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

complained of by them ; but he wished to remark, that at the
time in question (1839) the weather had been so bad, and he
had in consequence so much to do, that lie could not devote
sufficient time to every vessel.—Mr. H. C. Chapman, agent
to Lloyds', said that he had taken a cursory view of the
Maia after her return, and thought that the repairs then
being made were unnecessary—an almost complete waste of
money. In his opinion the builders of London were twenty
years behind Liverpool.—M r. Roydon, ship-builder, said
that he thought it was sufficient to have a bolt through every
alternate floor. Since the building of Noah's ark, th's good
old rule of our forefathers had been followed, hut Lloyds had
lately introduced a rule that every, floor should he bolted. He
had looked through the bill for extra works, and was o
opinion that it was very moderate.
Mr. DUNDAS, for the defence, said that his case was that
the vessel had been very badly built, as was found out soon
after she went to sea, and that she was deficient in several
respects, wherein she ought to have been in accordance with
the contract, so as to ensure her a place in class A 1, at
Lloyds'. At this moment she was liable to be reduced to
another class, because the contract in respect of the bolts
through the kelson had not been complied with. He con-
tended, too, that much of the extra work belonged to the
contract, and even if it did not, that it was overcharged.
Lloyd's Survey Book, for 1837-1839, was put in, and it
was found to order that, for an A 1 ship the kelson bolts
should go through each floor.
Mr. George Graham, Secretary of Lloyd's, stated that he
ordered a survey of the Maia after her arrival in London.
She continued 12 A 1 at Lloyd's; but very considerable re-
pairs had been made. If the bilge bolts and kelson bolts had
not been put in according to the rules, she would have been
liable to be displaced from that class at any time. Mr.
Clarke, a shipbuilder, of London, and Surveyor to Lloyd's,
examined the Maia, and found kelson bolts through every
alternate floor. He considered that there were no bilge
bolts. There were 9 butt bolts on the starboard side, and 7
on the larboard side. Ou the straik immediately above the
bilge planks there were 7 on the starboard and 6 on the lar-
board side. There were no holes bored on the inside for
bilge bolts. There ought to have been one bilge bolt in each
buttock-31 on each side. There was no shelf to the beams
of the hold—only a clamp. A ship having clamps ought to
have iron knees. The staple lodging knees appeared to have
been badly fitted to the beams, and particularly to the beam
arms, and there were not enough of bolts on the part of the
knee running along the side. The staple standards were also
imperfectly fastened. The breast hooks ought each to have
had a bolt. There were 3 in each arm, but that was net
sufficient. The hold beams had worked, from want of fas-
tenings. The iron work was throughout deficient. The
upper deck beams were not sufficient in number. Two
beams on the upper deck were short. They had no shelves,
but a very good clamp. There was a general weakness in the
fore-round beams. The vessel had made a good deal of
water, fore and aft. This might arise from defective
corking, but he attributed it to want of fastenings. The
vessel had not been so constructed as to entitle her to be
placed 12 Al. In his opinion, it would have taken £202 to
put the vessel in such a state, when she was launched, as
to entitle her to the class 12 Al. His estimate had allusion
to the work and materials necessary at the time she was being
built. The expellees incurred in Loudon would show what
was necessary after she was launched. [This witness's evi-
dence as to the requirements in building a ship differed on
almost every point from that of the evidence of the Liverpool
witnesses for the defence.]
Cross-examined—lt often happened that vessels are much
shaken after a long voyage. A vessel was seldom shaken in
her upper timbers after a first voyage. Sometimes she was
on a second.

Mr. Peter Courtney, another surveyor of Lloyd's, also
examined the Maia, and concurred with the previous witness.
At the time of the survey it would, he said, have taken about
£5OO to make her a first-class vessel.

A notice to the plaintiff to attend a survey of the Maia, in
order to ascertain what repairs were necessary to make her
sea-worthy, was then put in. It was signed by Captain B.

Sproule.
Other Loudon ship-builders were called, and they gene-
rally concurred with the two first witnesses.
Captain Benjamin Sproule, part owner of the 'Maia, and
liable jointly for the expenses of building, if it turned out to
be a 12 years ship, was next called, but Mr. Cresswell ob-
jected, and Mr. Baron Rolfe ruled, that the evidence of Mr.
Sproule was inadmissable.
Mr. John M`Killock, shipsmith, of Liverpool, deposed
that many of the items in a bill for extra work were over-
charged. He taxed oft £l9 2s. Cid. from £lO7 6s. 3d.
Cross-examined—We did a part of the iron work of the
vessel. _ _ . . .

Mr. Pindar, master mariner, proved that the long boat of
the Maia (which had been returned by the defendant) was so
defective as to be unfit for service. Some of her planks had
been split by the driving and riveting of the nails.
It. S. Agnew stated that be was an apprentice on board
the Maia. In their outward passage to Sydney and Valpa-
raiso, they had some bad weather, and the vessel leaked so
much that the hands were almost continually at the pumps.
Cross-examined.—Did not strike the ground off Sydney.
Had a general cargo outwards. In the home cargo there was
no copper ore.
Mr. Cresswell replied, and his Lordship summed up, after
which the jury returned a verdict for the plaintiff, damages
£l2O.
The court rose at seven o'clock. There remain for trial
only ten causes, two or three of which arc expected to
go off.

MONDAY