The Liverpool Standard and General Commercial Advertiser.
Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1838-08-14 00:00:00

CHESHIRE ASSIZES.

NISI PRIUS COURT.—WEDNESDAY.
THE MONKS' FERRY CASE.
( Continued from our last publication.)
James Walton.-1 am turned 81 years of age. When a
boy I lived with my father at Grange-house, Birkenhead. I
was twelve or thirteen years of age. It was a mile from
Woodside ferry. The ferry started from there, and the
tenant was my uncle, William Woods, who kept the ferry-
house. My uncle kept boats at the ferry regularly—two one-
mast and two two-mast boats. There was no other ferry
then. I was in the habit of seeing persons go by the boat,
and they paid 2d. each. Liverpool boats came at that time,
and he charged Id. for every passenger who landed on his
old slip. He would not allow them to take the passengers
back unless they paid him one penny to the house, us he had
boats of his own boat to take them back. I have seen the
penny paid. I don't suppose Woods interfered with the
Liverpool
.people taking passengers from the slip. He bad
disputes with the Liverpool boatmen on the quay, as the
people objected paying a penny to the house after paying
their passage. He got his penny and would have it. The
only houses at Birkenhead were the ferry-house and three
cottages for the ferry-men. I know the new pier. The old
pier is about forty yards from Mr. Price's new pier. Cross-
examined.—The roads have been a great deal altered. The
witness described the site of the ancient roads, and said the
road stopped at the edge of the pool, and the people made
their way along high-water mark to the slip as they best could.
If people did not want to go to Woodside, they landed where
they liked. Woods did not give himself any trouble except
they landed on his slip. I have often been at the ferry
since my apprenticeship, but I know nothing about the re-
ceipt of the penny from Liverpool boats since that time;
but in my uncle's time I have seen it. I nevet crossed in a
Liverpool boat.
William Blundell, aged 70.—My father held the Woodside
house and ferry, and was tenant for twenty years; he became
tenant fifty years ago. He held Bridge-end farm, half a mile
from Woodside, and I and my sister lived there. My father
had four ferry boats and two punts. There was no other
ferry from Birkenhead to Liverpool, and the fare was 2d.
The Liverpool boats brought passengers to the ferry house,
but my father would not let them take ally of his passengers
back; they might have taken those they brought, but none
else. if they attempted to take any he prevented them, and
threatened to throw the anchors off the quay. There were
about twelve houses at Birkenhead at that time. I remern-
her Mr. Woods, Mr. Cottrel, .John Hitchcock, my father,
Mr. Jones, Mr. Roberts, and Mr. Hugh Williams being te-
nants of the ferry.—Cross-examined.—My father claimed
the right to take back his own passengers, and the Liverpool
theirs. He never interfered except on his own quay, or if
they landed or embarked any where -else. I never saw my.
father claim any payment for the town boats landing on his
quay. The new pier at Woodside has been built five or six
Years, and folks can't run away now no bow. I dare say it is
ten rood from where the old slip was. The new vier at Bir-
kenhead was built about twenty years ago, close to the old
ruin: they are both in the parish. I know the boundary of
the township: it runs up Wallasey Pool, as high as Bidstone
Moss, and the other way as far as Tranmere Pool. The
Monkshead ferry is rather nearer to Birkenhead ferry than to
Woodside. The Tranmere boats have not plied lately, nor
carried passengers since Laurence left, two years ago. 'lran-
mere has done no good since Ball went to Birkenhead. 'lran-
mere hotel was built fifty sears ago.—Re-examined.—When
Liverpool boats brought a party, they waited for the party,
but they were not allowed to take back any body else : if any
traveller came he was obliged to go over by the Woodside
boat.—Cross-examined.—My father did not interfere with
parties who embarked from any other places than his quay.
—He-examined.-1 do not recollect any but Liverpool par-
ties embarking at other places.
Jane Hughes, whose father kept the Woodside ferry in
1781, gave similar testimony to the preceding witnesses. tier
father kept three large boats and two small punts. On her
cross examination witness said she had lived for three years
at the cottage where the Monk's ferry now is. There were
steps, but not for the people to land—they were for Mrs.
Price to bathe. She remembered when there was no-ferry at
Tranmere. When Tranmere was first commenced, nobody
interfered with it; but people went. to it, as they did to the
shore before.
Randall Newby, ageds2—l have known Woodside near4o
years, when Blundell and Roberts were tenants—l have seen
row boats come from Liverpool with passengers. Blundell
would allow the town boats to bring as many passengers as
they liked, but not to take them back. I have seen town boats
attempt to take persons from the shore, where they landed
passengers, and Blundell, the holder of the ferry, has ordered
them away. I have seen Roberts prevent the town boats
taking passengers back in a similar way.—Cross examined.
I have seen boats sent away from between the old quay and
the new one, and the other side the old quay at Wallasey
pool.

Richard Leigh, (aged 45)—1 live at Tranmere. I was
born at and lived at 13irken head hall farm till I was '23 years
of age- I have seen Roberts send the town boats from the
quay; they attempted and succeeded sometimes in taking
passengers off the quay ; and sometimes he drove them away.
Aly father used to set herring nets on the shore, but I don't
know that he paid anything for that. My father's farm was
abbey land and tithe free ; both Woodside and Monks ferry
are on the abbey land, so is the old Woodside slip.—Cross-
examined: We had 1(15 Cheshire acres in the Birkenhead
hall farm; I know Woodside to be abbey land by the stones,
and because it pays no tithes. We occupied some-part of it
after Blundell left.
Other witnesses gave similar
,evidence.
Mr. Hugh Williams was formerly tenant of the ferry and
hotel at Woodside. He entered in January 1823, and left in
August, 1835, when he surrendered his lease to' Mr. Price irt,
writing. When he entered, the steamers were not on the
ferry. The Liverpool boats brought parties over, but he pre-
vented them from landing, and they landed on the beach.
The steamers were put on in 1823. The new slip was built
in his time, because there was not sufficient water at the end
of the old pier. The steamers start every half hqur. The ri-
ver is not quite half a mile broad there. The accommodation
before the Monk's ferry began was sufficient for the public.
Witness has land near Monk's ferry, and if that ferry could
be maintained, it would be improved. The Monk's injures
Woodside ferry. Witness would not like to give the same
rent for it as he did formerly. On his cross-examination,
witness said that Monk's ferry would damage Woodside more
than Birkenhead. There has been a ferry at Seacombe since
he could remember. Not far from Seacombe another ferry,
Egremont, bad been established; and still further New
Brighton.
This closed the plaintiff's case. The Court adjourned at
six o'clock.

THURSDAY.
Mr. CRESSWELL, in opening the defence, submitted two
or three grounds on which the plaintiffs could not maintain
their action ; for in the first place the terry was from Cheshire
to Lancashire=-not in the ordinary sense or the word, but one
way only : and as the right and duty of a ferry are co-relative,
it is necessary the right. should be rightly stated on record—
neither larger nor smaller. All evidence given on the other
side was of a ferry both ways, The original grant was on the
term passagium, going and returning. The proceedings of
the Duchy Court of Chancery, gives the answer of the de-
fendant on oath, there setting it up as a ferry both ways. The
other side then introduced leases granted by the owner of the
ferry. The lease from Mr. Pl ice (1755,) was the only one
giving any description of it ; and it described it as a ferry
from Woodside to Liverpool, and from Liverpool to Wood-
side. On the evidence as it stands, it was a claim to a ferry
both ways; therefore it was important the plaintiff should set
fortis his right correctly on the record, that the public may
have it as evidence against him. The next point was, that
the situation of the ferry was changed. There was no
authority in law to change the position. The crown could
never grant the right of the whole district, but it must have
some fixed point The original place in the grant was at
the Priory of Birkenhead. The grand said, " from the
Priory to Liverpool," where there was a " passage":- or
ferry.

The JUDGE.—Are the precincts of the Priory extended?
What do you understand as the Priory ?
Mr. CilEsswm.c.—Probably the gardens; &e., but not the
estates. It was evident that there was an old road from
which parties mig.ht embark. The place .in question had
never been called Birkenhead, but 'Woodside; 1752 was the
first year they heard of Woodside.

JUDGE.—Woodside is part of the estate of the Priory.
Mr. CHESS WELL.—But that could not mean the Priory ;
or they might go up to Bidston Moss, for there the estates
extended. Would the Court hold that Mr. Price bad a right
to take his ferry to the Priory estate?
The JUDGE.—The words are the Priory of Birkenhead.
Mr. CaEsswELL.—Then if the owner had the right to
carry the ferry on any part of the, estates, then a co-equal
duty was cast on him by law, and he might be compelled to
land them on any part of his estate; and if he could nut,
then his right (lid not extend that far. Lord Kenyon, in
" Tripp v. Frank." ruled that to be law.
The JUDG E.—l shall reserve the liberty to move a nousuit,
but I shall not nonsuit here.

Mr. Cansswki.t..—The next point he would urge, was one
on which the Court would have to observe to the jury. The
point was—that there was no proof of the invasion of the
ferry : for it could not be treated as an invasion of a fran-
chise unless it had been shown that by the act of the defend-
ant the plaintiff had been deprived of the benefit of some-
thing he would otherwise have received. It ought to have
been shown, that persons had crossed by the defendants'
boats, who would otherwise have crossed by the plaintiff's;'
and boats had plied at Birkenhead for twenty }ears by per-
mission of plaintiff. What proof was there that the parties
who crossed at Monk's ferry would have gone to Woodside
and not to Birkenhead ? The erection of Birkenhead ferry
was in itself a destruction of the ferry at Woodside, it being
on Mr. Price's land.
The JuntiL.—Minit it not be destroyed by legal means;

Mr. CRasswELL.—That was not the state of the law. A
party may do an act, which may deprive him of his right of
action, but not of bis right of toll. • If ever Mr. Price had
the exclusive right, he had lost it by the erection of Birken-
head ferry. The next point was, that the duty and right were
co-equal. If Mr. Price had a right to embark where he liked,
the public could be landed where they liked. This was Lord
Kenyon's dictum in ."rririp and Frank.' If the right was to.
ferry from any part of the Priory estates, his duty would be
to convey to any part of the Priory estates: but by selling
this portion of his land, he has deprived himself of the power
to fulfil that duty, therefore he has lost his right.
Mr. Crompton and Mr. Vaughan. Williams followed on
the same points at great length.
The JUDGE reserved the points without hearing the other
side.

Mr. Canssww, then proceeded to address the jury at
great length on behalf of the defendants. The learned gen-
tleman's speech occupied three hours and twenty minutes,
At its conclusion several aged witnesses were called and ex-
amined, the evidence of some of them (Mr. Peacock and
Mr. Lloyd) was to the effect, that the penny had not been
enforced for sixty years, and that the penny was resisted;
that when the ferry-boats were not ready, the people went in
the town's boats ; that a id. was charged for landing, and 2d.
for passage money. Mrs. Price said. the town's boats were
never prevented landing at Woodside, and some town's boats
plied regularly, and that she went with the town's boats when-
ever she liked; she would have gone by the feiry-boat, be-
cause it was nothing but right she, should; but if it was not,
then she went in any boat.

Parry, a Liverpocil boatman, said his father was a boatman
59 years before he was born, and he was 60 years of age.
They plied to any part of the river whenever they were em-
ployed; and often to Woodside in .Woods and Cottrell's
time,, and had taken passengers from Woodside to Liverpool
frequently, from the quay or the rocks, and if they could not
fetch the quay, they took them from the rock where Monk's
ferry now is, and where there was a landing place and a lane
leading from it; they were not disturbed. On cross-exami-
nation, he said, we rose early and got all the passengers who
were in a hurry, and could not get by the ferryboat; he had
landed 140 persons from his boat at a time. Mr. John Pea-
cock, Upton, aged 81, said a boatman in Woods' time seized
his father's wallet for the penny, and law being threatened,
the wallet was returned by the boatman, who begged his
pardon; witness never did pay the penny; he recollected
hearing of a law-suit about the ferry; the penny was not ex-
acted.

Mr. George Peacock, solicitor, and several other witnesses
were examined to the same point, namely the free passage
to and fro of the town's boats, without let or hindrance.
Mr. Hewlett produced a conveyance from the Earl of Sef-
ton (who held by letters patent, 9th Sept. 4th Charles Ist) to
the Corporation of Liverpool, of the ferry or passage over
the Mersey. About a century before be had leased for 10(X)
years all he held in Liverpool from the crown, except the
ferry; and by this conveyance he parted with all: in the ori-
ginal grant the mines of gold and silver were as usual reserv-
ed to the crown. On his examination Mr. Hewlett produced
a record from the Duchy of Lancaster of a lease to Henry
Cooke, of Liverpool, dated 6th March, Ist Henry the 7th: a
minister's account of 4th of Charles the Ist, sheivine• the re-
ceipt of the said ferry amongst other things. An examined
copy of a record in a cause Price v. Ellison, Trinity Term,
1773, and precipes of writs between the same parties : also
examined copy in the record of the last action, shewing the
cause of action, for carrying, not landing, which showed that
the grantee of the Crown had suffered judgment as in case of
a nonsuit, and paid £4O costs, two years after the action was
brought. Admission was made by the plaintiff that the
original declaration in the case was to and from Liverpool;
also that notice of trial had been given at the last assizes.
Mr. W. Hetherington, of Birkenhead. was called and de-
clined to produce the conveyance from Price to himself and
others, of the Birkenhead property.
The last evidence was the conveyance from Price to Hum-
ble, dated 24th May, 1821, of the site of Monk's Ferry, con-
veying it to him in fee, including the land between high and
low water mark in front of the purchased property.
FRIDAY.

The court opened at nine o'clock.
Mr. Temple replied in a very able speech, which occupied
the attention of the court during two hours and twenty minutes.
The Learned Judge was about to sum up the evidence, when
the jury intimated that it was unnecessary for his lordship to
do so, as their minds were made up relative to the verdict; still
they could wish to have his lordship's opinion briefly express-
ed on the various points, to see if it coincided with their judg-
ment.

• His LORDSHIP replied, that he was placed there by the
queen and country to discharge a duty—to see that justice
was done, according to law, between man and man. It was
'immaterial to him which side they gave their verdict; but he
wished to go through the case fully. He then went over the
evidence, from the commencement to the conclusion, with
great impartiality.
The jury requested to be allowed to see the declaration,
which was read by the properofficer. The foreman then said,
" 'We find a verdict for the plaintiff, with an infringement of
his rights—damages one shilling."

COMMERCIAL INTELLIGENCE AND
MONEY MARKET.

T O'CLOCK.
In the course of yesterday , theATURDAY Briti shWELVE market was rather
heavy and Consols receded—Consols closed heavy at 94 for
Money, and 9,15.f0r the Account. Exchequer Bills, 76 78;
India Bonds, 76 78; Bank Stock, 207 208; India Stock, 264
265. In the Foreign market the prices are nominal, Spanish
Active, 215 %•• Portuguese, 355; Three per Cents 235;
Brazilian, 821; Mexican, 2.11: 255; Dutch Two and a-Half
per Cent. 5.1 i 5.
HALF-PAST ONE.
Consols may be quoted at present 945 for Account, Money
.94; Exchequer Bills, 76 78; India Bonds, 76 78; Bank
Stock, 208; India Stock, 2615; Spanish Active, •21 Af ;
Portuguese. 3.55 5; Three per Cents., 235; Brazilian, 825;
Mexican, 24% 55; Dutch Two and a-Hatt, 51i 5,
The. Share market is heavy, and prices lower. Great
Western 13 pm.; Brighton, 25 discount lower.
The Hamburgh mail has not vet arrived.
QUARTER BEFORE' THREE.
Consols for the Account 915 buyers.
(From the official list, containing the business actually
transacted.)
BRITISH FUNDS THIS DAY AT ONE O'CLOCK.
Bank Stock, India Stock, 265
3 per Ct. Red., 94X India Bonds, 78 pm.
3 per Ct. Con., 935 4i 4 South Sea Stock,
35 per Ct. Anus. 1818, 1014 Bank Stock. for
3!{ per Ct. Red., 102 1% . Consols for Acct., 945
New 3%. per Cents., 101% 5 £lOOO Ex. Bills, 76
Long Ans. 1860, L`. 9-16 £5OO do. 76 8
Ditto, 30 yrs. 1859, Small do. -76 8
Ditto, 30 yrs. 1860, 15 3-16 Ditto Commercial,
SHARES.
(The quotations give the actual price, without reference to
premium or discount.)
Real del Monte Unregistered,,Asphalte, British,
105 • - Asphalte, Polonceau,
Dublin and Kilkenny % Asphalte (Clafidge's Patent,)
Great Western, 78 7 8
London and Brighton, 8% 5 Bitumen. Robinson, 25
London and Blackmail, 6 British N. American Bank
Southampton, New, 35% 211 ,
Manchester and Birmingham, Provincial Bank of Ireland,
42