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
resomfUle promitm lad bogi utkona 94 tag part Q the

e had b,

tiro plaintiff, but before the
summarily dismissed. The
laintifi went, along with his boy, to the defendant, to
claim wages for the unexpired term. A quarrel ensued,
as the defendant was proceeding home, followed by the
plaintiff, which resulted in the latter being struck vio-

defence.

lo had been

The defer

to leave

d on the ri
the defend

His Lord:

in Eccleston-
boon rtnrinr

[le time.

,ead violen

on the

fell under-
Verdict

SECOND COURT.

Mr. Baron Platt.)
disposed of all the c

ening to

me o'clocli

s seat this morning, at
and proceeded to .the

sposal of civil cause
ACTION OF OVERF,

YMnNT.—Brackenridge v. Smith.—
Th iswas an action for the recovery of £3l 3s. 10d. The
plaintiff, is one of the firm of Brackenridge and Gould, corn
merchants, of this town, and the defendant is an extensive
corn dealer, at Todmorden, of the firm of R. and E. Smith.
The case originated in an alleged mistake. On Tuesday,
March 28th,Mr. Smith attended the Liverpool corn market,
having two purses in his pockets—one containing notes
to the amount of £l7O, the other containing £2lO in gold.
Owing the plaintiff £202 Bs., the defendant handed him
the purse of gold, saying it contained £l7O, and he would
call after market and settle the remainder. Mr. bracken-
ridge afterwards raid the settlement would, do on Thurs-
day. Upon arriving at home, the defendant discovered
his mistake and wrote. The money had been entered in
Mr. Brackenridge's books as £170; hence the dispute and
action.—Verdict for the defendant.
HOUSE CASE.—Anger v. Carlton.—This was an action
to recover £2OO, the price of three horses sold by the
plaintiff, a horse dealer, to Robert Carlton, gentleman,
also of this town. It appeared that, in May last, the de-
fendant went to Lucas's Repository, where the plaintiff,
who dealt extensively in horses, had some for sale. He
arranged to buy a bay horse and a bay mare, value £lso—
latter intended for a lady. A memorandum was made
to that effect by Mr. Lucas, who had the horses put in
loose boxes, and taken particular care of, by the direction
of Mr. Carlton. Afterwards the defendant bought a
third horse for £5O, though he still left them at Mr.
Lucas's livery stable, and ordered saddlery and horse
clothing from Mr. Mercer, and also had one of the horses
broken in. A relative of the defendant's, Mr. Cruikshank,
had, on several occasions, ridden one of the horses out.
The defendant afterwards repudiated the bargains ; hence
this action. The defence set up was, that the defendant,
at the time in question, was not in a fit state to make a
bargain—that he was not sober.—Verdict for the paintiff.
—His Lordship gave the defendant liberty to move that
there was no evidence to go before a jury to prove an

acceptance.
IMPORTANT TO THE SMITING INTEREST.—STEELE V.
SCUOMBERG.—This was an action brought by the plain-
tiff, Mr. James Steele, shipowner, of this town, against
Captain Schomberg, the government emigration officer, of
this port, to recover compensation in damages for loss
sustained arising out of the circumstances detailed below.
Mr. Steele, the plaintiff, in 1833 became the purchaser
of the ship Miltiades, of 674 tons, while afloat, and on her
passage here from Callao, with guano. On her arrival,
the plaintiff went on board the vessel, and she drew 18 '
feet 6 inches of water ail, and 18 feet 3 inches forward.
Mr. M`Keverigan, shipbuilder, was engaged to survey the ,
vessel, and his report was satisfactory. Plaintiff fitted her '
up as a passenger ship, and gave notice thereof to defen-
dant. She was also examined when in the graving dock,
and on the 17th October measured off, allowing her 20
cabin and 80 between-deck passengers. The work of
getting the ship ready went on till December ; and on the
7th the plaintiff, being in London, received a telegraphic
message requesting his return. He did so ; and on the
morning of the Bth waited upon Captain Schomberg, who
expressed regret on account of his being obliged to stop
the vessel, in consequence of her being 18 inches too deep.
Plaintiff asked defendant by what rule he had arrived at
that conclusion ? He replied, by no rule, but by a sailor's
eye. Plaintiff replied, that commercial men had good
commercial rules on these matters ; and Capt. Schomberg
then said that, to satisfy Mr. Steele, he would call a
survey of the ship by his own officers, which he did, and
they took the draft of water, and confirmed the defen-
dant's statement. On a subsequent interview with defen-
dant, the plaintiff said he would leave the matter. to the
decision of any number of commercial men, and if they,
or any one of them, said the ship was too deep, lie would
lighten her. He declined, and a portion of the cargo—not
prohibited articles—was discharged, the attendant ex-
penses upon the whole affair being laid at £1,048 17s. 11d.
It was contended that the sections of the passenger act
gave the defendant no such power as he had thus exel-
cised.—For the defence it was argued that Capt. Schom-
berg was not liable to this action, his office being judicial
and not ministerial. The passenger act empowered him
to exercise his own judgment in regard to passenger ships.
—His Lordship thought that the defendant was entitled
to a verdict, so far as that he was protected by act of par-
liament ; but suggested that one of the jury should decide
what compensation, if any, should be made. This was
agreed to, and Mr. Bernard Hall was named. His Lord-
ship will certify, subject to appeal to the court above.
The court rose shortly after six.