a quarter before they interrupted us: Allen first stepped up to us, and put his gun across our breasts, and told us to stop: I begged his pardon, and attempted to go on: Allen then said, I have a suspicion that you are going a poaching; I told him if he had such a suspicion of me, that I would willingly be searched: Allen then raised his gun and let us pass; he lifted his gun barrel over our heads; Allen then turned round and said to the plaintiff, Brown, you are the poaching rascal I want: you have been pounds out of my way, and I will blow a hole through you.' Brown replied that he would be searched there, or go down to Wandsworth and be searched. Brown put a basket down on the ground, and told Allen that he would be stripped naked if he had any suspicions of him. Allen kept manœuvring about Brown, and said he would shoot him, and not search him. I walked on a little way; Allen pushed hard with the muzzle of his gun against Brown's breast, and pinned him against the pailings. It was a double-barrel gun. Brown called me back; I said, Brown come along. Allen replied, that he should not. I said to Brown, if he (Allen) is tolerated to shoot, let him shoot. Allen then came down into the road, and ran his gun five times against me, and swore that, if I moved a foot, he would blow a hole through me. While he was thus attacking me, he cocked both the locks of his gun. Brown stepped over a stile into a common foot-path, which leads to Putney. As Brown got over the gate, Allen attempted to stop him, but did not succeed. Allen then levelled his gun at Brown; I did not think he meant to shoot him. Allen, however, swore and pulled the trigger of his gun, and as the contents of one of the gun barrels lodged in the body of Brown, he fell to the ground, and called to me, seemingly in great pain, Purday, I am shot. I then attempted to get over the gate, but Allen would not let me he said, ‹ If you move another step, I'll blow a hole through you with the other barrel. You recollect my gun shoots twice, and I'll shoot you.' Joseph Wilkins being sworn, stated as follows :—“ I am a jobbing gardener. I had been be tween Cheam and Sutton for a job of trenching, on the 17th of February, and found there were as many hands as could be employed. I met Purday and Brown between nine and ten on Putney-hill. We walked together, and met Allen near the Green Man, Wimbledon. They bid each other good night. Allen followed them nearly a mile. It was not ten o'clock, but it was very near it. Allen came across the road, and said, I think you have got something.' Common-Sergeant.-There is no necessity for this witness to go into all the details of the first evidence. I admit that the defendant shot the plaintiff. I will ask him if Purday told the truth in the whole of his relation? Witness. All he has stated is true. The plaintiff and Purday said they were going to the George public-house at Wandsworth, when I met them, and not to snare snare game. I took a walk with them. I did not walk with the plaintiff on the next day at all. I believe he kept his bed at that time, and a long time after. Common Sergeant.-Had Purday any stick? Witness.-I think he had a little switch stick. No violence was offered to Allen. On the contrary, he alone acted with violence: I believe he was in liquor at the time. Dr. Simmons deposed as follows:-I examined the plaintiff a short time after he was shot and found he was dreadfully wounded. A great number of shots were in his knee, leg, and thigh. I hoped it would not prove fatal; but I had great apprehensions at the time that it might. I never saw the plaintiff after that night, till I saw him on the trial at Kingston; he then limped, which was no doubt the consequence of the injury he received by being shot; I believe the limping was not affected; it was the probable effect of the injury in his thigh; I think for a labouring man such an injury would prove highly prejudicial to him in his employment, and of more serious consequence than to a person whose occupation was of a different and lighter description. Mr. Joseph Hillier, the fatherin-law of the plaintiff, proved that the plaintiff had suffered eight or nine weeks' serious indisposition from the injury he received when he was shot, and he was not able to do any work for twelve weeks. The Secondary summed up the evidence very minutely; he inveighed against the atrocious conduct of the defendant, and recommended the jury to give such fair and moderate damages as they should be of opinion, after a dispassionate review of the facts which had been detailed in evidence, the justice of the case required. The jury retired for a short time, and gave a verdict-Damages 50l. and costs. ADMIRALTY-COURT, DEC. 1. In the case of the ship La Jeanne. This was a claim for salvage of ship and cargo, the particulars of which were briefly stated by Dr. Adams, on behalf of the salvors. The vessel belonged to Dunkirk, and was brought into Falmouth by the Hind revenue-cutter, having been found at sea, floating, with her keel upwards, and two or three casks of brandy, part of her cargo, washed out of her. By dint of great and severe exertion, the cutter's crew, assisted by 90 other men, amounting in all to 131 hands, succeeded in righting her, and brought her into Falmouth on the 13th of last February. The value of the cargo, which consisted of wine and brandy, was 3,000l., and the expenses already incurred amounted to 428/., which sum was, of course, to be deducted from the nett amount to be allotted for salvage. One cask or barrel of brandy was afterwards found in a barn near the coast, and another was also discovered on shore. Dr. Arnold, for the owners, admitted that this was a case of "derelict," but one that did not come before the Court under very special circumstances; and in this view of the case, he thought an allowance of one-third would be be ample. The learned counsel for the salvors entreated the Court to remember, that the hull and property were picked up in the tempestuous month of February, and at a distance of 24 miles off the Lizard Point: these circumstances, added to the very laborious efforts of the salvors, entitled them, he contended, to more than a moiety of the value; and when the heavy expenses incurred were taken into consideration, and the great number among whom salvage was to be distributed, it was evident that even such an allotment would be, in fact, less than a moiety. Dr. Adams observed, that between the opposite counsel and himself there was no difference as to facts; the only question at issue between them was the amount of remuneration to be made to the salvors. He must at once declare his conviction, that the proposed one shilling and three-pence was by no means an adequate allowance. The vessel was abandoned on the 9th, and not discovered until the 13th of February; at that time she was riding with her keel upwards, and a part of her cargo floated out; she had, therefore, been at sea four days in this destitute condition; and, no doubt, in twelve hours more the whole of her cargo would have been dispersed on the sea. The salvage effected by his party was, therefore, proportionably great. It ought also to be remembered, that among the salvors were a King's officer, (Lieutenant Little, commander of the Hind, and his crew of 40 men), besides the others employed, viz. 90 additional hands, for the purpose of raising her, and towing her into port, which was not achieved but with incredible labour. On the whole, he should conclude with observing, that the Court would not exceed the ancient rule of its practice, if it even decreed salvors a moiety. Dr. Arnold felt that this was a case visibly distinguished from others of the highest merits, in which the court had rewarded salvors for the absolute risk of their lives, as well as for their exertions. With its permission, he would refer to two or three cases in point. In that of the Trionfo, a Portuguese ship, (adjudged in 1803) that had been run foul of by another vessel, and abandoned by her crew, and, 5 days afterwards, was fallen in with by two of our frigates, whom it occupied 4 days to bring her in ; the value of the cargo was about 16,000l., and the Court held that a third was a sufficient salvage. The Two Brothers, Forman, 1808, was found at sea, driving before the wind towards the enemy's coast (Jutland); the salvors were 8 men and 2 boys; the court gave 700., which was only one-fourth. In the case of the Francis, Pasmore, 1809, where the value was 2,000l., the court allowed salvors only 600l., which was less than a third. The Eglantine, in February, 1812, was found at sea, derelict, by the Cumberland WestIndiaman; the Court did not consider that there was any danger to the salvors arising from the weather at that time; but that great merit was due to them for embarking in a vessel, to bring her into port, that was in so unprotected a state: the salvors were were employed 29 days in work ing her to a port; the value of the property on board was 9,500.; the Court decreed only a third, however. Dr. Adams replied, that the peril in any of the cases just adduced was not equal to that incurred in the present instance. Sir William Scott remarked, that, in adjudging all these cases, the court did not feel itself strictly bound to adhere to the grant of a moiety in cases of "derelict." The Court had a right to advert to all the circumstances under which the salvage had been effected in giving those remunerations, and had thought proper to abandon the ancient practice. The present case was one of "derelict" of an extreme nature, and of imminent peril. The vessel was found in an inverted state, her keel upwards, a portion of her cargo already washed out, and the remainder on the point of following. She was fallen in with by a revenue-cutter, under a complication of perilous circumstances, in the month of February, in very stormy weather, the sea running very high, and off a coast of extreme peril, not merely from its natural difficulties, but from the inhospitable character of its inhabitants. It had appeared that one barrel of brandy was found in a barn; it might be matter of wonder that a greater part of the cargo had not travelled the same road. In every point of view the peril was extreme, and the exertions of the salvors were strenuous. Even after the hull had been laid up in dock for repairs, there was great danger of its falling to pieces, and destroying the workmen employed on its reparation. Every merit, therefore, was clearly due to the salvors; and under all the circumstances before the Court, it did not feel disposed to diminish the remuneration anciently assigned in these cases; he, therefore, decreed a moiety of the property to the salvors, as it now stood, i. e. after deduction of the 4287. expenses from the value of that property; for as to the other expenses, the parties had not given their appearances as soon as they might have done, and their amount had become considerable. As to the cask, of course salvage would follow in the same proportion. Costs on all sides to be deducted from moiety. Salmon v. Atkinson and others, This action was brought against the defendants as coach proprietors, for having refused to convey the plaintiff, a respectable attorney at Bath, from Liverpool to Holyhead, after he had taken his place; and also to recover expenses paid by the plaintiff for a chaise, in consequence of such refusal. Between Liverpool and Holyhead there are three ferries; the first over the Mersey at Liverpool, where the passengers are paid for by the coach pro prietors; and two others at Conway and Bangor, where it seems the proprietors refuse to pay for the passengers. But the question in the present case seemed to be, not so much whether the pas sengers sengers or the proprietors ought to pay for the passage over these two ferries, as whether upon the present occasion the defendants' coachman, who was also a proprietor, was not in collusion with the ferrymen and postmaster at Conway, to make the passengers pay an illegal demand; the fare for the ordinary [foot-passengers, being 1d., and for a horse and rider 2d., while 6d. was demand. ed of the outside coach passengers, and 1s. of the inside passengers. Hawkesworth, the defendants' agent, proved, that the plaintiff had taken his place from Liverpool to Holyhead, under the name of James, in the beginning of September last. The proprietors, he stated, paid the passage over the Mersey, but not the other ferries. Selwyn, the plaintiff's clerk, proved, that he went to serve the defendants with the writ in this action, and travelled by the same mail. In the course of the journey, he had learned from the mouth of the coachman (the defendant Atkinson) the particulars of the transaction, which he (Atkinson) related as follows:-A tall thin gentleman came by the coach to Conway, and having made great objections to pay the fare of the ferry, which he said positively he would not do, one of the boatmen obstructed him when he endeavouring to mount the coach, whereupon Atkinson said to him, "You have said a great deal about the ferry; to save your word, I'll pay for you;" to which Mr. Salmon answered, "If you do, I w'ont pay you again," when Atkinson replied, "Oh! then was I'm off;" and accordingly drove off, but pulled up 7 or 8 yards further off, on Mr. Salmon's hailing him, and turned round to the guard asking what he should do, the guard said, "drive on ;" the guard being his master, he did drive on. When the witness returned by the same coach, Atkinson further stated, "that it was always usual for the passengers to pay the ferry; if they did not, he drove off without them, unless they had baggage, which might be stopped by the ferrymen; upon one occasion four passengers refused to pay at once, and he drove off without them he should have driven off without witness, if witness had refused to pay." The defendants endeavoured to show that the passengers always paid the ferry, and that the coachman had not prevented the plaintiff from getting up to pursue his journey. They first called Jones, who had been the ferryman for seven years; he stated that the passengers always paid the ferry, he never received it from the coachman. The coach stopped half an hour at breakfast, and he usually demanded his fare when breakfast was over, just before the passengers mounted. The plaintiff refused to pay on the occasion in question, upon which witness extended his arm to prevent him from mounting on the coach, but there was nothing else to prevent him. The coachman said he would save pay to the plaintiff's word, he having sworn he would not pay. Plaintiff said, "If you do, I won't pay again." The coachman said, "What are we to do now ?" |