The Liverpool Standard, and General Advertiser.
Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1854-08-29 00:00:00

WEDNESDAY.

The Court met at nine o'clock, and resumed hearing the
case of Read and Others v. Aikin and others. Evidence
for the plaintiff was continued, the purport of which was,
that if the second steam-tug had remained, and rendered
such assistance as she was quite able to have done, the
David G. Fleming might have been got into dock safely;
and that, under the circumstances of the case, every
reimmigs, Preol4l9u J 4 beep taken, on the part of tlits

plaintiffs, to have the vessel removed in safety from the
dock-gate and taken to au anchorage in the river. The
dock-master said that she had all but cleared the bank
when the accident happened, and that two inches more of
_ _

would have floated her over. For the defence it
was contended that, on getting the David G. Fleming
into dock, the second tug was of no further use; and that
it was in accordance with the ordinary and generally
obserxed practice for her to leave at the time she did.
Evidence in support of this view was adduced at
great length. It was also contended that the damage
sustained did not necessarily arise out of the unsuccessful
endeavour to have the ship put into dock.—His LORDSHIP,
after alluding to the nature of the claim, and of the
defence, and remarking upon the pecuniary damage in-
volved in the case, although the jury would not be required
to pronounce an opinion as to that amount, as if the
verdict were in favour of the plaintiff, that would be made
a matter of reference, then, with much minuteness,
went over the various points of the evidence, remarking
that, in many instances, the witnesses on each side per-
fectly agreed. He next directed the attention of the jury
to the points on which they disagreed, stating that the
points at issue in a very great degree depended on the fact
of assistance being rendered at a critical period of the
tide. On this there appeared to be no conflict of opinion
between the parties ; although considerable disparity
ensted in the evidence as to the particular nature and
amount of the assistance required, and rendered. From
all of which, however, it appeared that, if the Express
steam-tug had remained, and if her power had been
applied in endeavours to extricate the ship, she would
have been got off. At all events, such was the bearing
and body of the evidence for the plaintiff. He next, in
the same minute and painstaking manner, went over the
evidence for the defence, making such remarks as to bring
the tendency of that evidence clearly before the jury,
remarking that, in a great degree, the case turned on the
particular time at which the operations were carried into
effect, as related to the ebbing or the flowing of the tide.
He further remarked that much of the case necessarily
depended on the fact that the vessel, by the efforts made,
could not be docked at all ; the contract being in the usual
terms for docking the ship. - It seemed, however, to be a
prevalent notion among the tug-people, that the second or
starboard tug should go away whenever the ship has got
her stern in so far as the dock-gate, unless ordered to
remain by the pilot or harbour-master, or some party in
authority. All the evidence went strongly to establish
as a fact, that the presence of the second steam-tug would
have been of very great utility. An important element
for the jury to consider would be, whether the damage
sustained was such as might be reasonably anticipated to
arise from the breach of the contract. If such damage
could not have been fairly anticipated, or if the plaintiffs
had been guilty of any manifest impropriety, from which
impropriety the damage might have arisen, they would
not be entitled to recover. He considered the jury might
have three different forms of verdict—the first, for the
defendants, in which case Cher would be an end of the
matter; the second, for the plaintiffs, with nominal
damages, which would be to the effect, that the defendants
had been morally guilty of a breach of contract, but
without being responsible for the absolute damage received;
or, they might find for the plaintiffs, with substantial
damages ; in which latter case, the amount would be a mat-
ter of reference. The jury retired at five minutes to nine
a'clock, and, after a quarter of an hour's absence, returned
a verdict for the plaintiffs, with nominal damages. The
Court then adjourned.