Both parties are pilots, and plaintiff sued hole question to be gotten into before the to recover $99, money received by defendant Defendant objected to pay the costs, and for plaintiff's use, in respect of property asserted that the plaintiff? never presented a of his lost in the pilot schooner New York, Dill to him for $99. Plaintiff had sent him a when she was run down and sunk by the claim for over §200 which he disputed, and steamer Hupeh. 'The property consisted of when the proceedings were instituted in the clothing, bedding, and a variety of other Court, the amount was lowered to $09, Brraonale, to the value of between $200 and His' Hoxovx said it might be necessary for him to hear the ease through before Plaintiff' and another pilot named Kofod, he could order the defendant to pay the were on board the schooner at the ti costs. Since the last hearing he had ascer-collision, the schooner being the joint property tained that the original offer on the part of of the defendant and Messrs. Moony and Meesrs, Russell ant Ca. was Tls. 1,000 for Snowden, Aclaim wassentin to Messrs. Russell the loss of the New York, but owing to services and Ca. for a new schooner, hut they denied which h: viously been rendered by Mr, their liability. Acting under legal advi one of their vensols, they however, the matter was settled amicably, reuse it by Lis, 450 As to Messrs. Russell, in consideration of the uuu paid for the wreck it appeared to him serious loss to the defendant and his partners, to be outside of the matter; it was money making them a present of Tis, 1,450, to received in respect of property belonging to include everything. The cost of a new the defendant and the two other owners of schooner was estimated by Mr. Farnham at the schooner, not of property belonging to the Tls. 7,500. After defendant haa settled laintift. The amount of their lov Mesers. Russell and Ca., he asked plaintiff hed by the proceeds of the what sum he would take on account of wreck—that was all, Plaintiff was en his losses. Plaintiff replied that he would his share of the 1,450, but he wi take a proportionate share of the mone; entitled to any in the amount paid for received from Messrs. Russell, when defend-the wreck any more than if he (plaintiff) had ant offered bim $50, which he declined, as saved a gold watch the other party could not being " fair proportion. Plaintiff had claim to have its value put into the a, 1, himself sent in a claim for compensation to Plaintiff said h Messrs. Russell & Ca., but they refused to application, but he unde recognise him at all inthe matter. Kofod, receival the $99 it was in settlement of the the other pilot on board the schooner, accepted whole affair, and that the other actions were $75 in settlement of his claim, he having lost, to be withdrawn, in addition to clothing, &e, a watch and Defendant said he did not pay the mone chai was paid by Mr. Mooney who did not care Plaintiff asked that Kofod should be ex-to be mixed up in the case, amined on that point, His Hoxour repeated that it might have Korop was accordingly sworn, and deposed been necessary for him to hear the case that he accepted $75, because defendant told through, before he could decide whether the him he was to receive from Messrs, Russell defendant was liable for costs or not, but a3 Tls. 1,000. only.. If he had known that th the plaintiff did not press his application, the account actually paid was Tls. 1,450, together case was at an end, with $220, for which the wreck of the schooner was sold, he would not have been satisfied with so small a sum.
D.C. Caupent v. J, W. Hume, p, Dulendant explained thas what he meant The plaintiff was the defendant in the He, 1000, was that after Sil expenses were saying he was joing to receive previous suit, and the defendant was the plaintiff. The action was brought to recover paid the net sum would not amount to much 2.77 being money "wrongfully held. by more. He added that he and his partners Hume from Messrs. Mooney, Snowdon and had a set-off of $99 against the plaintiff, Campbell. for causing the loss of the schooner by Defendant denied his indebtedness and his negligence in being below at a time disputed his liability; when he ought to have been on deck keeping Plaintiff handed in a long statement of the alook-out, He had left the deck in charge particulars of his claim, and portions of it were of Chinese. They, had also another lim read by his Honour and explanations given toco of June dividends of the Amalgamated airist him of $75, being money received on alike by the plaintiff and defendant,
Pilots, and wrongly held Ly the plaintiff. He ment was made under which the majority of Plaintiff deposed In March last an arrange. (defendant) therefore asked that the hearing the pilots agreed to work together, It was of the present case might be adjourned, to agreed between the owners of five pilot boats enable him to summon the plaintiff for those to put their boats into one company, and sums. 2 two-thirds of the gross earnings were to be There being also certain evidence required divided among the fifteen pilots who used to complete the t case, them—boat-owners and non-owners of boats His Hosour said he would adjourn the—and the remaining one-third, after the further hearing until Thursday next, when expenses of the boats had been deducted, was he would require the particulars of the claim to be paid to the boat-owners, The agreement sent in by i to Messrs, Russell to was to last until the end of this year. With
Text read from the printed page and cleaned; old type leaves the occasional error.