When he in-
spected the Maia here, be thought she was entitled to be
placed in the A 1 at Lloyds' for twelve years. He had since,
however, seen the vessel in London, and had found that the
bilge bolts had not been put in according to his directions.
She was not, therefore, entitled to be placed in the class A 1
for twelve years. He could not say what number of bilge
bolts were deficient. She was not bolted according to the
model,or his directions. He pointed out that a bolt must
be placed in every alternate timber, and thought that Capt.
Sproule: who was present, would have seen that the direc-
tion was carried into effect. The deficiency might have
been supplied for £5, and he had no doubt but that it was
an omission. The deficiency did not affect the unworthi-
ness of the vessel ; but has the rule had not been complied
with, she was not entitled to be placed in the class A 1.
On his cross-examination, Mr. Bailey said that it was his
duty to inspect a vessel three times in the course of her build-
ing. When he saw her in London, there were evident signs
of movement about her beam ends, and her waterway seams.
She wanted additional fastenings ; and then, for the first
time, one beam was pointed out that was deficient. It had
had, at the time she was built, a piece neatly inserted. He
should have had that taken out, had he seen it. The appear-
ances he then saw might have been occasioned by stress of
weather, heavy cargoes, or getting on shore. In London,
he saw several things which he could not have seen here, and
which, if he had seen, would have induced him to withdraw
his certificate of Al. One of those things was that the
covering boards of the cabin bad been split, and the vessel
had, in consequence, made a good deal of water aft. The
splitting, however, might have arisen from hot weather, and
it might have been done at the time of building, and have been
unknown to evenr one. His certificate to Lloyds' bad been