The Liverpool Standard and General Commercial Advertiser.
Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1833-03-29 00:00:00

LANCASTER ASSIZES.

CROWN COURT, MONDAY, MARCH 25.
Before Mr. JUSTICE ALDERSON.
RATTER" SHIP. BUILDERS' CONTRACT.
Y AND ANOTHER v..GATES AND OTHERS.—This
I,llawc,tion in trove; to recover possession of an unfinished
eir.,
.onich, It was alleged, the defendants had improperly
aeali r their own use. Sir Gregory Lewin opened the
Til'euT,.and Mr. Wrightman stated the case to the iury.
Ilset.s_pl.amiiffs were Messrs. James Battersby and William
se, A2ra, merchants, residing at Liverpool, and the defendants
ngeo-ule, assignees of Mr. Brunton, a bankrupt, formerly carry-
ihati..l..!ausiness at Southwick, near Sunderland. It appeared
11-4,o_l!ie month of June last the plaintiffs entered into a con-
ii,e„,..i.v.ith Mr. Brunton to build a vessel for them under the
kriTlictiloti and superintendence of a person appointed by them,.
Pier pin of i 4,500, to be paid in five instalments, viz. £5OO
Niothesaillrlnd, £5OO, when timbered; £5OO when planked,
ver,ei
.ZoOU when decked, and the remainder £2BOO when the
'Vs '4as completely finished, launched, and ready for sea. It
, a 810
liamith';' specified in the contract that the ship was to be
'each •eg iti the month of April, and that on the payment of
likiiiittalutent, Mr. Brunton should make a bill of sale to the
their a',P, so as to vest the property in them to the aninnnt of
, titi, tb.,,,ances, value of the vessel proceeding about jar: passu
i pik,,:!piyi”nt. The vessel was to be built on the Liverpool
i, `l'a Mr. rhomas Bland, shipbuilder, went over toSunder-
odd dovvti th
tie
work f e plans and furnished. models, superintended
l'erson ("woe tune and during his absence left another
l'ists4 a'', his substitute: 'I he first stage of the work was com-
' illeilb aoout the sth of August, and the first payment of £5OO
41d Ceea'tne doe. On the- Bth of August, Messrs. Battersby
atatie°. remitted to Mr Brunton a bill of exchange for £l,yco,
kiii4that it was to go iowards payment of the ship in question,
treatyA for a smaller vessel for which they 'were likewise in
:eeded ~rxPressing a wish that the latter might not be pro-
,,atils e-„`,", iiitiluating that in that case they might atter-
Otildli,V,()„Y hini to build one of larger size, and that they
ilekiAt -h'e'v'ag to compensate.
.Mr. Brunton for any expenses
iurlulto been put to with respect to the smaller vessel.
,„; 'ad be„„4111 his reply, dated the 10th of August, stated, that.
r,"llaide „Out to no expense with the smaller vessel,—that he
1,181),,i111.,r0;4.,t1ae_t contract abandoned, and that he had placed
to the credit of the new ship. The vessel
ski
csoccordi44r7
Proceededwithp
but before she was timbered,
)ItaivedilsegillentiYh e the period for the second payment had
.v`ed s.'..l`r• Brunteonor becanae a bankrupt, and the ship was
4..atd1.6,-Luithe rest of the property in the bankrupt's building
IliOttirtne assignees u to give up possession. . In
~tsie ~°` the plaintiffs?' clam to recover, -Mr. Wightman cited
f4itli it Posed in Barnewall and Alderson, vol. 0, p. 942, in
fitila,,,!t I,\''iatilletd that when a ship was built by special contract,
1,'4 h,"'" ptriUctical paymentshad been made, the property,
r`ny,r,al-,0,a0t of the instalments- made, became vested in the
4dt7lll°, Neil
hei14'8111,,,.8 on butts'sides, acknowledging the contract, the
iii'lttii.,74-'Ol and the bankruptcy, were then put in and read.
1711 11,P was subsequently made to show that Mr. Brunton
It 4 t-eceived a Wit n account of the ship, for I.:.18 55., but,
.Irsuse,av,.?„(4 that IMro. B unton's receipt was not stamped,
ookissibie.''siobje,sted. to its.'production and it was declared in-
liewLishicaync.ation len made for the bankrupt's
atiesef,i_.,‘,l9 in courtin_ or'cler to rove the payment, but
g_' tO N. 71, though the defendant's attorney had received
everaf !-lace them.
e• A witnesses were then called to prove the plaintiff's
Lint 20tigst them was Mr. Thomas Bland who stated that
4 tiZined the vessel last week. She was nearly three-
74twas oered, and was worth as she sfood. about £940.
484 hereh, full value. In his cross-examination he stated
il'itees-tilifl not be moved from the yard without being taken
d n;.--;')Ir 13_. Howard, ship-builder, of Sunderland, who
4;11 -1111)1.yed t superintend the building of thp vesel
le, forr• Eland stated that she was now worth £935 Us. Ihe
lir. C: Plaintiffs having closed—
Tint'-,3;s,wEi for the defendant, contended that an action
,;4, pot 1. f r the recovery of an article which in its
4 fr"`" was incapable'o of delivery, as this ship appeared
Zathira the testim ny of the plaintiffs' own witnesses. A
„.1i cluad indeed b u.n -made, but that demand could only be
r laser;wiiii without pulling her to pieces, which the defend-
,7l,l,l;,lot bound to do. The case cited by his learned
iin'aft -},+°b,e in which the vessel was very nearly completed,
s"th°-`alOed her register, and it, therefore, could um, ip-
%els: Present questinn. He also submitted that according
1114L°1 bankruptcy, as declared in 6. Grso. IV. c. 16,. s.
Ne°,7,.,0f which a 'bankrupt was in the reputed possession
e (if },-",:"P at the time of the• bankruptcy, became
.the pro-
s. hat-,.' Qssio.nee •• for the equal benefit of the creditors.
It o, law,. GZIINE'Y intimated that he would reserve the
il'tqapillittrut:sivp.r, then called several persons in'the employ-of
p pose of shewing that the vessel had
til Z4l oth tf-'ntuirifs had paid on her account ; one of
it -`ed thate she" had cost £ll5O 7s. 6d., another £110•2
it il
1,t,t1111.°4, GURNEY put the following questions to the. jury,
lalikeratue of the vessel, and 2. ndly, whether at the time of
Ne.iisltie)Y, the bankrupt was in the the reputed possession
tilt a&eorr noconsiderable deliberation declared the value
II'? tii,' and that Messrs. Battersby and Co. were the owners
11 ~I the bankrutcy.
h.'°ftll"s'iP on this remarked that inasmuch as the declared
shade Property did not appear to have been paid, the as-
d`. still a li(Tit on it, and directed a verdict to be entered
lettiants

VESSEL RUN DOWN AT SEA.
th, r'°w "NES AND OTHERS.—This was an action on the
14011.4- ners of the Brig Sarah of Maryport, which was
lt011,(1 sunk at sea in August last by the sloop George
r;en the defendants were' owners. It appeared from
letieee.e, that the accident happened in consequence of
44144 twd mismanagement on board the George IV. 'The
ler the plaintiff. Damages LBl2.
`gethll-Esri IN v. TATE.—This was another action, be-
er 2rd tried 'be' before his Lordship this day, brought to
;110.1 vempeusaiion in damages for slanderous words
't(l,4nd conceiningthe
th
tater Perkin EsLin, e plaintiff in this case, is a
t grocer and tea-dealer, in LiYerpool_; and the de-
4st :in the same line of business, also in Liverpool. In
Preini;es in which the plaintiff Carried on his
,7e burned down, and in the Language of the learned
we'r„'"o stated his case on this occasion, " before the
to`phl," the defendant made use of expressions im-
fit Cie plaintiff the wicked, atrocious, and felonious
ther,-ving set tire to his own premises,—a charge, for
kh,rwas not the slightest pretence of foundation.
~;041„1°I1 of an amicable arrangement being thrown out,
tjs,on of the opening statement of Counsel, it was
lots VII up, and, after some consultation between the
Atto.,"th
, that'llo7-Creneral (Mr. Williams) said, he felt extremel'44y
e Jury would not have the trouble of assessing
ng of damages, and he was equally happy to say, on
Pore'ne defendant, that the character of the plaintiff
~q 1444411( stainless as ever, and that there was not...the
Ni4,4ndation for the report alluded to.
was then taken, by consent, for the plaintiff—
,:
,it,;klk
the Mr. Crompton were of Counsel for the
, '41.1-7" tne Attorney-General (Mr. Williams) and Mr.
F. .or the
tb. defendant.

'II;I'NX y. ABERCROSIBII3.—In this case the plain-
-414' dliam Lynn, the proprietor of the Waterloo
) the
1044 „
.defendant Mr. Charles Abercrombie, ship-
ollo
LlVerpool
vvith-Mr.
' Addison, appeared for the plaintiff,
t. •geant Jones, with Mr., Hall, and others, for the

t'.'itt
Irllg,edwpat. in November last, a friend of the defendants,
the W 3 waking along the streets with him, on their
;44411ratZ!olonHdor'etel,, for the purpose of ordering a dinner
till wa asked whether
411 .4 embarrassed 17.
t 4 e card such' S;:liFiety. As. they went on Mr.
companion had heard that
circumstances. Ewing replied
04,, 0114,
_,.c.e p. Land eol.t was in general circulation, but
Olr't eitheg_"l..• d, he believed it was not true De-
}\ r,l,_ r that he had heard from a credito.r o. f Mr.
0 hmm a friend who had heard it from a creditor, 'that
ki'ti tbs. compounded with his creditors, and paid twelve
t afttleel)°,lll,"
,t, s) action f the part of the plaintiff, that he had not
'tillic4ttadiet o)rubth.e. purpose of procuring domains but
!et
Inju I liclv a statement calculated to'clo'him
!1 to ry in his business, and an offer was made in
4 eccept mere nominal. damages, provided the
t eotceDdiaeifneencidaX would give a public denial of the
tii,lll

9!a oLYr>r t TU E.
x. SDAY.
p • This was an action brought
KQQ . cm
Onperisation in damages, for the injury done to
ih(ertain words used the defendant to the pre-
rekoli„ aracter and credit.
64t,L,:!gs having been opened by Mr. JOHN ADDISON,
'Weill Stated the ease to tiro Jury. The plaintiff, he
11°1%n, probably to st in this county, as tho