Chester, Saturday, Sept. ...
The Times, 1824-09-14T00:00:00

John Brctiuall. lab urer, was indicted fer feloolinuslv rnarrvirg Maria B:'otherstone. qonster, in Ma 3nchester. on the 26tb of Fet,ru- arv l:ast, his former wife being still lirinir. John Lec proved that he wac present at both marriages, and that che prisoner represented hirMself 25 a wiloweron the second marriage. Both wives were also proved to be still living. The prisoner made no defence. Verdict-Guilts. Sentence rc- corded. G.RDINtER V. RADLEY. This was an action ior damaves on a breach of contract. Mr. TrMPLE stated the case. The plaintiff' was a merchant at Livernool. and the defendant the master of a steamn-boat. called the Ear) of Bridigrwoter. pivinz between Liverpool and Chester. Oi the 5bth of Mlay last the Chester races commenced, which made a number of persons anxious to leave Liverpool w see themr.. On the Ray in quesiina. the pliinfi?if' with many others, proceededl to the defendant's boat absut five o'clock in' the r,torning. the hour at which it was to start t.&cordirni io the advcrtisement; but the (iefendant. anxious to have as large a carro of passen. gers as possible, delaved startine till a quarter to cix. Thii boat a]. wavs met the c.nal boat at Whitby locks, by which all the passen. jeers were conveved from theRce tn C'bester. aned for half-a-crown 3 head. wh,c'. the plainiff' paid. The defendant c=atractsd to takc tlle plaintiff, or any other per.son, by this tnode of conveYance from I iermool to Chester. In consequenecof thc delty o tihe defen(lant in starting, he saw that he would hetoo late for thecanal boat, which started fronm Whitbv-lonks at a particul:ar hour t sad instead ofcon. tinuing his course to the locks. as he was boundi to do, he made all the passenzers disembark withliu a mile and a half of W'hitby, leav. ino the(ni without any mode of conveyance to Chlester. The pe- -engers were highiv indignant a' this treatmert : and the mrisconduct of the master was considerably agrravated by landina them in a most incoaverient place, where thev had to waade through dirt sad mud hr- ecnsiderable istanee. The defendant should at aU events haye carried them to Whitbv. thoueh tte still wouil not have ful. filled his engagcement, beinig too late-for the canal-boat; but in. stead of thit, he landed them in this inconvenient place, that he niiizlt be back in time to Liverpool to take a second cargo ot passengers to Chester. and put more money in his pocket. In tonsequence of this conduct on the p-rt of the master. the plain. tiff was obliged to walk ten miles to Chester on a very hot day. But in. ihis case. the learnetl couBnsel s!ated. damagrF were not sc touch sotibht, as that they shnuld mark their disapprobation ol the detendant's eonduct int not fulfilling his contract. Om thIe proprietors of steanm-boats and coaches the public placed grearl confidence e and c.n the faith of their engagementu, persons weti intlueed to place themselves itn siluations, the result of' whiche nigftt be to thern of the greatest consequence; and they were! iherefore bound, in all caseg, to niark their sense of any dcpar.:- ttire from such etizagetnents, by visiting upon the defendant suchil datatres as they thought the nature of the ease required. The payment of the half-craown and the con ract were proved. A wi;taeCi swore that he thought that the reason of the irtaster sno6 Proceedinr to Wfhirhv _.lcks w%aS want of water. a, the tide was otn~ the ebb; but thlat if he t:nd left liverpool at fie, he would have beerl iti tinte for th. tide, and enultd have gone to thc locks. I Mr. JOwEs and Mr. Sr.recx. for the daeendant, contended thag the action should have been broueht against the proprietor, and ne. the rmaster, as the latter was only the agent or servant ot the prof prietor. At action could not be brought against the driver of a coeadc tor an injury, or the non-nerfornmance of a contract: it must b against the proprietor, and he apprehended the present case wPs ex acr.Iv simrnilar. 'ihe ('CotaRT were of opinion that there was enough to estsblis an ownership in the present case. Verdict for the plaintiff Damacams Is. In this c2sea s-illm carriec costs, which were the great obiect of this action, s tte ple' tiff suffered no injurv. There were 209 persons on board at the tim each of whom may now bring his action. CHR.41E SR- S IPT. 11.