The Welshman

PEMBROKESHIRE ASSIZES. I In the case against Lloyd, charged with assaulting his wife, Mr W. M. Griffiths, Carmarthen, ;vas attorney for the prosecution, and Mr Lascelles, Narbertb, for the defence. On Friday morning the court sat at nine o'clock. His lordship proceeded to pass sentence upon the prisoner Webb, who had been found guilty of shooting at Mr Owen with intent to kill him. His lordship said "William Webb-This is a very sad case indeed to see a person of your apparent respectability standi: g at the bar of a court of justice to receive the sentence which I am about to pass upon you. You are indicted for shoot- ing at Mr Owen with intent to murder and kill him. You were also indicted for shooting at him with intent to disable, and in another count with intent to do him grievous bodily harm. I have mentioned the different intents charged in the indictment on which you have been tried, because the indictments so framed afforded the jury an opportunity of finding you guilty of the offence of intending to do grievous bodily harm, and having these three matters brought distinctly under their consideration, and after every point that could have been made in your favour has been made by the learned counsel for you, the prisoner—and after the jury having been carefully warned that they ought not to find you guilty unless the intent which is charged upon you by this indictment is clearly and distinctly made out, they have felt themselves constrained to bring in a verdict of guilty, convicting you of the highest offence which is charged by this indictment. I must respect their verdict, and I must sentence you according to the form in which they have pronounced it. Though it has pleased God in his good Providence to save the life of the man whom you intended to kill and murder- though that is the case, they felt themselves constrained to find you guilty of the intent imputed to you-an intent which you sought to carry out by the use of a deadly weapon, firing at least on two occasions as we have bad occasion to consider upon the trial of the case. There was another charge against you, in which the learned counsel for the prosecution thought it un- necessary to offer any evidence. Therefore, you were acquitted, and I don't take that into account in the sentence I am to pass upon you. I sentence you only in respect of the offence of which the jury have con- victed you, and that is the highest offence which is charged by this indictment short of murder itself. The sentence of the Court upon you is that you undergo penal servitude for the term of 15 years. CLARKE V. SAUNDERS. This was an interpleader case.-Mr H. Allen and Mr Hughes (instructed by Mr G. Parry, Pembroke Dock), were for the plaintiff Mr Bowen (instructed by Messrs. Fussell and Co., of Bristol), was for the defendaT.t. On the case being called on, Mr Bowen announced that it had been settled by agreement. The record was with- drawn on the terms that the proceeds of the sale were to be divided, each party to pay their own costs. JENKINS AND ANOTHER V. ALLEN AND ANOTHER. This was an action for damages occasioned by the defendants' alleged breach of contract. It was alleged that the plaintiffs, who are oyster merchants carrying on business in London, were possessed of a vessel, which the defendants, who are shipbuilders at Pembroke Dock, agreed to repair and make seaworthy for the sum of JE80. The plaintiffs paid the money, but the vessel turned out not to be seaworthy. The defendants pleaded that they did not agree in the alleged terms and denied the breaches. Damages were laid at L1000, Mr B. T. Williams and Mr Evans (instructed by Mr Wells, of 8, Paternoster-row, London) appeared for the plaintiffs and Mr Bowen and Mr Bowen Rowlands (instructed by Mr W. O. Hulm, Pembroke) appeared for defendants. The following special jury was sworn to try the case -Mr Hugh Ll. Harries, Cefnydre Mr T. H. Davis, Hayston Mr J. Harvey, Haverfordwest; Mr J. Stokes, Cuffern; Mr G. W. Davis, Trewarren; Capt. H. Leach, Corston Mr J. L. G. P. Lewis, Henllan; Mr A. B. Starbuck, Milford; Mr Lewis Mathias, Lamphey Court; and Mr R. H. Buckby, Begelly. Mr Evans in opening the pleadings, said that the declaration stated that before making the aggreement mentioned, the plaintiffs possessed a vessel called the Antelope that defendants were to make the same set- Worthy for the sum of L80. The plaintiffs stated that the vessel waa delivered to them and they paid the sum of zC80, agreed upon, but that the vessel was not delivered to them in a seaworthy state, according to contract To this the defendants pleaded that they did Dot agree on the alleged terms, denied the breaches, and said that they bad given satisfaction and were never indebted and on this issue had been joined. Mr Williams said the plaintiffs were oyster merchants carrying on business in this part of the country and in London, and the defendants were engaged as ship- builders at Pembroke Dock. At the beginning of this year the plaintiffs discovered a new bed of oysters off Fishguard. They thought it was a most important discovery, and immediately entered into a contract with a London firm fp*- Tmr.loi" '-fo with oysters. Tbis firm advanced £ 100, with which the plaintiffs were to find a vessel, so as properly to work this bed of oysters. There was also an agreement between the plaintiffs and some gentlemen in London under which, if the experiment proved a success, they were to form a comp&ny for the purpose of working the oyster fishery. Having made these arrangements one of the plaintiffs came down here to look for a vessel called the Antelope, which required a good deal of repairs, and before purchasing her he wanted to know what would be the cost of putting her into a seaworthy state, so that she would be fit to do the work that was required of her. Accordingly Mr Allen, the senior partner in the firm, came and looked at the vessel, and was asked what he would take to put her into a thorough state of repair, so as to enable her to go after the oysters. There was some haggling, as was usual in this part of the country, and ultimately he agreed to put her into a state fit for the purpose for which she Was wanted, for the sum of X80. A man named Skyrme, who bad been a shipwright in the Dock-yard, went from time to time to see how the repairs were proceeding, and said that the work was not being properly done. Ho told them that they ought to put bolts where they were putting nails, and made other suggestions but the work weRt on, and the defendants delivered the vessel in February after having done what they considered sufficient to comply with the terms of the contract. Skyrme protested on the part of the plaintiffs, and told defendants not to paint and pitch the vessel before she was surveyed but before the plaintiffs had seen the vessel she had been pointed and pitched, and it was impossible to see what bad been done. Time was valuable, because the oyster fishing ended on the 28th of April, and it was important that the vessel should be ready at once. She was delivered to the plaintiffs on the 15th of February, and on the following day as they were taking her down the haven she was found to leak badly. They pumped her, and took her round to Fishguard. After they got there they took her out to sea to see what they could do with her; but she leaked so badly that the crew were in a dangerous position. They sent a telegram to defendants, who replied by telergaph, saying that a shipcarpenter would be with them that evening. The man came, looked at the vessel, and said he Would patch her up a little, and so be did. She went again for oysters, but was still found to leak very badly. They were obliged to be at the pump day and night, and found it impossible to carry on the work while she was In that condition. The result was that plaintiffs sent the vessel back to defendants' yard to be repaired. On the 2nd of March, Phillips, one of the plaintiffs, went down from Haverfordwest to see the vessel. She was then lying in the pill outside defendants' yard, and was leaking as bad as ever, although they had pretended to do something to her. On the 7th of March, Jenkins, One of the plaintiffs, wrote to the defendants, saying that to his great surprise he bad beard from Mr Phillips that the vessel was still leaking. This was most annoy- ing, as it had occasioned them great loss and inconve- nience, for they wanted to use the vessel, which they ought to have done long since. He had explained to them the reason they had purchased the vessel, and they bad undertaken to repair her and put her into a safe condition for the sum named. If it had not been for that they would not have purchased the vessel. By the non-performance of their contract they were not only incurring expense by keeping the crew idle, but Dow as the end of the season was approaching the loss of time was of great importance. For this loss be should bold them responsible, and hoped they would do all that was necessary. To this letter the defendants replied on the 5th of March. They said that when the Antelope came round from Fishguard, they put two men to search her, and did what they considered necessary, but when they put her into the water again they found that she still leaked. They would try, by smoking her, to find out where the leaks were. It was their study to give satisfaction, and it was as much their interest as the plaintiffs' that the vessel should be properly repaired. On the 7th of March Mr Phillips wrote to the defen- dants reminding them that the vessel was to be made seaworthy as agreed upon. He wished to know whether it was their intention to finish the job. If not they must have the work done elsewhere. He thought the vessel would require a new keel, but that must be done at defendants' cost. In the meantime Phillips saw the defendants and said to them distinctly, Now, you know there must be no mistake about this. You have contracted to make the vessel seaworthy, and you must do it." On the same day, in reply to this letter the defendants wrote to Mr Phillips, saying, We under- take to make the Antelope seaworthy for you before handing her over to you. 11 Now, if there could have been any doubt before as to the terms of the contract, that letter on the 7th of March must have removed all doubt. The defendants bad been informed what the vessel was wanted for. She was to be used for fishing at Fishguard in the open sea. The contract of the defen- dants was that they would make her fit for the purpose for which she was wanted. She was therefore to be seaworthy. There was not only that inference according to law, but he would ptove by witnesses that the defendants contracted to make the vessel seaworthy and in addition to that they had the defendants' letter of the 7th of March, in which they say they undertake to make her seaworthy. Well, the vessel still remained in defendants' yard, professing to undergo repairs, and on the 12th of March, five weeks before the oyster season expired, and it being important that the repairs should be hurried, Jenkins and Co. again wrote to the defendants, saying, We are informed that the Antelope still lies outside your yard. If she is not ready by Thursday we shall be compelled to engage another vessel, and must place the matter in our solicitor's hands." On the 14th of March the defendants wrote, stating that the Antleope still made a little water. They had smoked her, and at that ti me there was five feet of water in her. They found her keel firm, and had stopped all leaks discovered. She however still made a small quantity of water, but not sufficient to prevent them dredging. They had heard that the weather had been so bad that the plaintiffs could have done nothing up to this time. The last, sentence, Mr Williams contended, was put there for a purpose. As a matter of fact, it had got noised abroad that there was an oyster bed off Fishguard, and while the Antelope was at Pembroke Dock waiting to be re- paird, another vessel got to Fishguard and took the oysters. The weather at that time did not prevent the other boats dredging and would not have prevented the Antelope if the defendants had carried out their contract. Well, the repairs went on in the Messrs Allens' yard, and on the loth of March they wrote to the defendants—" The Antelope this morning had a few buckets of water, after thirteen hours, and it took a few minutes to get it out. There is nothing to prevent you taking her away at any moment." To some extent the plaintiffs were satisfied with the statement, and took the vessel to Fisbg'uard again, hoping to have better luck this time. But when on the way from Pembroke Dock to Fishguard she leaked worse than ever, and the captain wa, obliged to be at the pump day and night. It was impossible to make any use of her. The plaintiffs then took the vessel to Langwm Pool, and Skyrme looked at her, to see if he could do anything. He put soma plugs where he thought they were required, and the plaintiffs took their vessel once more to Fishguard. On the 28th of April they were out dredging, and on their return, to the astonishment of all, the vessel started a plank, just when she was getting into the harbour. It was as much as the captain and crew could do to get the things on shore before the vessel filled with water. When the tide had gone out, they examined the vessel and found that the plank had only been secured by one nail, and that of very small dimen- sions. He thought there was criminal neglect on the part of the defendants for if the plank had started when the vessel was in the open bay, all hands must have gone to the bottom. After that there was nothing to do but for the plaintiffs to seek their remedy in this court. They gave the defendants notice of the sale of the vessel, which took place on the 8th of May. There was a very good sale, and the vessel fetched 1-85, but that was only £5 more than the plaintiffs had agreed to pay the defendants for the repairs of the vessel. They could have no doubt upon two points-first, that there was a contract, and secondly, that the contract was broken. The vessel was not made seaworthy from the time the contract was made to the time she started a p]ank. When there was the plea of «ccord and satisfaction, as in this case, it meant this, that if a person when there was a breach of contract, afterwards agreed to accept money or work, then his right to damages was done away but still there must be an agreement that the work was to be done and the money paid. The plaintiffs in fact said to the defendants, If you make bar seaworthy, we will not complain that you did not do so the first time." But did they do that? She was HS unseaworthy at the last as at the first. There could not therefore be any accord where there was no satisfaction. Plaintiffs had told defendants that if they put the vessel in a seaworthy condition on the the second occasion, they would say nothing as to the loss of time they had sustained but the defendants did not Fat sfy them upon the accord they did not make the v ssel seaworthy. There must then, be a verdict for the plaintiffs, and the question was, what amount of damages should they have. Now the principle upon which damages were given was this. The amount should be such as the natural consequences of their breach of contract called for. The defendants should pay for all those damages that were within the contemplation of the parties as possible to arise from a breach of the contract, when they undertook it. Now, it was laid down that where there was a breach of contract the damages should be either such as may be fairly or reasonably shown to have arisen from a breach of the contract itself, or such as may be reasonably supposed to be in the minds of both parties as the probable result of such breach. Well, then, if known to both parties that damage would result, the question was, what would be the amount of injury that would ordinarily follow a breach of contract under the special circumstances so known and communicated. Now all the circumstances in this adventure were communicated to the defendants. They knew the arrangement with the London firm. They knew of the discovery that had been made. They knew the im- portance of that discovery bomg L,pt They knew the time of the oyster season in London, and the importance of having the vessel seaworthy as soon as possible. They knew that £100 had been advanced by the London firm, and that the plaintiffs would be obliged to return that CIOO. At the close of the oyster season the vessel was sold, and the enterprise failed entirely because of the breach of contract. Other vessels went to the bed and took the oysters which the plaintiffs would have taken and sent to the London markets. So that the defendants were clearly answerable for the damage the plaintiffs bad sustained, they (plaintiffs) having lost large sums through the defendants' breach of contract. He said he had made out a case in which they were entitled to get substan- tial damages. The amount ought to be such as would compensate the plaintiffs for the loss they had sus- tained, because all the facts were known to the defendants when the contract was made. As Baron Park had laid it down, in a similar case, the object was to reinstate the plaintiffs in the position which they would have occupied if there had been no breach of contract on the other side. He thought this was a case in which they would award substantial damages to the plaintiffs. Benjamin Morgan examined by Mr Evans I liv t Neyland, and was formerly owner of the vessel called the Antelope. I remember Messrs. Phillips and Jenkins calling upon me in January last. After I saw them I sent across for Mr Allen, and Mr Allen, senior, came across and some conversation took place about the boat. Mr Jenkins asked Mr Allen, what he would undertake to repair the Antelope for. Mr Jenkins asked Mr Allen what he would take to make the Antelope complete and fit for sea. He said he would take X90. They did not, agree that day. Two days afterwards I met them again. Mr Allen was sent for and both defendants came across. Mr Jenkins told Mr Allen that he had bought the boat with me. He had bought the boat. She had been a pilot boat, but was a wreck at the time. She was not a total wreck, but had fallen over and broken her side. I cannot say which side. She was 22 tons register. They came to an agreement, on the first day to have the vessel made complete and fit for sea. I do not know the age of the vessel. Skyrme was there on the first day, and I believe on the second day also. She was to he repaired in nine or ten days. On the first day we all went down to the vessel together. Mr Allen examined the vessel and made his calculations as to what he would repair her for. I don't know that we were at the vessel the second day. In cross-examination witness said be did not know how long the Antelope had been a pilot vessel. He sold her to plaintiffs for £ 24. It was on the second day he agreed to sell her. He sold her on the first day, provided Mr Allen would repair her for £80. She had been lying on the beach from the time he bought her until the 1 1th of January. Skyrme was present on the first occasion, but did not point out particularly wha. was to be done to the vessel. There was no chalk used. skyrme did not point out to Mr Allen what was required to be done to the vessel. He knew a shipbuilder named Gaddarn at Pembroke Dock. He believed Mr Jenkins sent for him to see the vessel on the first day. He did not see him. There were chalk marks on the vessel when Mr Allen was pointing out what was to be done. He believed there were some chalk marks upon the keel. Mr Allen was asked his opinion about the keel, and he said he thought it would be perfect by having two or three iron bands round it. He saw chalk marks all over the vessel, but he did not take particular notice. He learnt from Mr Jenkins that Mr Gaddarn had been there, but was not told what the chalk marks were for. Mr Jenkins said Mr Gaddarn put them there, but be never heard him say anything about Skyrme having put them there. Mr Allen was told those were the marks put there by Mr Gaddarn, who had been there and marked certain planks that were to be taken out and new ones put in. The keel was in three pieces, and the marks were where the scarfs came. It, was suggested that iron bands should be put where the scarfs came. He did not remember anything said about the stern post. He was to deliver the vessel at Mr Allen's yard by Mr Allen's assistance. That was the bargain he made. He could not say what day he was to deliver her. It was seven or eight days before the tide was high enough to float her. Mr Allen lent him assistance. He sent a steam tug across. They were obliged to lash a vessel on each side the Antelope, and then with the assistance of the steam tug they got her off. By Mr Williams: Defendants agreed to repair her for C80 on the first interview, and she was sold after that by me for £ 24. That was the second interview. It was said the vessel was wanted for dredging. By the Judge It was said at the time that the vessel was to be repaired for dredging purposes. Mr Jenkins told Mr Allen that she was wanted for dredging. The Judge-It is important to show that notice was given to the parties who were to do the repairs, that the repairs were to be done by a certain time and for a particular purpose. Tell us what this vessel was wanted for. Witness-For dredging, and no other purpose that I am aware of. Somewhere about Fishguard was the place named as the place she was required for. I don't know anything about dredging, myself. The Judge—He doesn't know much about oysters. Witness-I know they are rather scarce, at present, my lord (laughtpf). The Judge—Yes, and very dear, I believe. By the Jury Mr Allen was to repair her in nine or ten days. The Judge—That time would not be included in the time they were floating her, Mr Williams--No we make no point of that. If they had made her seaworthy on the second occasion we would have said nothing. The Judge-Of course if they did not make her sea- worthy on the second occasion then they failed in their contract. Edward Thomas Nash Jenkins examined by Mr Williams I am one of the plaintiffs, and live at Wandsworth, London. I am now in the oyster trade, and was in partnership with the other plaintiffs up to the end of April last, as oyster merchants. Mr Phillips and myself discovered an oyater bed off the cuaatof Fishguard. After that discovery we entered into an arrangement with a London firm named Loybell and Sonnhammer, to supply them with oysters. In consequence of that arrangement they advanced us LIOO, and in consi^ dera- tion of that £100 we were to provide a vessel for the dredging of the oyster bed at Fishguard. I then came down to Pembrokeshire to look for a vessel. I saw the Antelope on the beach at Neyland. I thought she would suit us, so far as I could judge, although I know nothing of shipping. I sent to defendants to know what amount they would repair her for, and Mr Allen, senior, came over to Neyland to see the vessel. He went over the vessel and examined her. Mr Gaddarn had been over her before that. Mr Gaddarn and Skyrme had left some chalk marks upon the vessel. After Mr Allen had examined the vessel we had some conversation on the beach. I asked him what he would make her seaworthy for. After thoroughly going over her, he said, for the sum of £ 90." She had rigging and sails. At that time she only had her mast up and a little of the rigging Mr Morgan had taken the rest up to his house to store them. I said he asked too much money, and I went to the Mumbles to look for a vessel. Oa the Saturday I saw Mr Allen again, at the Picton Castle Hotel at Neyland. He came down to the station with me, and we met Mr Morgan, who said be was going to Haver- fordwest. I said to Morgan, If we can come to terms with Mr Allen to-day, we will give you L24 for the vessel." I then told Mr Allen that we would give him £ 80, but that it was more than we intended at first laying out. He wanted X85, but eventually we agreed for X80. I told him that the vessel was to be made perfectly seaworthy for that sum, and he said, of course, she shall be." I had told him that she would be required for dredging oysters, and that he would have to put a winch in her for that purpose. I did not mention where we were going, because we wanted to keep that to ourselves. He put the winch in the vessel. I did not tell him on that day that we bad entered into an arrangement with a London firm about the fishing, but I did so a few days afterwards when I went over to see him at Pembroke Dock. I told him that we should want from five to ten other vessels if this speculation should turn out successful, and if he gave satisfaction, I would give him the order to build them. I did not tell him then where the fishing was. I told him of the arrangement with the London firm. The Judge That was after the contract. That won't do. Mr Williams—It was after the first contract, but not after the time they agreed to put her seaworthy. The Judge-It was after they told Allen, senior, that if he put the vessel into a good state they would give him so much. Mr Williams—It was before the breach of the con- tract and before the letter of the 7th of March in which the defendants stated, We undertake to make the Antelope seaworthy for you." The Judge-Of course I cannot reject this evidence, but its value I have to determine hereafter. It is a notice from the plaintiffs to the defendants, and, as you say, before the breach. The letter you have read would be useful, if at all, in support of accord and satisfaction, because at that time the vessel bad been returned to Allen. He was then to do certain repairs, and if he had done so that would have been satisfaction of his breach of the first contract. Examination continued It was a day or two after I went over to Pembroke Dock, at Allen's door, that I mentioned the arrangement with the London firm. I told him that in case this vessel was successful we would have several vessels built, and that the London firm were prepared to advance the capital, up to £ 10,000. I told him the vessels would be required for dredging. The Judge—That won't do. That has nothing to do with this vessel. Witness-I told him the Antelope was required for dredging. I told Mr Allen, senior, that £ 100 was the amount we bad to buy the boat, and L80 was more than we intended spending upon her repairs. I told him that the £ 100 came from friends of mine in London, and I told him the circumstances under which it was given. I told him that at the first interview. At the second mterview he agreed to repair the vessel. Mr Morgan was present, with Mr Phillips (my partner), Mr Peters, a pilot, young Mr Alien, and I believe Skyrme was there. r bought thr- vessel, and she was taken into Mr Allen's yard. I requested Skyrme to go occasionally to see now the lepairs were going on. While :the repairs were going on I paid be defendants X,90, including money for extras. I paid them weekly, and they had all that money before the vessel left their yard. On the 15th or 16th of February she was delivered over to us, and she went down to Milford the same day. We had the captain and three or four men on board. By Mr Bowen All those sums, amounting to .S9Q. were paid before the vessel left Mr Aliens yard. I went to Milford in the vessel and left her there. She went round to Fishguard, and I met her there. I went out in her to dredge. On the way down from Neyland to Milford, she was pumped three or four times. By the Judge: She was calked. It is usual for vessels newly calked to draw a little water at first, but not to such an extent as this did. She was pumped three or four times from Neyland to Milford, and the pumping cleared her each time. By Mr Williams At Fishguard, when we went out dredging, there were on board Mr Phillips, Mr Charles Bowen, of Fishguard, Tom Davies, of Fishguard, the crew, and myself. The crew consisted of the captain and three men. That day the vessel carried away a portion of her chain. By the Judge: We went out about seven or eight miles. We did not get on the oyster bed that day. I think the chain held up the foresail, and we nearly lost it. She also carried away a large piece of board attached to the rigging, close to what is called the dead eyes. The vessel leaked very badly, and the men were constantly at the pumps every time the dredge came up. I know nothing about dredging. By Mr Williams When the dredge goes down there must be a great strain upon the vessel. We threw out the dredge several times, and every time we drew it up we bad to pump. There was no damage done to the hull. We were out a few hours that day, and when we brought the vessel into the harbour she was leaking very badly. By the Judge There was only one pump on board, and one man worked it at a time. By Mr Williams In consequence of that I telegraphed to the defendants to say that the vessel leaked very badly. That was on the 17th of February, and they telegraphed back to say they would send a man named John Thomas on the following day. Thomas came. examined the vessel, and did some work. He said he had stopped several leaks, but could not do much to her there as she was in an awkward place. She was in the harbour, and dry except when the tide was in. By the Judge Thomas only said there were several leaks in her; he did not say where they were. He said the work was badly done, because Mr Allen had put some old men on her, but said he hoped she would be all right now." By Mr Williams He said they were some old Dock- yard men, but that there were some good men amongst them. Thomas went out in the vessel after repairing her. I did not go that time. When he came back, Thomas said the vessel was in a very bad state, and had better be taken back to the defendants' yard. By the Judge Thomas was at work about a day' When the tide was out she was not afloat, but had legs under her. Thomas went away, and I instructed the captain to take the vessel back to the defendants' yard. That was on the 26th of February. [The correspondence between the witness and the defendants was here read.] Examination continued A few days after the 25th of March the vessel was again returned to us. I was in London at the time, but I saw her within a month after the 15th of March, at Fishguard, and in a very bad state. It was after she had become a wreck. 1 noticed a plank started, but I did not notice how it had been fastened. I asked Mr Bowen to make a survey of the vessel. He sent two or three persons to survey her. They were Capt. Williams, Capt Clay, and Capt. Rees. I then served notice on the defendants of our intention to sell the vessel, and sent them a copy of the notice of sale. I was not at the sale. On the 16th of March I wrote to say that there were three boats on the bed we had discovered, and were taking the oysters, and that we should hold them responsible for the loss we had sustained. By the Judge: The oyster season terminates at the end of April, but they dredge all the year round and put the oysters down on the beds again. By Mr Williams The arrangement with the London firm fell through because of the delay. The Judge- You cannot recover anything for that. If they were to have had a profit of XIO,000, they could not recover for that. Mr Williams-Their arrangement with the London firm was communicated to the defendants before the contract. The Judgk--No, it was after the contract. Mr Williams-This witness says that before the contract was made at all he told Allen that he required the vessel for dredging, and that he told him of the cir- cumstances under which he came down to buy the vessel. The Judge-He gave him to understand that she was wanted for dredging, and that if successful he should want five or ten more vessels. Now, whatever damage they sustained by their contract with the London firm falling through is too remote for this case. You must show that notice was given then, what the vessel was required for, and you may recover damage for the vessel, but not for the other loss, which is too remote. Examination continued The £ 100 was expended on the vessel. We paid the defendants £ 90. The repair,, were to include rigging, or the repairs of the rigging. We are liable to repay the Xloo advanced. We were not enabled to take advantage of our discovery during the London season. If the Antelope had been made seaworthy by the defendants in time we should no doubt have been able to do so. All other vessels were doing well. Other vessels came and took the oysters away from the bed we had discovered. Cross-examined by Mr Bowen I am now in the oyster trade. I was, before I went into the oyster trade, a cigar manufacturer. Previous to that I was seven or eight years abroad, as clerk in the employ of some relatives of mine, who are merchants. They are general merchants. They do not deal in oysters (laughter). I was, before that, a boy in this town. That is mv history. I do not say that I discovered the oyster bed individually. I was in the boat when the discovery was made. It was about November last. By the Judge: We had heard, through Mr Charles Bowen of Fishguard that there were oysters there, and we went to look for the bed. By Mr Bowen I do not know that it had been dredged before. I never heard of oysters being found at Fishguard in 1846. I should not be surprised to hear anything in these days (laughter). I did not come down to buy this vessel on the 11th of January. 1 came to buy a vessel, or to hire one. Before the contract with defendants we had asked Mr Garrard to repair the vessel for us. Mr Garrard and Skyrme marked out what she would require, and he asked Mr Garrard to give an estimate of what I would do the work for that he had marked out. By the Judge There were certain planks condemned, and they were marked with chalk. By Mr Bowen It was understood by me that the chalk mark was the work to be done. I asked Mr Garrard what he would do the work for, and he said £ 60. I said, Will that put her into a seaworthy state 1" and he said No, I cannot put her into that state." I said, Then I have nothing to do with it." I said I must have everything stated. It was not exclusive of the rigging. The Judge--Watever work required to be done was included. The planks were marked to come out, but that did not show that that was all the work to be done. You wanted him to put her ready for dredging purposes, and whatever was done was to be included in the amount named. Witness-That is so, my lord. By Mr Bowen: I wanted Gaddarn to put her com- plete for sea. The word "seaworthy" was used I am certain of that. By the Judge: Gaddarn said he would have nothing to do with her, but that he would get her done for me at the Chemical Works higher up. By Mr Bowen Allen was not to do the work marked with chalk only. He was to make the vessel seaworthy. I was at the yard very often and ordered work to be done independent of the contract. I never ordered new beams. I did not pay L2 5s for new beams. There were pieces put on by the side of the beams to strengthen them, because I thought they were rather slight. I told Allen that that was independent of the contract. Mr Bowen—But was that not to make her seaworthy ? And there was another piece put in was not that extra, to make her seaworthy ? Witness-No, I thought that would make her look better. There were some extras ordered, but I objected to one or two things charged as extras because I con- sidered they were included in the Y-,80 contract. There was £ 4 2s Gd deducted out of £ 104 2s 6d, leaving a balance of £ 100 that he had to pay. Therefore th" difference between £ 10 and £100 that he had to pay. Therefore the difference between £ 80 and £100 was made up in the extras charged on the list produced. The Judge-He gave an order for things not necessary to make the vessel seaworthy, and in order to show that he does not mean Allen to part from his contract, he says, Mind, this is extra." Mr Bowen—We say that we were asked what we would do certain specified work for. The Judge—That is so. In reply to the jury, witness said the vessel was to be made fit to dredge for oysters anywhere where they could find them, and not only in the harbour of Milford. By Mr Bowen When the vessel went round to Fishguard, there were two Langwm fishermen on board. One of them knew something about deep sea fishing. Several times I said I did not think they were competent dredgers. I did not tell them I was going to London to get dredgers, as these men could not do the work. We had a fresh dredger. I do not know where he came from. I bad nothing to do with him. I never saw him on board the vessel. I was told that there was a Colchester man on board. I duu't kuuw bow long he was on board before the wreck. I don't think there were 4,000 oysters taken altogether. There were a good many taken one day sol w. told: but I don'u know the number. I never saw any oyster bed marked. I don't remember the hopeful appearance of oysters. I never tuarJ that my fishermen could not find the marks the next day. John Thomas was out in the vessel. I don't know that he found anything wrong about the pump, and rectified it. I never heard him tell anycne not to pump the vessel for 24 hours. I swear that it took more than ten minutes to pump her in 24 hours. She came into Fishguard in a sinking state. The vessel was sold. I saw her on the beach. I cannot say she was blown over. The Judge-She is said in the sale notice to be a "good useful fishing smack." By Mr Bowen She fetched over JE70 after she was wrecked. Mr Sherman 01 London bought her. She has been repaired by him, but has not been used yet. Mr Phillips paid the workmen for Mr Sherman. I have no interest in the vessel now. She is not to be mine after she is repaired. I am a partner now. M. Richard Rowe retired from the firm on the 30th oi April. The Antelope is 26 or 27 years old. I don't believe she has been a pilot boat for 27 years. M) captain has got the register at ishguarti. I remember having a conversation with Mr Allen about putting a new keel in her. I asked him if he thought she wanted a new keel. He said she did not. He said he would put a hoop on the kilston and secure it by iron bolts. He did not ask me if I would like a new keel. I never said £ 2C was too much. The vessel was not insured. There were such bad reports about, that no one would insure her. I gave the men a glass of beer at Milford. The Captain came on shore to the public house. There was a person there named Le Hunte, and a man named James Llewellyn. The Judge-That has nothing to do with the case. He has given a very straightforward story. Mr Bowen-He has said the vessel was leaking all the way down, but he does not appear to have been in a bad humour over it. WItness-Not all the way down, but we pumped her three times on the way to Milford. I said, as thf work was proceeding, that I thought the defendants were doing their work in a very satisfactory manner. Mr Charles Bowen was out with the vessel several times whilst she was at Fishguard. He did not make me an offer of X200 for her. She would be no good to him as a yacht. We never had any conversation about his buying her at all. Re-examined I was born in this town and my past career is very well known. My father was commander of the steamer Frolic when she was lost. My family in this town are very respectable. The Judge-The jury will not decide this case upon the question whether he is an oyster merchant, a mer- chant's clerk, or whether he is descended from respect- able ancestors. By Mr Williams The defendants were to make the vessel perfectly seaworthy for 980. By the Judge They put the winch in and made the dredges. They knew of course what she was wanted for By Mr Williams I told them she was for dredging. I have bad a letter this morning from Winstable, from Mr Charles Bowen, who says he cannot be here. Mr Ebenezer Phillips, of Haverfordwest, one of the plaintiffs, was also examined at considerable length, and generally corroborated the previous witness. When being cross-examined as to his connection with Mr Sherman, the jury interposed, saying they thought that a great many unnecessary questions were being asked. So far as they could understand the case, the dispute was between Jenkins and Allen, and not between Jenkins, or the present witness, and Sherman. The Judge said there would be a conflict of evidence upon more points than one, and it appeared to be a case in which each party should give and take a little and in that way come to some arrangement. It was a strange thing that a contract of this kind should have been agreed upon without being entered in writing He thought under the circumstances it would be well if each party would make some sacrifice. The counsel conferred, and the case was arranged. The terms agreed upon wtre that the jury should return a verdict for the plaintiff for L50 with the usual costs, and certificate for a special jury. His Lordship said if he bad .been called upon to mediate he should have given the same verdict. The jury returned a verdict in accordance with the terms agreed upon. This concluded the business of the assize.