RESIDENT MAGISTRATE’S COURT.

Evening Star, Issue 3000, 30 September 1872, Page 2

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE’S COURT.

Tins Day. (Before A. C. Strode, Fsrj., IBM.) Civil Casks, Coventry v. Hatlield.—LlUo. Mr Barton (with him',Mr Haggitt) for the plaintiff ;Mr Jas. Smith fur the defendant. Claim for damage through alleged bad stowage of the Napier. Case for the defence. Richard Snow recalled : Had made a particular examination of the vessel, as to her stanchions and beams between decks. They were in very good condition, without sign of removal from their original position. He considered the ship very strong, the timbers being very heavy- Ho considered her a suitable vessel for a cargo of 800 tons of dead weight. He thought one-third of the dead weight should be between decks, to render her easy in a seaway. Each beam would bear a weight of TOO tons, if other parts of the cargo were properly distributed. 7 ~) or 10Q tons supported by live beams was not (oo great a weight. He never -aw cargo used as a support for the beams, which were sustained by strong supports, resting on the keelson. Jasmes Grant, sliio carpenter, examined the beams, stanchions, and iron knees of the Napier between decks, which were all in good order excepting one stanchion, supportfug the upper deck, of which the tenon was gone. This frequently happened. Ths Napier was about as strongly built as any he had seen of her class. All the beams and stanchions were in their places. The vessel appeared as strong as she could be expected to he after the severe weather. The James Nicol Fleming scarcely required, pumping. In the class of vessels to which the Napier belongs, it was not uncommon to pump every four hours, instead of sounding the well. Captain Edwards, master mariner, marine surveyor, and manager of Messrs Blackwood’s boats : He examined the Napier on arrival, and found the vessel exceedingly well stowed fore and aft, and well dmmaged. In reply to Mr Barton, ho had always been of that opinion. If goods were not damageaide, dunnage was of no cpnsequ ncc. Tip considoren the damage was through the “ Act of God.” He did not rccellect saying to Mr M‘Neill that he never saw a vessel in feiioh a state in bis life, nor one ao stowed.

H. M'Neil was called by the Court. He sent a copy of a letter in his hands to Capt. Edwards, who said, having been up all night, he could not answer four questions put to him. Witness asked him what he thought of the ship and her cargo, as far as he had seen it. He gave a sort of shrug of his shoulders, and said he never saw a ship in such a condition in his life, or words to that effect. Witness asked him if he thought the ship had been overloaded, and he replied—grossly overloaded. He had seen very little of the cargo except some drapery bales, and, as far as they were concerned, there appeared to be no damage at all. He said it was a wonder the vessel ever arrived in port. Captain Edwards did not say it was because of the bad weather he thought so. In reply to Mr Smith, Captain Edwards had been employed by their tirm and several others as surveyor, but they, finding he was also employed by several ships in the same capacity, did not employ him on that occasion. Captain Thomson, re-called ; Did not see any dunnage between decks, though he looked for it. It could not have dropped from between decks without his observing it. Had he been permitted to soe the bottom of the vessel he could have ascertained if there had been dunnage. He took particular notice of the between decks, where there was no dunnage. She drew 21 feet 4 inches, and must therefore have had more than 800 tons of dead weight. In reply to Mr Smith : The vessel had been discharging some days when he went away. If the dunnage had been taken away and stowed forwards, as the cargo was removed he should not have seen it. That would sufficiently account for his not seeing it, but the proceeding would be unusual. He could form a pretty accurate judgment as to the weight of cargo by the draught of water of the vessel, from her appearance, and the registered tonnage. The Napier was 1,200 tons register, and, therefore, might carry 1,800 tons dead weight; so that only 800 tons dead weight with lighter cargo would not put her down to that depth. By a rough guess, he arr.ved at the conclusion she must have had 1,100 tons on hoard. —At the request of Mr Smith, Captain Hatfield was recalled, and said the draught of the vessel was 20 feet 10 inches. —ln reply to Mr Barton : lhe iron bridge girders were in the lower hold, between the fore and main hatches. His Worship considered that the weight of evidence was in favor of the defendants, and the cause of damage was the extraordinarily tempestuous weather through which the vessel had passed. Mr Barton asked for a nonsuit, which was allowed. Spedding v. Alves. —LlB 16s Bd, for damage and loss through non-delivery of four bottles of quicksilver. Mr Stout for the plaintiff. The defendant pleaded that there was no sale of the quicksilver. The claim was for the difference I'etween 4s 3d, at which the quicksilver was sold to the plaintiff, and 5s Gel, at which Spedding had sold it. The plaintiff said he bought it through Mr Little, broker, on 6th September, on the evening of which a telegram appeared in the Evening Star stating that quicksilver had risen to 7s 6d per lb. A bottle of quicksilver weighed 75lbs.— Thomas Little, commission agent and broker, received authority from Alves, on the 3rd September, to sell four or iiye bottles, four of which he placed at 4s 3d with pla ntiff. On the 7th September he received a note from Alves, stating that only one bottle remained, and was sorry he could not deliver the remaining three bottles. For the defence. John Alves said, on the evening of the 3rd Mr Little handed him a memorandum, offering a certain price for quicksilver, which he did not sell at the time, pending inquiries, but on the oth he sold what he had to Mr Winter, and mentioned Little’s offer to him. He called in company with Winter, with whom Little made the arrangement. J. Winter, agent, agreed on the sth September to transfer any balance of quicksilver on hand to him. The next day it was arranged that Little should have whatever was left at 4a 3d. Alves did not sp-ak ; Little explained the conditions of sale. He made no arrangement as to quantity. The letter explaining the reason for non-delivery was written by Alves at his rebuest. Judgment for the plaintiff for the amount with posts.