The Liverpool Standard and General Commercial Advertiser.
Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1842-04-15 00:00:00

MEETING OF THE POLYTECHNIC SOCIETY.

On Tuesday evening the monthly meeting of the Poly-
technic Society took place at the Royal Institution, and was
most respectably, but not very numerously, attended. The
president, JOHN GRANTHAM, Esq., occupied the chair. The
only subject for the evening was a communication " On the
Comparative Merits of Four and Six-wheeled Locomotive
Engines."

Mr. MAITLAND, on being called on by the chairman, read
his paper, in which he wrongly advocated the four-wheeled
in preference to the six-wheeled locomotives. The subject
has long interested engineers of railways and others, and its
discussion has for some months occupied a prominent place
in several of the scientific and mechanical journals of the
metropolis, but in which there still exists a considerable dif-
ference of opinion. He began by not ciiig the importance of
the subject, on account of its connection with thc economy
attainable in the locomotive department,- and afterwards
glanced at the various improvements which have taken place
in the construction of locomotive engines. He then stated
that all such engines, at present in use, might be divided into
two classeS—lst, The six-wheeled engine, having external
bearings, with an external frame and a square fire box, ge.
nerally termed Mr. Stephenson's engine; and, 2d, The four-
wheeled engine, having internal bearings and internal frame,
and a circular fire box, generally termed Mr. Bury's engine.
The questions, said Mr. Maitland, which naturally arise with
reference to these two, are—Which has the preference in re-
gard to cost ? which possesses greater facilities in regard to
mechanical construction ? which one is better adapted to
move round curves? which is most economical in regard to
repairs ? and which is safest in cases of accidentl—Mr. Mait-
land then entered into a scientific disquisition on each of
these points, and, without adverting to any abstruse theories,
but confining himself simply to matters of fact, came to the
conclusion that in each case the four-wheelett is preferable
decidedly to the six-wheeled engine.

The PRESIDENT (Mr. Grantham) addressed the meeting
at some length. He congratulated the society on having
subjects of great national interest brought before it—all mat-
ters connected with the advancement of railways he con-
sidered were of this nature. He would reply to Mr. Mait•
land's arguments in the order in which they were introduced,
but he must first explain a very common error into which
the public are led while discussing the comparative merits of
four and six-wheeled engines. Inside bearings and round
fire-boxes are by many persons supposed to be alone appli-
cable. to the former, while outside bearings and square fire-
boxes are supposed to be essential to the latter. He need
not say how erroneous this opinion is, but till men divest
their minds of this impression the subject must remain unde-
cided—till this distinction is made all the lengthened papers
in the Railway Times and Railway Magazine stand for no-
thing. There was no reason why the square fire-box and
the outside framing might not be applied to the four-
wheeled engine, or the round fire-box and inside framing
be adapted to the six-wheeled engine. Such changes had
been made, but were not general. For his part he was
inclined to prefer the round fire-box and inside framing.
The subject, however, for discussion at the meeting was
simply as to the comparative merits of locomotives hav-
ing four and six wheels. He had been engaged in the
construction of several of each description, and had of course
frequently travelled on them ; and from his own observation
he was led to the opinion that engines with four wheels were
more unsteady than those with six wheels, and that this de-
fect more than counteracted all the advantages to be derived
from the saving in friction of the extra wheels. He thought
the appearance alone, as exhibited by the drawings, even to
an unpractised eye, would strengthen his arguments in favour
of six wheels. Some serious accidents had happened to four-
wheeled engines, that he believed would not from similar
causes have occurred to six-wheeled engines. He did not
allude to the collisions that had taken place on various occa-
sions; all engines were alike endangered from those casual-
ties, but he alluded to those cases in which many satisfactory
reasons could he assigned. The comparative cost of four and
six. wheeled engines of the ordinary construction is, as Mr.
Maitland stated, about 20 per cent. in favour of the former;
but this difference arises chiefly from the outside framing
and the copper fire box, and does not materially depend on
the number of wheels. He would not say any thing as to the
comparative cost of repairs, but would leave this subject to
the directors of railways. He might, however, state it as
his decided opinion, that the first consideration for directors
is, which pla❑ will insure the greatest safety to those who
unsuspectingly place themselves under their protection. Mr.
Grantham concluded by expressing his conviction, that as a
separate question, the principle of six wheels was superior to
four.

An interesting debate ensued, in which Mr. Kennedy
partner to Mr. Bury, Mr. R. Crosbie, and several member
took part.

Mr. SMITH said he had not before that evening given much
attention to the subject, but from what he then heard, he
thought the question of framing and fire boxes quite distinct
from that of the number of wheels, and he could not see that
any good result would ever be obtained until the discussion
was confined to each question separately.

PANORAMA.—This interesting exhibition closes this week ;
we recommend those who have not seen it to avail them-
selves of the present opportunity.
THE AMPHITHEATRE..—The American equestrians are
doing wonders here : their amusing performances nightly
attract crowds of spectators.—A change of performance has
taken place.
FlRE.—Yesterday afternoon, a little before three o'clock,
a tire broke out in a cotton-warehouse, occupied by Mr.
Leyland, in Argyle-street. Information being conveyed by
a police-officer to the fire station, two engines and four
water.carts were speedily brought up, and the fire was ex-
tinguished in a few minutes, the loss being confined, by
timely exertions, to two or three bales of cotton. It is not
known how the fire originated.

LADY HOWARD DOUGLAS.—A very elegant' and chaste
gold vase, value about £240, has lately been brought to Eng-
land, at the request of the committee at Corfu, by the wife of
Assistant Staff-Surgeon Hadaway, presented to Lady
Douglas by the Greek ladies of the lonian Islands, as a mark
of their esteem for her very many amiable qualities, and as a
token of their sense of the many kindnesses shown to them
during her sojourn amongst them.
NEW MAGISTRATE.—On Monday, at the Salford hun-
dred sessions, now being held at the New Bailey, Williath
Sidebottom, Esq., of Mottram, qualified and took the oaths
as a magistrate for this county.
We understand that Mr. Dixon, whose appointment on
the Birmingham and Derby Railway we recently noticed, has
been succeeded as engineer of the Chester and Birkenhead
line by Mr. Alfred Yarrow, his nephew, and for some times
his assistant.
News FROM AMERICA.—We stated in our last that the
Columbia from Boston might be expected here yesterday,
but we find that as the 3d instant was a Sunday she would
not leave Halifax before the following day, and in consequence
of the east winds for the last few days she will not, in all
probability, arrive here before to-morrow.
DEATH BY DROWNING.—About seven o'clock yesterday
morning, the body 'of a man was found floating in the Coburg
Dock, and was taken to the dead-house. It was identified
by an acquaintance of the deceased as that of John Jones, a
young man who had recently been second mate of the timber
ship Isabella. The deceased, it appears, lodged with a Mrs.
Bellis, in Runcorn-street, near the Salthouse Dock. On the
evening of the 12th of last month lie left her house, and went
with some friends to St. John's Market, and afterwards to a
shooting gallery in the neighbourhood. Ile parted with th.ln
at St. Thomas's Church, and was never afterwards seen by
any of them until the body was picked up. There was found
on his person zES 19s. Id., in gold, silver, and topper ; a
watch, apparently silver gilt, and stated to be worth £8 ; and
some papers by which it would appear he had a claim to the.
amount of £lOO on the captain of the Isabella. It is not
known by what means he got into the water. The Isabella, to
which he belonged, sailed on the 14th ult. The deceased, it
is stated, was a very industrious and careful young man.
An inquest will be held on view of the body this day.
ROSCOE'S STATUE.—We were favoured, on Wednesday,
with a private view of Sir Francis Chantrey's statue of the
late Mr. Roscoe, in the new gallery of permanent art,
Colquitt-street. As a work of art, we cannot but admire
this statue. The poet and philantropist is in a sitting posture.
One hand leans upon a book, while the other covers his
breast and grasps the toga thrown round him. The drapery
is exquisitely cast. There is a calmness and dignity about
the figure that cannot fail to be admired, as well as the ease
and repose that i,ervade it; but it isnot a likeness—not such
an one as might have been procured.—While writing the
above, our messenger brought us a tile of papers by the North
America. We had scarcely opened them, when the following
paragraph attracted our attention in the New York Morning
Herald 1—" ROSCOE'S LIFE OF 'L6TLENZO DE MEDICI—

Carey and Hart. It is rather late in the day for any one to
commence a criticism of Roscoe's delightful life of Lorenzo
de Medici. It is one of the most valuable standard works in
the English language, and one that no library should be
without."

MR. TEMPLETON'S CONCERT.—On Wednesday evening
Mr. Templeton gave a concert at the Music-hall, Bold-
street. It was numerously and fashionably attended. Mr.
Templeton was supported by Miss Delcy, Sand a very effi-
cient orchestra. Mr. Smith presided at the piano. Mr.
Rophino Lacy directed in his usual able style. The perfor-
mances commenced with Spohr's Jessonda, which was ex-
cellently played. The duet from Sonnambula was charm-
ingly sung by Miss Delcy and Mr. Templeton. We have
never heard the latter in such fine voice. Miss Delcy im-
proves as her powers are becoming matured. Her voice—
always of good quality—is, if anything, richer than when she
first appeared here. The quartett by Mr. Aldridge, jun.,
(Ist violin), Mr. H. Tivendell (2nd violin), Mr. Wilberforce
(tenor), and Mr. J. Tivendell (bass), was very cleverly
played. Miss Delcy sang a recitative, aria, and cavatina
of
Bonfichi with brilliant execution and effect. Mr. Templeton
sang Auber's ballad, " I love her, how I love her," better
than he has ever done here. He threw into it expression,
taste, and feeling. The scena and cavatina from Sonnam-
bula, " All is lost now," was exquisitely given : Mr. Tem-
pleton might have had poor Malibran standing before him,
so much pathos did he throw into it. He was honoured with
an enthusiastic encore, and repeated the cavatina. Miss
Delcy was also encored in a Scotch ballad, " Last May a
braw wooer," which she sang with much humour. Mr.
Templeton, on being encored in a ballad, " Saw ye Johnnie
comin', quo' she," substituted " Roy's Wife." This old
song, so rarely heard, came upon the ears of many like the
voice of an old and dear friend. It was splendidly sung: it
was a rich treat. Thalberg's " God save the Queen" was
played by Mr. E. F. Smith in a masterly manner : his exe-
cution is surprising. We ought not to omit to notice the
clever and judicious playing of Mr. G. H. Thompson on the
French horn, and Mr. Hughes on the flute. This concert,
taken altogether, proved to be the best that has "come off"
this season, and appeared to give general satisfaction. An
apology—the usual one of indisposition—wrs offered for the
non-appearance of Miss Hamilton. Her absence did not
seem to be much regretted, though her indisposition might
have excited sympathy.

Mr. POPJOY'S LAST.—A gentleman, who let apartments,
having stated to our laughing friend that he was learning mu-
sic, Mr. Popjoy remarked that he presumed he patronised
the lodge-here-lan (Logieran) system.

SOUTH LAN

it SIZE 6

PRIUS COUI

'.ONDAT

BARRATT V. DIA'NDELL AND OTHERS

Tile plaintiff, Henry Barret, is a porter ; the defendants
are Messrs. Hollinshead, Tetley, and Co., merchants, of this
town.

Mr. Knowles and Mr. James were for the plaintiff; Mr
Wortley and :I,lr. Crompton for the defendants.

Mr. kNOWLES said that the action was to seek compen-
sation for a very serious injury which was alleged to have
been inflicted upon his client, owing to the negligence of the
servants of the defendants in stowing some cotton. It was
an injury which had not only laid him up for some time, but
the consequences of which might be felt by him to the end of
his life. The plaintiff was a porter, who had been for some
time in the employ of Messrs. Isaac, Lowe, and Co., who
occupied part of a top room in a warehouse in Dutton-street,
which they had taken from the defendants, and i❑ which they
had a quantity of cotton. As the room went up to the roof,
it was obvious that if the same number of bales were laid in
each tier, there would be an increasing projection in every
tier above the first three or four. The cotton of the defend-
ants had actually been stowed in this way, so that the higher
layers projected over the gangway between the two piles. On
the 15th of October, by which day Messrs. Lowe had re-
moved a considerable quantity of their wool, so that there
were only three rows on the ground; the plaintiff was sent
with a man named William Stewart to his warehouse, for the
purpose of repairing bags. They had removed one of the
bales froM the side of the room occupied by Messrs. Lowe,
and that was put on a truck and wheeled away. They then
got down a second, and while Stewart went for the truck, the
plaintiff held the bale up, for the purpose of letting it fall on
on the truck when it came. Whilst he was in this position,
one of the defendants' bales fell down, struck him on the
loins, knocked him down, and fell upon him. He was taken
to the infirmary, remained there some time, was not cured
when he was dicharged, and 'lad been under medical attend-
ance ever since. He (Mr. Knowles) believed that the de-
fence to be set up was that the pile of cotton from which the
bag fell did not belong to the defendants.
Two or three witnesses were called, and it being then seven
o'clock, the Court rose.

TUESDAY.
BARRATT V. BLUNDELL AND OTHERS.
The evidence in •support of this case. adjourned last night,
was resumed. Mr. KNOWLES called several other witnesses
to prove the mode in which the cotton was stowed, the man-
ner in which the accident occurred, and the extent of the

Mr. WORTLEY, for the defence, contended that a spirit of
exaggeration pervaded the plaintilrs case throughout. He
could not help considering that the same disposition to ex-
agger..'= the injury had been manifested as to exaggerate the
neglir,,,:ce of the defendants' servants. He thought he should
be able to satisfy the jury that, in point of fact, the witnesses
who supported the statement of his learned friend were at
least mistaken in their view of the circumstances. The
learned gentleman proceeded to caution the jury against
having their sympathies misled. Their first impulse on hear-
ing that a poor man had suffered by a casualty of this sort,
that he had been thrown out of employment, and received
an injury under such circumstances, was, to do something
for him, and to grant him redress. But they must be cau-
tious against whom they decided and whom they called upon
for such redress. They must take care that they were not
generous at some other person's expense. It must be re-
membered, that the man was not in the employ of the de-
fendant. If the accident happened through his own negli-
gence he could not look to his own master for redress : if it
were a mere accident, then undoubtedly his own employers
were the proper persons to have granted him reparation. He
should, he thought, be able to show, that the bag fell from a
pile at which the plaintiff was himself at work.
Mr. KNOWLES contended that the defence indicated by
his learned friend was not admissible according to the record,
as the defendant had admitted that the bale was his. Mr.
Knowles here read the record, which alleged that the bale
was in a pile belonging to the defendant, to which had been
returned the plea of " not guilty," which put in the mere
question of negligence. Mr. Knowles, in support of his
views, cited the case of Taverner v. Little, sth vol. Bing,
N.C. 678. The plea of " not guilty" did not put in issue
whose was the bale, but the question of negligence.
Mr. WORTLEY did not care whose property the bale was.
His learned friend was mistaken in supposing that he relied
upon that. He denied that the bale tell through their neg-
ligence. What he undertook to show was, that the bale fell
from a pile which did not belong to them, with which they
nad no concern, and that, therefore, it did not fall through
their negligence.
Mr. CROMPTON said, the only plea which they could put
on the record in order to raise the question was that of not
guilty.

Mr. KNOWLES replied, resting on the case alluded to,
which, he said, had never been overruled. If that were law,
this case was not for the Jury.
Baron ROLFE was of opinion, that, supposing the case of
Taverner v. Little to be good law, it did not govern this case.
His Lordship having pointed out the difference between the
two cases, promised, at the request of Mr. Knowles, to make
a note of the objection at the termination of the trial.
A number of witnesses were called for the purpose of show-
ing the position of the bale in question ; that the pile from
which it fell was well stored, and that it did not overhang as
alleged, and as depicted in the plans produced by the plain-
tiff. The witnesses for the defence contradicted those who
had been called for the plaintiff, in most of the material
points. Mr. Banner, surgeon, who had attended the plain-
tiff at the Northern Hospital, stated, that the injury was a
bruise of the muscles of the lower part of the back. None of
the ribs were broken, but it was likely that such rigidity of
the muscles had been produced as had rendered him inca-
able of following his occupation. When the plaintiff was
in the hospital the injury was not considered a serious one.
Mr. KNOWLES recalled some of his witnesses for the pur-
pose of confirming their former statements, on which Mr.
Wortley addressed a few observations to the Jtiry. Mr.
Knowles replied at some length, requesting the Jury to bear
in mind the fact that no person accurately saw the accident,
and that, therefore, all the conclusions were to be drawn from
the position of the bales subsequently. The bale which had
fallen bore the mark of the defendant's property, the plaintiff
was breaking down cotton near it, and the inference that a
bale belonging to the defendant had fallen from being im-
properly stowed.
His LORDSHIP laid the case very lucidly before the Jury,
going through nearly the whole evidence, and commenting
thereon in his progress. His Lordship finished summing up
at five minutes to three o'clock.
The Jury, after a few minutes' consideration, retired.
They returned in a quarter of an hour, and gave in a verdict
for the plaintiff, damages £5O.
WALKER AND OTHERS V. JACKSON AND OTHEN.S.
The plaintiffs in this case are Messrs. Walker and Co.,
jewellers, of Birmingham ; the defendants, John Sommer-
ville Jackson, Mr. Ravenscroft, and Christopher Bentham,
Directors of the Woodside Ferry Company.
Mr. Baines and Mr. Crompton appeared for the plaintiffs ;
Mr. Knowles and Mr. Martin for the defence.
Mr. BAINES stated the case to the jury. The action Was
brought to recover compensation for injury which had been
'done by the negligence of the defendants' servants to a car-
riage and goods belonging to the plaintiffs, which the defen-
dants had received on board one of their boats, and under-
taken to deliver safely in Liverpool. The plaintiffs were
jewellers in an extensive way of business in Birmingham,
:mid the defendants were the proprietors of the Woodside
Ferry. The plaintiffs, in the course of their business, were
in the habit of sending out one of their partners with watches,
jewellery, and other articles, which he took with him in his
phaeton. In the month of August, 1840, Mr. Armitage, one
of the firm, set out from Birmingham with a one-horse phae-
ton, in which, in certain compartments, were stowed boxes
of jewellery and watches. He would mention that the case
had been tried before, which would account for the lapse of
time. Mr. Armitage proceeded with his phaeton to Chester,
afterwards to Woodside, where hearrived on the 26th August,
ibout halt'-past nine o'clock in the morning. He paid the
fare for the carriage and horse, and they were put on board
the packet. When the boat arrived in Liverpool she first
went to the steps and landed her passengers, and afterwards
went into the basin, where was a slip, for the purpose of land-
ing horses, carriages, and goods. It was usual, in landing
carriages, to lead the horses up first, and to take the vehicle
up after. The horse in this case was led up first, and Mr.
Armitage, knowing it to be a restive animal, followed it up
the slip to see it properly managed. Two of the men, as he
would show by his witnesses, proceeded to land the phaeton.
One of them, a man named Cox, placed himself between the
:hafts and another pushed behind. They ran the phaeton
out of the vessel, and drew it a little way up the slip, when
they found the weight too great ; the carriage rolled back,
and went into the water, forcing the captain in with it. The
fore-wheels rested for a short time against the boat, but at
length the vessel moving off from the wall, the whole carriage
was immersed. All this was seen by a person named Perry,
whom he should call before them. He had been struck by the
folly of attempting to land such a carriage with only two men.
He went down with a carriage rope, and, with the help of
other persons, got the phaeton out of the water and placed it
on the pier. The phaeton was taken by Mr. Armitage to
his inn and examined. Before any of the property was
touched, however, Mr. Armitage very prudently wrote a let-
ter to the Woodside Company, informing them of what had
occurred ; that their servants had negligently suffered his
pha.eton to go into the water, and that four boxes of jewellery,
watches, &c. had been damaged. The goods were to be sub-
mitted to the inspection of Mr. Jones and Mr. Mayer. and
he invited some person authorised by the company to be pre-
sent at the opening, that the amount of damages might be
fairly ascertained. On behalf of the company, a Mr. Ha-
zelden attended, and it was found, when the boxes were
opened, that the property was very considerably injured.
Some damage was also done to the phaeton. The goods had
all to be returned to the manufacturers to undergo repairs.
The whole injury sustained amounted to £2ll 10s., £204 of
this was for damage to the goods, and the remainder for that
to the phaeton. The case had, as he said, been tried once
already, and the questions of law had been discussed in the
Court of which his Lordship was a member. He would now
have to establish before them that a contract had been
entered into for the safe delivery of the goods at Liverpool.
It was not necessary that such contract should be in writing.
But if these parties hold themselves out to the world as ready
to do a certain something, which every body understood they
would do, and if individuals acted upon this understanding,
that was sufficient. He would be able to satisfy the jury
that this company undertook to carry safely from Woodside
to Liverpool to laud them, take them up the slip, and place
them safely on the pier head. They derived their profits by
holding this out to the public. He would shoo that the uni-
form practice had been with the defendants' servants to take
carriages up the inclined plane and deliver them safely on
the pier head. He would call witnesses who would prove
that such was the system, and that it was in consequence
of the negligence and improper manner in which this
was done in the instance in question that this accident
occurred. Was it for a loss arising from mere negligence to
fall on the innocent owner of the goods? He understood that
his learned friend was to argue that because it was custom-
ary for the owners of carriages to give some little allowance
to the men who performed this duty, that made them his ser-
vants, and the proprietors of the ferry were no longer liable.
When his learned friend would succeed in persuading them
that the giving a gratuity to an hostler at an inn, which was
very customary, took the liability from the landlord to take
proper care of carriages and horses entrusted to him, then
such an argument might he available. He would show that
carriages were always so landed and delivered, even when
they were in the care of post-boys and others who had it
not in their power to give such gratuity. The simple ques-
tion would be, whether there was a contract to deliver safely.
He understood his friend was to prove there was some sort
of fraud in bringing over a carriage thus loaded. He thought
if there were any fraud it was on the other side, in resisting
so fair a claim to compensation. The question was, whether
there was not such a contract implied as gave the individuals
crossing this ferry assurance that their vehicles would be
safely placed on the pier, and whether this contract bad not
been violated. If he could show that such was the case, be
contended that the plaintiff was entitled to be indemnified.
A number of ticket-porers, boatmen, and others were
called to prove the circumstances under which the accident
happened. The details were similar to those set forth in the
statement of the learned counsel for the plaintiffs. Several
coach-proprietors, hostlers, postboys, &c., stated that it was
the invariable custom for the men belonging to the les ket
to put carriages on board the steamers, and to land them on
the pier. On cross-examination it was elicited, that the
parties in charge of the carriages were usually asked by the
men for some gratuity. This it appeared, on further ques-
tioning, was entrely optional, being sometimes given and
sometimes withheld. It was always asked for as allowance
or for the purpose of getting something to drink.
One of the witnesses, Mr. Haselden, one of the servants
of the company, '
stated in cross-examination, that it was
common to charge for goods carried across the river, some
being charged by weight and borne by package, and that a

ording *eifild

he charge

differeme was
Mt. BAINES pt . ccment between the
that the damages in tne trial of the action should be taker,
at £7 10s. for the phaeton, and £204 for the goods.
Mr. KNOWLES said as the defendants had admitted the
damage, the plaintiffs had also made some admissions. He
wished them to admit what had already been proved at a for-
mer time, that the weight of the property was eleven hundred
weight, and that its value was £5OOO.
Mr. BAINES said, all that he would admit was, that the
weight of the phaeton and the property altogether was be-
tween 10 and 11 cwt. He would not admit any value.
Mr. KNowtEs said they had expected such admission, or
they would have had the witnesses ready. Mr. Knowles
proceeded with the defence. He spoke of the high respecta-
bility of the defendants, and observed that the word " fraud"
used by his learned friend ought not to have been applied, as
it was one which no part of their conduct in this or any other
case had rendered them liable to. This was an important
case to both parties, and in its result depended whether indi-
viduals should be made liable to obligations which were never
intended. The first question for consideration was whether
there had been such contract as that which had been alleged.
He denied that there was any such contract, but if there
were, it would then be necev
jury occurred through the neb
vants. The great question, however, was that of the con-
tract, and whether the ferryman was not merely as a bridge
across the water. He wished the jury to bear in mind, that
the ferryman was not a common carrier. By law a common
carrier was an insurer. The defendants were not common
carriers; and the obligations of a common carrier did not

iry to con4ide

ace of the

hether the in-
fendant's ser-

apply to them. They were only ferrymen, having a right of
conveying from one point of a river to another. The ferry-
man did not contract to take any care ; all that he contracted
to do was to perform, as it were, the office of a bridge. It
had been decided in the Court of Exchequer, that ferrymen
were not bound to take rare of matters pl#ced in their boats,
articles being supposed to be under the care and guardianship
of the persons who accompanied them. His learned friend
said they contracted to do something more; that they were
bound to carry across and deliver articles on the other side.
The learned counsel proceeded to enlarge on the law of the
case, which he said would be placed before the jury, by his
lordship, with his usual clearness. He then contended that
if there had been any negligence, it would have been entirely
on the part of the owner of this property. He brought an
ordinary-looking phaeton, and did not give any notice of the
great weight and of the valuable property which it contained.
It was put on board and carried across, and these men who
were accustomed to convey carriages from the packets for a
small compensation were about to land it. He would show
that two men had taken a light phaeton; such as this was de-
scribed, on shore over and over again. The first intimation
which the men had of the extra weight was, when they at-
tempted to draw it up the slip, when they found it com-
pletely beyond their power. The injury was, therefore,
caused by the folly of the plaintiff in not giving notice that
there was much more than the ordinary weight of a
light phaeton. If a comtnon-looking phaeton were on board
the vessel, there was scarcely no negligence in the de-
fendants not discovering that it contained a greater extra
weight of valuable property, if they were not informed
that such was the case. The negligence was in the
party who did know of the weight not giving notice of it,
whereby he had jeopardised the lives of the men ; for they
had it in evidence that the captain of the boat was severely
injured by the vehicle running back on him. He knew
nothing of the weight or the value, and could not guard
against what had occurred, otherwise they would not hare
subjected themselves to such danger; while the owner could,
by speaking a word, have procured extra assistance and have
prevented any mishap. They also had it in evidence that
the packages were charged for according to their weight, and
he would be able to show that a board was placed at the
gates containing a notice that the defendants were not re-
sponsible.

The witness for the defence proved that the phaeton in
question was a light phaeton, and that such a phaeton was
usually charged 55., a heavier one 6s. That the direction
from the company to their servants was, never to take charge
of any carriage or anything belonging to any person ; and if
any carriage or goods were left, the party leaving it was to be
informed that it was at his own risk. The men belonging to
the boat swore thA two of them had frequently taken up the
slip such a phaeton as that in question, and that they could
have taken this one up with ease, had there been no extra
weight in it.

Mr. KNOWLES produced the board to which he had al-
luded, but it was not admitted in evidence, on the ground
that it had been shown that this notice could not be seen by
individuals taking carriages through the gates, but only by
foot passengers.
Mr. BAINES, in reply, said it had been alleged that the
defendants were ferrymen and not carriers, and that they
had not the liabilitiy of carriers. This was one of the falla-
cies with which the case abounded. This case was not to be
argued as if they were mere ferrymen at common law. It
was not contended that there was an express contract, but
it was sufficiently proved that there was an implied contract,
and that the parties bad held out to the world that they had
undertaken to carry and to safely deliver on the other side.
It was said they were not common carriers, but ferrymen;
but he maintained that they were to all intents and purposes
common carriers, insomuch as they undertook to carry goods
and carriages and horses from one side of the river, and to
deliver them safely on the other side.
His LORDSHIP said, the duties of ferrymen had been cor-
rectly defined by the learned counsel for the defendants ; it was
as had been expressively said, to perform the, office of a sort
of floating-bridge. It did not follow, however, that a ferry-
man could not enter into other contracts. He might enter
into a thousand other analagous contracts, and amongst
others to carry goods. His Lordship, leaving the evidence
as to the circumstances of the accident, with which he said
the Jury were sufficiently acpuainted, proceeded to examine
the testimony, and to lay it before the Jury, for the purpose
of seeing how far it exhibited any real or implied contract on
the part of the defendants, and, if the contract were admitted,
whether the accident occurred through the negligence of the
defendants.

The Jury found immediately for the plaintiffs;—damages
£2ll. 10s.

The court adjourned at a quarter-past seven o'clock

WEDNESDAY.
PAGE AND ANOTHER V. VINCENT AND OTHERS.
The plaintiffs in this case are Mr. John Page and Mr. John
Grantham, of this town, boiler makers; the defendants are
George Vincent, solicitor, London, A. Joseph, James Kil-
shaw, and John Claypole, alleged proprietors in the Eggre-
mont Ferry Company. The declaration, stated that the de-
fendants were indebted to the plaintiffs for goods sold and
delivered, with labour and materials done and furnished, for
money paid, and on an account stated. The defendants
Joseph and Vincent 'denied liability, and the latter pleaded a
previous payment. The other defendants allowed judgment
to go by default. _

Mr. Knowles, Mr. Martin, and Mr. Atherton appeared
for the plaintiffs; Mr. Wortley and Mr. Crompton defended
Mr. Vincent, and Mr. Watson appeared on behalf of Mr.
Joseph. The other two defendants having suffered judgment
to go by default, were unrepresented.
Mr. KNOWLES stated that the action was brought for the
recovery of a sum of between £7OO and £BOO. The plaintiffs
were boiler makers in this town ; the defendants were four
of the shareholders in the company called the Egremont
Steam Packet Company. It was necessary to say a word
or two respecting the origin of this company. About the
year 1836, Mr. Bartley, of this town, purchased, on the op-
posite side of the river, at E. gremont, a quantity of land and
a right of ferry. This was in
the days of joint stock compa-
nies and associations, and in a little time an association
was formed and a deed• was drawn, forming the company
which he had named, and Mr. Vincent and the three
other defendants were entered for shares. Mr. Vincent he
believed was set down for ten shares. Three steam-boats
were purchased to ply from the ferry, and of course the
boilers frequently want attending to and repairing. From
the commencement of the concern the plaintiffs were in the
habit of superintending these boats, and they were fre-
quently employed on one or the other of them. Every repair
or alteration which were required in these packets was done
by the plaintiffs. No one could charge the plaintiffs with a
want of skill, nor could it be averred that they were not em-
ployed. Neither could it be said that the defendants were
not liable, for every individual was liable for the debts of the
company. It was true Mr. Vincent lived in London, and he
might say that he was not aware of what was going on.. No
one could be better aware than he was ; he was an attorney,
a highly respectable one, 'and was perfectly aware of his lia-
bility. Ignorant persons had, no doubt, frequently engaged
In these speculations without any knowledge of the conse-
quences. This could not be the case with Mr. Vincent. It
might be asked why they had singled out these shareholders.
He would tell them candidly. The shares were not very nu-
merous originally, the number being only 600, and these
were taken up by very few parties. Certain calls were made
from time to time, and the other shareholders, then in Liver-
pool, paid them, to the amount of hundreds of pounds.
These defendants had never paid one farthing. It was there-
fore that they had selected the parties who were the defen-
dants in this action. There was no secret about it. All the
others had paid largely, and these defendants had never paid
one farthing.
Mr. Alfred Newell, clerk to Mr. Fisher, attorney, in this
town, produced the deed, and proved that the defendants
were parties to it ; that since the execution of the deed the
ferry had been going on, and that the steamers Egremont,
Ennishowen, and Thomas Royden, had been plying ever
since.

Mr. Thomas Harvey, solicitor, of this town, stated that
he was the first solicitor to the company, and proposed the
deed. He proved the signatures of the defendants, and that
Wm. R. Gaskell, his brother-in-law, and formerly a clerk
in his office, the attesting witness *to all the signatures save
that of George Vincent, had been settled in Ceylon since
March, 1841. .

. .
Moss Joseph, son of the defendant Joseph, proved his
father's handwriting in the deed. On cross-examination,
he said his father had never attended any of the meetings of
the company.
Witnesses were next called to prove the several items of
account, which were very numerous.
Mr. William Fawcett, of the firm of Fawcett and Preston,
stated that he had examined all the charges, and they were
reasonable and such as would be made by any respectable
house.

Mr. Gorman, collector for the company, corroborated cer-.
tain of the statements touching the items of account. On
cross-examination, Mr. WORTLEY produced a placard, which
some time since appeared on the walls of this town, and
naming the parties who were then put down. He asked if
the witness had frequently seen the plaintiffs in company
with those persons. He replied that he had seen them in
company with Mr. Peers, but he subsequently explained
that Mr. Peers was, after the departure of Mr. Bartley to
Australia, the principal manager, and the plaintiffs went
over to him to consult him about the repairs of the vessels.
The ferry was still in full operation.

Mr. WORTLEY said, Mr:Vincent found himself put on his
defence under circumstances almost unprecedented in a court
of justice. Here was an action brought against one or two
of the shareholders in combination with one or two directors,
for for the benefit of the whole of the directors.
for the purpose of fixing Mr. Vincent with the whole of donetlie
charge, which ought to have coma out of the pockets of the
directors. He found them here in combination with a cre-
ditor for the purpose of getting the money which they owed
out of his pocket. The learned gentleman went briefly into
the history of the case, contending that a few individuals in
Liverpool had got up a company of this sort, and Mr. Vin-
cent was the last person who entered it. He was, as the
learned counsel for the plaintiff had stated, cognizant of the
deed, and he relied on the good faith of the gentlemen who
conducted the concern to make him fully aware of what was
going on. The directors were bound by the terms of the
agreement to hold annual meetings and to make an annual
report, neither of which they had done. Therefore Mr.
Vincent never heard of this irregular transaction, nor was it
till this combination that he was at all informed of what had
now been brought to light. Upon bearing it he at once came
down to Liverpool, got bills printed giving notice that be
Would not be liable. After that notice they could not make
him liable, and all that accrued after that notice would at
least be safe ; but he hoped to be able to show that they
had no right to charge Mr. Vincent with any portion
of the transaction. The conduct of the directors had been
most extraordinary, and that which his friend had brought
forward with such an appearance of candour, was in his
judgment the grossest part thereof. By the terms of the
deed they were obliged, whenever the capital should be re-
duced to one-third, to call a meeting, when, if one of the
shareholders demanded a dissolution the cotnpany must be
broken up. The learned gentleman proceeded to contend
that the directors had exhausted the capital, and then went
on speculating for themselves, meaning in the end to throw
the whole burthen on the shareholders. When they found
the capital diminished they ought to have called a meeting of
the shareholders, when Mr. Vincent, finding how matters
Itg(113, would have had an opportunity of dissolving. Accord-

log to the elettesetit of his Wined Mead, the directors liad
been advancing their own measures in support of this con-
cern, and therefore it was the directors to whom the plain-
tiffs had given credit, and he was prepared to state that they
had made a direct statement to that effect. It was the di-
rectors, therefore whom they ought to sue. There was ano-
ther ground on which the defendants were not liable. The
shareholders were liable for every thing done by the direc-
tors within the scope and meaning of their duties as mana-
gers for the association. But it they went out of their way
and incurred obligations, not in the scope and objects of the
society, then they and not the shareholders were liable. Thus,
for instance, if the directors of a mine accepted bills to a great
amount, the shareholders were not liable unless it could be
proved that they had given the directors specificauthority to ac-
cept such bills, or had in some way or manner recognised such
authority. The ferry was a ready-money concern, and all the
profits of the company were in cash. They had no right, there-
fore, to get this inordinate credit, nor had the plain tiffs any right
to give it. The shareholders in the concern who took no active
part in it were not, in point of law, liable for that which
occurred out of the regular course of business. The plain-
tiffs, again, had given no proof of any account having been
rendered to the company, or that they had made any claim
upon them. From this he inferred that they were not able
to supply any such proof. The inference, again, from this
was, that they were not the party to whom the credit was
given, but that they had given credit to the creditors, and he
should prove that they had said so.
Mr. WATSON, on behalf of Mr. Joseph, said, his client
was entirely ignorant of the whole transactions of the com-
pany, and, as they had heard from his son, he had never
attended any of the meetings, or taken any part whatever in
the transactions. He was now called upon to pay a debt
which the other parties had incurred in his absence, and which
those parties ought in justice to have paid themselves.
Mr. CROMPTON, on behalf of Mr. Vincent, put in a writ
on a former action against George Vincent, in the Court of
Exchequer, at the suit of Page and Grantham. The plain-
tiffs had then claimed £6lO. A printed notice, bearing the
same date, was read. It was a notice that George Vincent
would not be responsible for any further debt due from the
Egremont Company.
His LORDSHIP was about to put the case to the jury, say-
ing that the action was in reality undefended.
The defendants intimated that they had another witness.
Mr. Henry Heathcote Statham stated that he was a so-
licitor, and that Mr. Vincent was his agent in London. On
the 17th Jnly last, (the date of the writ and notice,) he went
with Mr. Vincent to the plaintiffs. Saw Mr. Page. Mr.
Vincent asked Page if he knew him. Mr. Page said he did
not or any person of the name of Vincent, nor had they any
person of the name of Vincent as a debtor in their books.
Mr. Vincent asked if they had done any work for the Egre-
inont Packet Company. Mr. Page said they had. Mr.
Vincent asked him by whom the orders were given. Mr.
Page answered, sometimes by the Secretary and sometimes
by the Directors. Mr. Vincent asked to whom credit was
given in the books. Mr. Page said to the Directors, and in
t reply to other questions said hey had !,coked to nobody else,
and knew nobody else. , ' '

His Lordship-`briefly 'charged the jury. He thought the
defendants were unquestionably responsible, inasmuch as
they had signed the deed, and authorised parties in Liver-
pool to carry on the business. They had, however, their
co-partners. It appeared that a suit was at present pending,
and that Mr. Vincent would be able to recover back all that
be was entitled to receive. His Lordship, at the request of
covnsel, asked the jury whether they were of opinion that it
had been proved in evidence that the plaintiffs knew how
the funds of the company were to be managed ?
The foreman replied in the negative.
A verdict for the plaintiffs for the full amount, £730, was
then returned.

STEVENS V. LOCKWOOD AND ANOTHER

In this case, after some consultation, a verdict was taken
for the plaintiff, by consent, subject to a reference.

This Case terminated the business of the assizes

QUARTER SESSIONS.-YESTERDAY

CONSPIRACY TO DEFRAUD.-EMIGRATION CASE

Edward Rae, aged 27, and Luke Franklin, 26, were in-
dicted for having unlawfully conspired and confederated to
cheat and defraud Thomas Jacob Clitheroe, of the sum of
£3 10s. The prisoner Franklin had been out on bail. The
particulars of the case so recently transpired in the police-
court, that a few of the principal facts as brought out in evi-
dence will here suffice. The prosecutor, who had lived in
Clitheroe, had, about the middle of last month, negotiated
for a passage to America, by a ship called the Washington.
with Messrs. Byrne, emigrant agents at this port, and had
paid £1 Is. on account—receiving an acknowledgment by
letter of the receipt of the money. Ile some days afterwards
arrived at Liverpool, by railway, with a view to pay the
balance, and embark by the vessel named. At the railway
station he took a car, of which the prisoner was the driver,
and whom he directed to convey him to the shipping office of
Messrs. Byrne. In place of doing so, however, the prisoner
drove hhim to Messrs. Robinson's office, saying that that was
the place. He there saw the other prisoner Franklin, who
is a clerk in the office, and told him he had come to go by the
Washington, and to pay his passage. Franklin said it was
all right, and received from him £3los. for a steerage passage.
He received a ticket for the ship Franklin, not the Washing-
ton, which prosecutor did not at first notice. The prosecu-
tor at the time forgot that he had previously paid the 21s. on
account, but afterwards went to the prisoner Franklin and
showed him the letter, on which the latter said, " Oh, I
know all about it; I wrote it myself !" The money was not
returned, and the prosecutor, after applying to Messrs.
Byrne, instituted the prosecution. The evidence went to
show the conspiracy of the prisoners to get hold of the pro-
secutor's money, for Robinson's who were rivals of Byrne's,
as emigrant agents.—Mr. Paget conducted the prosecution ;
Mr. Henderson defended Franklin, and Mr. James, Rae.
The trial lasted from the opening of the court till after two
o'clock. Several witnesses gave the prisoners good charac-
ters. The jury found them both guilty, but recommended
them to mercy.—The Recorder remarked that the spirit of
competition had in this case been carried to the extreme of
" sharp practice," and ordered the prisoners to be put down,
as he should defer paping.sentence. _ _ _

William Braddock, a boy, was charged with stealing a
coat, the property of Mr. M`Michan. The coat had been
sent to Mr. Littler's, tailor, Lord-street; and while the
shop-boy was taking it home on the 3d of March, about four
o'clock, to the owner's lodgings, in Upper Bedford-street,
the prisoner came up with another lad, and persuaded tha
bearer to give up the coat, saying, it was the wrong one, and
that he must go back to Mr. Littler's shop for a waistcoat,
which should have been brought with the coat. The shop-
boy returned to the shop, believing this story, butfound that
no such waistcoat was there. He afterviaids recognised the
prisoner in the street. and had him apprehended. On being
taken and told that it was for clothes he said, " If it's for a
coat, I know nothing about it." This was the
eviaonoo f.-
the prosecution. Mr. Venables defended the prisoner, and
called witnesses with a view to prove an alibi. A female
prisoner swore that the prisoner was in the house of her bro-
ther-in-law in Jubilee-street. She described his dress, and
said he remained there from before four o'clock to a little
before six. The prisoner's sister, a good-looking girl, said,
the prisoner had no light-coloured clothes like those spoken
to as being worn by him on the day in question. She, how-
ever, said that she never knew any thing against him before ;
but it appeared that be had been convicted in October last,
and committed for a month for stealing lead. The Recorder,
in summing up, remarked that the crime of obtaining pro-
perty by ingenuity was much on the increase in the town.
The jury returned a verdict of guilty. He was sentenced to
be imprisoned for six months—the last month in solitary
confinement. _ _ _

Three boys, 111` Grah, Mackay, and Gallagher, were in-
dicted for having stolen a pair of shoes from the shop of Mrs.
Hope, Berry-street, on the sth of March. The jury found
them guilty. Mackay, who had before been convicted, was
sentenced to be transported for seven years, with an inti-
mation that, he should be sent to the Isle of Wight; the
others to be imprisoned for six months.
Margaret Williams was charged with robbing a man of
his watch in Hackin's-hey. The case has heen already re-
ported in the columns of the STANDARD when it was brought
up before the police-court. She was found guilty, and was
sentenced to twelve calendar months and hard labour.
_ _

Elizabeth Agar was indicted for having, on the 7th of
March, stolen from her master a window blind and other
trifling articles. The prisoner was in the service of the pro-
secutor, Mr. Joseph Andrews, a master rigger, and being
suspected her box was searched and the articles were found.
They did not appear to be worth above a shilling. Mr.
Venables severly cross-examined the prosecutor. Several
respectable persons who had known the prisoner for years
gave her a good character for honesty. The jury found her
guilty. There was another indictment against her but it was
not pressed, and a verdict was taken upon it of not guilty ;
and the prosecutor recommended her to mercy. The Re-
corder admonished her, and sentenced her to one month's
imprisonment.

THE. MURDER AT HOEHAMPTON.—The coroner's jury
have returned a verdict of wilful murder against Daniel Good,
but the miscreant has not yet been apprehended.
Alderman Pirie, Lord Mayor of London, has been created
a baronet by her Majesty.
The Dukes of Buckingham, Beaufort, and Cleveland, and
the Marquis of Salisbury were on Monday invested, by the
Queen, with the insigna of the order of the Garter.
The Satirist, one of the journals which have been de-
nounced from the Bench as forming " the disgrace of the
press,"—conducted by ruffians without principle or charac-
ter,—is to be proceeded against for publishing filthy libels on
the Queen and Prince Albert. The only wonder is that this
paper has been allowed to pursue its obscene course for so
long a time.

The, beauty of the Hon. Miss Stuart, daughter of the
Lord Stuart de Rothesay, and fiancee of the Marquis of
Waterford, has long been the theme of conversation in aris-
tocratic circles which she adorns as much by the accomplish-
ment of her mind as by the amiability of her disposition.
It is said that the representative of one of the first Whig
families aspired to her hand ; but that the political and party
ties of each proved too formidable an obstacle to their union.
The Marquis, however, who has earned so much celebrity in
the sporting world, may say, " Veni, vidi, vici"--his conquest
having been as complete and sudden, as his matrimonial
resolve was unexpected.— Argus.

INDIAN NEWS.—On Wednesday a Court of Directors was
held at the East India House, when the most noble the Mar-
quis of Tweeddale, K.T., was appointed Governor of the
Presidency of Fort St. George. The thanks of the Court
were voted unanimously to Mr. George Lyall, M.P., chair-
man, and Major-General Sir James Law Lushington, G.C.B.
deputy chairman, for their great application and attention to
the affairs of the East India Company during the past year.
A ballot was then taken for the election of six directors in
the room of Mr. Henry Alexander, Major-General Sir Jere-
ntiah Bryant, C.B. ; Mr. William Stanley Clarke, Mr. John
Shepherd, Mr. Francis Warden, and Sir William Young,
Bart., who go out by rotation. At six o'clock, the glasses
were closed and given to the scrutineers, who reported that
the election had fallen on Mr. William Astell, M.P. ; Mr.
William Butterworth Bayley, Mr. Russell Ellice, Major-
General Archibald Galloway, C.B.,Sir Richard Jenkins,
G.C.8., and Mr. John Masterman, 11. P.
The TRADE OF THE TYNE.—This day (Monday, April
4,) there were cleared at the Custom-house, Newcastle, the
greatest number of ships for foreign ports ever remembered
to have been cleared in one day, namely, 72 sail, bound to the
following places :—Bombay, 1 ; New York, 2 ; Constanti-
nople, 3; Odessa, 1 ; Carthagena, 1; Cadiz, 1 ; Saintez, 1 ;
Genoa, 1 ; Naples, 1 ; Marseilles, 1 ; Bourdeaux, 3 ; Fe-
camp, 2 ; Rouen, 10 ; Havre de Grace, 6; Paimbeuf, 1 ;
Hontleur, 2 ' • Harfleur, 1; Cronstadt, 1 ; Copenhagen, 3 :
Elsineur, 1; Sonderberg, 1; Kiel, 1 ; Flensburgh, 2; Rod-
kioping, 1 ; Nykioping, 1 ;..Islorkioping, 1 ; Norde 1 ; Har-
beekininde, Riga 2 ; Stettin, 7 ; Hamburg, 8 ; Altona, 1 ;
Rotterdam, 1 ; Harlingen, 1. These vessels were all with
cargoes, and are, of course, in addition to the coasting busi-
ness of the-day.—Tyne Mercury.
Ourmynnoss.—Several other bishops have announced
their intention of holding ordinations since the publication
of the list. They now stand as follows:—
May 22.--Bishop of Oxford, at Oxford.
Nay 22.—Bishop of Lincoln, at Lincoln.
ay 22.—Bishop of Hereford, at Hereford.
May 22.—Bishop of Exeter, at Exeter.
June.
May 22.—Bishop of London, at London.
l.—Bishop of Peterborough. at Peterborough.
June
s.—Bishop
of Ely, at London.
July 10
July 10. .-Bishop
of St. Asaph, at St. Asaph.
"—"'8110 of Winchester, at Winchester.
10.—Bishop.:__Bish of Durham, at Durham.
July P
The Bishops of Chester,
of Salisbury, at Salisbury.
Lichfield, and Norivitshter, Ripon, Gloucester, and Bristol,
during the next three , will also hold general ordinations
in
been fixed by their ontha; but the days have not yet
lordships.

NORTH WALES CIRCUIT.

CHESTER, APRIL 13.
(Before Mr. Justice MAULS.)

The trials at these assizes terminated at eleven o'clock L'as't
night, with the cases of the soldiers indicted for riot and
creating a disturbance in the town of Stockport. The jury
acquitted all the prisoners (in number 11), their identity in
connexion with the disturbance not being sufficiently proved.
Anne Rathbone, the young woman found guilty of mur-
dering her infant child, at Macclesfield, had sentence of death
recordel against her. The learned Judge stated that her life
might be spared, but sbe must not expect to remain in this
country.

Robert Sandys, a stout-built Irishman, having a pale and
haggard appearance, who was found guilty at the last assizes
for this county of the diabolical murder of his children by
poison, in order to obtain a few pounds from a burial society,
of which he was a member, was this night brought up to re-
ceive the last awful sentence of the law. The sentence, it
will be remembered, was postponed in consequence of the
prisoner's counsel raising an objection to the wording of the
indictment, :he point being reserved for the judges, who sub-
sequently gave a decision against the prisoner.
The prisoner, on being asked by the clerk of the crown if
he had anything to say why sentence of death should not be
passed against him, said, " I am as innocent as the great
God in heaven. Since the verdict was returned against me
at the last assizes I have suffered a hundred deaths. I could
not commit so shocking a crime as to poison my own children
for a small sum of money."

Sentence of death was then passed upon the prisoner in
the usual form, and he was removed from the dock protesting
his innocence.

His LORDSHIP did nut hold out the slightest hope of mercy
to the culprit.

ANIMAL MAGNETISM