The Liverpool Standard and General Commercial Advertiser.
Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1842-04-05 00:00:00

only two or three days before that date, in his brother's
office. The freight due in September, 1839, was accounted
for in August, 1840.
Mr. BAINES, for the defendant, contended that the only
question was, whether the articles were supplied on the credit
of the defendants or of Laidman. The defendants were
never held out as owners to the present plaintiff's. To make
them responsible, they must be proved to be legally owners ;
to make them this there must be a conveyance. It was
specially enacted that no bill of sale passed the property of
a ship, until produced to the collector or controller of the
port where registered. No such nrcdaction took place until
November 18, after this %vo.rk was ':one. The bill of sale
bore date in 1828, but it was not executed until 1839, and up
to that time the title of defendants was inchoate ; and it was
in Laidman and Bousfield, who originally purchased the
vessel, or rather in Laidrean' who was sole registered owner.
Here neither were the defentlants legal owners of the vessel,
nor was their credit held out to the plaintiffs, so that there
was no proof of their liability.
Mr. CROMPTON followed on the same side. There was
here no personal' credit—defendants were not legal owners ;
and he cited a case to show that agreements under inchoate
interests to divide profits or convey shares had not any lia-
bility, so long as they were incomplete.
Mr. DUNDAS contended that this was a case for the jury.
What was done was on the credit of the ship's owners, and
the bills were made out to them. There was no pretence for
saying that they were supplied on the credit of the ship's
husband, whether called Jonathan Laidman or Jonathan
Laidman and Co. The defendants had the beneficial inte-
rest. They were the real and substantial owners for whom
the work was done, and who got the benefit of it.
The COURT asked if Mr. Dundas would be content with
liberty to move ?
Mr. Dundas refused.

Mr. MARTIN followed on the same side. Laidman first
acted as owner, then as ship's husband, anti the credit was
given to the owners of the ship—to those benetitted by the
contract. The object of the registry was not to give, but to
distinguish British property ; and was it to he tolerated that
those who violated the law should take the advantage of the
violation to avoid the responsibility for repairs made to the
vessel ?

The COURT.—There is no law violated. They are not
compelled to register the transfer.
Mr. MARTIN continued.—But .if they omitted what the
law enabled them to do, they could not take advantage of
their own omission. The case rested entirely on whose cre-
dit the contract was made ; and the learned gentleman went
on to contend that the cases 'cited went to prove that, prima
facie, the parties liable W ere those who were beneficially in-
terested, who in this case, were certainly those who paid their
money for the ship, and were dividing the profits year after
year—and to cite others to show that the legal owners must
be held to be, not those whose BUMS are in the register, but
who have the beneficial interest in the property.
Mr. BAtslus was about to continue the argument, when
The COURT suggested that it was useless, as they must go
to the jury on the question whether the goods were supplied
to the credit of the owners or of Laidinan.
Mr. BAINES then addressed the jury, and contended that
Laidman was the only owner the plaintiff knew. It would
be a monstrous thing to make the defendants liable. Laid-
man, it appeared, owed the vessel 1:4000, and from their ne-
glecting the registry they could recover nothing ; so that they
would be compelled to pay for what they could not receive.
Besides, the plaintiff had no business to give Laidman these
long credits ; to let him set deeper into insolvency ; and then
send in the bills to the owners too late for the owners to learn
the true state of the affairs of the ship to any good purpose.
The COURT charged the jury. It was always a question
when a party came into court with a fair claim, whether he
was claiming from the party who ought to pay him. The law
said there should be no interest in a ship unless the name
was upon the register. The true test was—on whose credit
were the goods supplied ? The first question was, had Laid-
man any authority from the defendants to purchase those
sails ? The evidence went strongly to show that he had ; for,
though not owners, they were receiving profits, and employ-
ing him as ship's husband to manage the ship, and to do what
was necessary for the management. If they thought so, they
must find for the plaintiffs. There was another feature in the
case, that Laidman managed other ships, and their bills were
sent in together, made out to the owners. The question was,
whether this was not an inartificial way of saying that they
furnished them to Laidman on the credit of the
The jury found for the defendants.
FLETCHER, PUBLIC OFFICER, V. CROSBIE AND OTHERS.'

Mr. CuomPToN opened the proceedings, which were ex-
tremely complicated, almost every defendant having a differ-
ent set of pleas.
Mr. KNowtes expressed his fears that the case would be
an extremely long one, there being fifty-three defendants, of
whom twenty-three pleaded. The plaintiffs were the Phoenix
Bank, which originated in the failure of the Northern and
Central Bank, of which the Liverpool branch was found to be
profitable, and was continued under the name of the Phoenix
Bank. The defendants were styled the " British Lead,
Silver, and Copper Mining Company."
Mr. Baines appeared for Mr. James Cooper, of the Isle of
Wight, and six other defendants.
Mr. Wortley appeared for Thos. Wilson, Thos. Brancker
the younger, and several others.
Mr. Seager appeared for two of the defendants.
Mr. Roebuck appeared for one of the defendants.
Mr. Watson appeared for the first defendant in the record,
Mr. Crosbie, who had suffered judgment to go by default,
and who, by statute, was at liberty to cut down the demand
for costa, and to fix the other defendants.
For two of the defendants no counsel appeared.
Mr. Crompton, for the plaintiffs, put in the register of the
Phoenix Bank, and of its public officer, John Fletcher.
Mr. Robert Sheraton, secretary of the British Silver,
Lead, and Copper Mining Company, was examined.

His cross-eiaminationlasted three hours and a half, after
which the court adjourned, one or two of the learned gen-
tlemen declaring that they were " all at sea" in the compli-
cation of dates, parties, and documents, of which uo report
can give any idea.

CROWN COURT.-SATURDAY

MURDER

Thomas Hetherington was, arraigned for the wilful mur-
der of Peter Jackson, at Manchester, by striking him down
and kicking him. He pleaded not guilty.
Dr. BROWN proceeded to open the case, when his LORD-
snip inquired whether the prisoner had counsel. Dr. B.
said he had not, and that he believed the case would turn on
the question whether the prisoner were sane at the time of
the assault.
His LORDSIIIP appointed counsel for the prisoner, and
postponed the case, so that he (the counsel) might have time
to look into the depositions.

MANSLAUGHTER CASES

ITilliam Shaw' aged 27, was charged with haying, at Ash-
ton-under-Lyne, killed and slain a cbild, named Martha Og-
den. The prisoner was a carter, and, while his cart, which
was loaded with clover, was passing along the street, one of
the wheels knocked the deceased down, and she was so much
injured that, after sobbing once, she expired. The deceased
was a year and nine months old, and was the daughter of
Mr. William Ogden, a butcher. She had been in company
with her sister, who was four years of age, and who had left
her and gone across the street. The prisoner had been talk-
ing to another man, and the cart went on a little way, be
moving towards it backward while he talked. He ran after
it, and immediately after a scream of some women was heard,
just us the cart was turning a corner of the street. The wheel,
however, passed over the deceased, who got into the way, be-
fore he reached the horse's head. The prisoner, on being
apprehended, explained to the head constable, Mr. Newton,
the whole of the circumstances as they appeared in evidence,
and expressed great sorrow for the unfortunate catastrophe.
The prisoner had borne a good character for carefulness anti
humanity.
He was ably defended by Mr. Brandt.
The jury, after sitting some time, were allowed to retire,
as they could not come to a decision.
Jahn Davies, 23, stood indicted with having, at Manches-
ter, killed and slain Joseph Lawson.
Mr. Chapman conducted the prosecution.
Patrick Starkie said he lodged at the time at Dooley's
house, Cornwallis-street. Witness, on the 21st Nov., went
to bed, and Lawson was also in the room. Davies came up
into the room in a quarrelsome temper, and he challenged
the deceased, and they had a struggle together. The land-
lord came up and separated them. The prisoner, however,
attacked the deceased again, and in the struggle the deceased
fell upon a peculiar kind of candlestick, used by shoemakers,
on which the socket for the candle moved up and down to
any required height, on an iron rod, about two feet long, and
fixed in a stand formed of a block of wood. The point of the
rod stood perpendicular, and the deceased's head, when he
fell, struck the point of it, and it entered his temple, and pe-
netrated the brain. The deceased died soon afterwards from
this injury. The prisoner was drunk at the time, and WilA
the friend of the deceased. _ .

The jury immediately returned a verdict of guilty, with a
recommendation to mercy.
The learned JUDGE said that the prisoner did not, cer-
tainly, intend to take away the life of the deceased, but was
culpable, inasmuch as he had got drunk. Considering that
he had been in custody since the 23d November, be should
only remand him to gaol for one week, at the end of which
he should be discharged.