The Liverpool Standard and General Commercial Advertiser.
Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1854-04-18 00:00:00

WEDNESDAY, APRIL 12.

COLLISION CASIL—RODRIGUES v.IIfELIIIIISIi &OrrtEßs.
The plaintiff Emanuel Rodrigues, a river boatman, was
owner of an anchor boat called the John. The defendants
were Messrs. Melhuish and others, owners of the ship
Madilda Wattenbach, and William Jones, who was pilot
on board the vessel at the time the occurrence took place
which gave rise to the action. The circumstances of the
case were the following :—On the morning of the 3rd
of December last, the ship Matilda Wattenbach, of about
1100 tons, was lying at anchor in the River Mersey, ready
to sail next day with the mails for Australia. The vessel
had fouled her cables, and as the anchor-boat was proceed-
ing up the river to recover some lost anchors, those on
board the vessel hailed her, and she went alongside.
John Rodrigues, the captain of the anchor boat, (a sloop of
25 tons register,) went on board the Matilda Wattenbach,
and agreed with Mr. Melhuish to clear the anchors for
£lB, and his crew proceeded to do so. The wind was then
from S.S.E., and the tido had been flowing for about two
hours. The vessel's bow was to the northward, and the
-boat's services were required to raise her starboard anchor.
The boat's crew had been engaged in this duty about an
hour and a half, and the boat's bow was pinned to the
bottom of the river by the vessel's cable, when the vessel's
' helm was put " hard-a-port," at the order of the pilot,
which had the effect of making the ship sheer with the
tide, and she struck the anchor-boat. The larboard bow
of the boat was stove in by the collision, and in consequence
of her being pinned down and prevented from sheering
also by the vessel's starboard chain and anchor, she careened
over and sunk, the crew being thrown into the water and
one of them unfortunately drowned. The boat was well
adapted for the service in which she was engaged, and bad
been raised since the collision, repaired, and since employed
in raising anchors much heavier than that of the Matilda
Wattenbach. The action was brought to recover the
damage done to the boat, and the loss for some time of her
services. The question was—who was to blame for the
accident ? A number of witnesses having been examined,
his lordship summed up, and the jury at once returned a
verdict for the plaintiff. The amount of damages was
agreed to be settled out of court.
SHAW AND ANOTHER V. Moouii IND ANOTHER.—In
this case the plaintiffs were manufacturers of canvas coffee
bags, at Dundee, and the defendants were Messrs. Bramley
Moore and Dickenson, Brazilian merchants of this town.
The action was to recover certain alleged overcharges on
the part of the defendants, in transactions which had taken
place between the parties in., the consignment of the
defendant's house, in Rio, of various lots of coffee bagging
by the plaintiffs, amounting altogether to £7B 7s. 3d.
After the case.had proceeded some time, plaintiff's council
gave up part of the claim, reducing the amount for which
the action was brought to £26. The jury returned a ver-
dict for the defendants, finding that they were entitled to
7f per cent. commission,

THURSDAY, APRIL 13.

OBLIGATIONS OF RAILWAY COMPANIES.—KIMPTON V.
Thu LONDON AND NORTIIWBSTERN RAILWAY COMPANY.
—This was an action for the loss of one parcel and the
refusal to forward others by the above company. Mr.
Watson said the plaintiff, Mr. Thomas Kimpton, was a
carrier, who had set up in business in Liverpool, for the
purpose of transmitting parcels to various parts of the
country. The plaintiff undertook to receive goods and
carry them cheaper than the company, by collecting par-
cels from various persons and sending them in one parcel.
The company, Mr. Watson contended, were, by law, as
commmon carriers, bound to carry for all who should em-
ploy them, and it had been decided in the courts of law
that a railway company were not entitled to open an en-
closure, and charge for each of the parcels it might contain.
Mr. Watson then said that the declaration contained two
parts. The first was a claim for a parcel detained by the
company and lost, the other counts were for refusing to
carry, and injury by the loss of custom caused by the de-
tention of the plaintiff's parcels. The jury returned a
verdict, gibing the plaintiff £23 damages for the loss of
the package, and £lOO for loss and general damage, with
leave to reduce the latter to 40s.
This case concluded the business of the assizes, and the
court rose about half-past one.