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

BROWNING

This was an action brought to recover £52 6s. from the de-
fendant for freight and demurrage.

.
Mr. Cressweif 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 ofeoals
from Liverpool to Dundalk, in December, 1839, at is. 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-
arrived at Dundalk, Martin, the consignee, refused to
-barge the coals, tint] kept by

_le vessel wa. , nim 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 Gs. the Bala► ce.
Mr. MURPHY, for the defendant, co mended, that the de-
Murrage had been caused by the plaintiffs own neglect.
He called no witness. The jury found a verdict for the
plaintiffs, damages £52 6s.
The Conn 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 undefended action brought to recover the
sum of £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 forty 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:los.'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 aereed 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 from fifteen to twenty shillings a
ton. The case laaving 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 promist•ory
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, £1,770.
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 had 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
paid. . 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 £7O,
with interest from the period at which a notice had been
served by the attorney. This was about : total £7l.

CRIIII. CON.—ANDERTON V. CHAFFER.
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 hls truly eloquent friend, Mr. Cresswell, who had
been engaged in this ease, but could not attend. He was therefore
thrown upon facts, and he should state them briefly. The plaintiff
kept a public house, at Comm, called the Hole in the Wall. In Fe-
bruary, 1836, he married a Miss Dyson. the daughter of a respecta-
ble innkeeper. Some time afterwards he left the inn at Collie, and
entered business as a spinner. He lived most happily with his
wife; hut the new concern 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 acquaintanee with Mrs. Anderton,
and paid her such marked attentions as caused very considerable
annoyance to the plaintiff, who, from his anguish of mind, fell into
habits of intemperance, which were unhappily continued while he
remained iu Burnley. While he lived at Colne he was a temperate,
industrious, and sober mail ; but a change took place : he became
intemperate, quarrels ensued between him and his wife, and his
happiness was destroyed. His friends apprehended that his habits.
arising from the feelings th,t preyed upon his mind, would soon be
the means of involving him in, pecuniary ruin, lie had borrowed
a suns of money from a relation, a lieutenant, be believed, in the
Life Guards. That individual at length became alarmed for his
money, and the plaintiff consented to snake an
"The
house in Burnley- was then taken in the name of AslligsnsuiDyen:o.
n, his
wife's sister, and, after he had made the assignment, 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 Isis 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 APVOrOI nirr•llrnef.A

uctettictl ZeVeraj circumstances snewing the improper conduct of
the plaintiff's wife, and concluded by an eloquent appeal to the
jury to consider the grave nature of the injury sustained, and to
award an adequate compensation to the plaintiff.
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 .elOO.
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 Shallcross, John Billing, Samuel Martin, William
Snell, Ralph Brocklebaiik, James Stuart, and Samuel
Clough. Mr. Cresswell 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
tine 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. Nl. he was not indebted, and that
as related• to that sum he had paid it into court. There were
other pleadings :Aid replications thereto. The learned coun-
sel then proceeded to say that all these would come to a
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 u-ton,
would produce about £3,608. 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 £l.lO. 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 July, 1839, 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, werelaid 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, he thought she was entitled to be
Placed in the A lat 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 riot 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.
Sha 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. 11 c
should have had that taken out, had he seen it. The appear-
ances lie then saw might have been occasioned by stress of
weather, heavy cargoes, or getting on share. 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 had 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; sod have been
unknown to every one. His certificate to Lloyds' had been