The Liverpool Standard and General Commercial Advertiser.
Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1835-08-25 00:00:00

a good connexion. Defendant said it was impossible they could
agree, inasmuch as his partner, Mr. Wood, was in the habit of
going to the ,and spending ..£4O or £3O per night in gam-
bling transactions.

After the examination of this witness, Mr. ALEXANDER rose,
and said'he would not go farther into the case, as an arrange-
ment was likely to be entered into between the parties.
A consultation then took place between the opposing counsel
and their clients, which ended in au agreement to withdraw a
juror.

LOCKEFtBY V. LOM AX AND ANOTHER.

'This was an action brought by Mr. William Lockerby, mer-
chant and shipowner, of this town, against Messrs. Loinax and
Wilson, shipbuilders, to recover the sum of £Bl7. 15s. Od. as
compensation for loss alleged to have been sustained by him
in consequence of the non-fulfilment of a contract into which
they had entered with the defendants. It appeared that, in the
year 1833, plaintiff, being desirous of having a vessel built in
time to be dispatched to China, on the opening of the trade to
that country, applied to the defendants for that purpose. On
the 12th of October, 1833, a contract was entered into between
the parties, according to terms of which the defendants were
to build a vessel of 3-10 tons register, at thirteen guineas
.per
ton ; the frame to be completed by the Ist of March ensuing,
and the vessel to be launched by the Ist of August, 1831,-• The
first part of the contract was completed. It was agreed in the
contract, that, when the frame of the vessel was completed, he
_(the plaintiff) was to pay £1000; when the decks were laid,
another £1000; and the remainder when the vessel should be
launched. The defendants then applied to the plaintiff, stating
that it would be a convenience to them if he would allow, the
breadth of beam to be increased by five or six inches; to which
plaintiff replied, that he had no objection. The vessel arrived
at the second stage named in the.contraet and the second instal-
Meat was duly paid. She was, however, not launched till the
4th of October, though the contract distinctly specified that she
Was to be ready by the Ist of August.' In consequence of this
delay; the plaintiff alleged that it was too late to dispatch the
vessel to China iii time for the loading season, and that he had
lost a fieight which lie had agreed for with the house of Baring
and Co. It appeared, however, for the defence, that, when the
vessel had arrived at the first stage, and the plaintiff, who was
in London at the time, was informed of the fact, he requested
that she might remain in that state for a week or ten days till
his return : also, that the difference in the breadth of beam' in-
creased the tonnage of the vessel from 310 to 366 tons. He
was informed that she would be ready furlatinching in Septem-
ber, and that, if not launched then, she could not be floated for
a month on account of the state of the tides. To this Mr. Lock-
erby replied, that he did not mind if she were nut . launched for
a month •; and a letter written by him to the defendants was
.produced', in which occured the following passage :—" klaVidg
given you a lengthened period for the completion of the ves-
sel, I am warranted in thus addressing you."
The learned JI-DGE said, that this extension of time on the
part of the plaintiff had released the defendants from the obli-:
gation implied in the contract; and the Jury, under his lord.:
ship's direction, returned a verdict in favour of the defend-
ants f.

LIDEL.-3ALMON V. PODEN.

This was an action to recover compensation in d4mages for
the injury which the plaintiff's character had sustained by the
publication of a libel in the Liverpool Cuisrier, in the form of a
report of a case at the Police-office. The trial did not proceed,
however, the defendant, through his counsel, stating that the
paragraph originated in a mistake as to the person, and apologi-
zing for the errorinto which he had been unintentionally betrayed.
As the vindication of his character was the sole object the plain-
tiff had ill view in bringing the action, the apology was accep-
ted, and a verdict taken for the plaintiff.
HONDA Y.
(Before Lord •AIIINGER.)
ROBINSON V. SMITH.