The Liverpool Standard and General Commercial Advertiser. — 1840-04-10 (Liverpool, Merseyside, England)

RUNNING DOWN OF A VESSEL.—ROBINSON V. ROBSON. This action (in which Mr. William Robinson was the Plaintiff, and Mr. James Robson, sen.; and-Mr. James Robson, jun., were the defendants) was brought to recover cownensation for a vessel belonging to the plaintiff, alleged to have been run down and destroyed, on the evening of the 6th of January, 1839, while at anchor in Yarmouth-roada, by a vessel belonging to the defendants, and through the negligence of the person having the management. The sum claimed was £750, the value of the vessel ; £25, the value of the provisions on board; and £35, the freight that she would have received ;—making altogether £BlO. It appeared that on the eve of the memorable and destructive storm, whose ravages were so severely felt in Liverpool, the George and Henry, a brig belonging to the plaintiff, bound' from Stockton to Southampton with a cargo of coals, put into the Yarmouth-roads, there being then indications of an approaching storm. Later on the evening the Wyndham, a vessel belonging to the defendants, fro, Shields to Rye, coal laden, finding the wind gradually rising. returned into the roads, where she had been lying from the Ist until the morning of the 6th of January. The wind was then pretty stiff, and the weather hazy ; mingled snow and rain were falling. The Wyndham, in making for that part f the harbour beyond that part of the harbour where the George and Henry was lying at Anchor, came in contact with the last-named brig, catching her on the starboard, and cutting her down to the water's edge, so that the crew had itntoe. diately to get on board of the Wyndham. She, however, had sustained considerable damage from the collision; , was making water fast, and the crew took to the boat, &di'g. with them the crew of the George and Henry. Two boor' after they were picked up by another vessel, and all saved' It was contended. on the part of the plaintiff, that the th'i aster arose through unskilfulness on the part of the mate ° the Wyndham, (the captain had, in a fit of insanity, committed suicide in the course of the voyage,) and by -, a ALEXANDER, on the part of the defendants, that there s been, as well as mutual loss, mutual negligence, inasmoc°;„ the vessel lying at anchor had no lights, and that, so suddenl and unexpectedly did they come into proximity, that,:althona i: all was done that could have been done to prevent corns!o_ it was unavoidable under the circumstances. The plaintTll.,l witnesses said, that though the night was hazy, they CO see to some distance, (a quarter of a mile,) whilst the witnesses for the defence stated, that they could not see wiroi_e:, than two or three ships' lengths before them. Evidence ,al! also called, on the part of the defence, to show that lost Wyndham (the value of which, :and not that of the bay' ing could only be recovered) had been overrated, it ing been sold, seven months previously, for :C6O , Tdo that ing suffered depreciation of 5 per cent. per annum. co!c:,' (the learned JUDGE observed, in his summing N thiamicetetod besu tanddoefd.isil tfohre jfureriyofiot,untidle forva tnlere fplaintiff,pt.l,deo2 tteatineerilainntdiffthweasatennottiltnitedoftothreecaocvcorru.ing freight, being  The jury found ter the ph:haler 1 clamegoe 400 lON, ThEOPA2B.--