EAST DONYLAND​ / ROWHEDGE

THE ESSEX STANDARD - Friday 1 November 1850 - LOSS OF AN EMIGRANT SHIP ON THE GUNFLEET SANDS. On Saturday last, about two o’clock, the smack Eagle, Capt. Easter, arrived at Wivenhoe from sea, with about 40 emigrants, and the captain and mate of a vessel which had been wrecked on the above fatal sands. From the account given by the captain, it appears that the ill-fated vessel was the Johann Frederick, Capt. Whieting, of and from Bremen, about 305 tons burthen, bound to Charleston, South Carolina. She sailed from Bremen on Monday, the 21st ult., having on board about 160 emigrants, the majority being females. After leaving Bremen the weather became boisterous and hazy, so that it was impossible for the captain to take any observation; and at the time the vessel struck the Gunfleet Sand (which was on Thursday, at 10 o’clock p.m.) he considered that they were over on the French coast. The shock caused the greatest consternation among the emigrants, most of whom had just retired to their berths. During the night the vessel continued to strike heavily on the sand, the water gaining upon her considerably. Blue lights were burnt, with other indications of distress, in the hope of obtaining assistance, but none appeared. A great part of the ship’s spars were cut away to prevent the vessel falling on her broadside. At day break colours were hoisted on each of the masts as signals of distress; these were happily seen by the smacks Louisa, Benevolence, Mary, Eagle, and Elizabeth, who immediately proceeded towards the ship, when, having manned their respective boats, they, at the imminent risk of their own lives, passed through the breakers, and succeeded in getting alongside the vessel. Instant measures were taken to save the lives of the passengers and crew; about half the number were got on board the different smacks, with the intention of returning for the remainder, but, as the flood made, the wind and sea increased so much that it was considered impossible for a boat to get through the beakers. There were at least 100 persons still on board the wreck, as many of the smacks’ men had remained on board the vessel in order to make room in the boats for a greater number of the emigrants. During this trying period the vessel began to heel a great deal, the sea continually breaking passage over her decks; to prevent her falling over on her broadside the mainmast was cut away, and ropes secured across the decks for the emigrants to hold on, to prevent their being washed overboard. A few trunks, &c., belonging to the emigrants were got upon the deck, but they were almost immediately carried away by the waves, and the vessel filled to such an extent that the lives of all those on board were considered in the greatest jeopardy. Providentially at the turn of the tide the sea became less violent, and the smacks’ men renewed their exertions; as boats could not come alongside without incurring  the greatest risk, they were kept at some little distance, and the emigrants drawn through the surf by means of ropes. In this way every life was preserved, the captain (who behaved admirably throughout) being the last to leave the vessel.

The greater portion of the emigrants were taken to Harwich by the smacks during Friday and Saturday, and about 40, as before stated, were landed at Wivenhoe in a most deplorable condition - hungry, wet, and cold. Mr. J.G. Chamberlain, agent to Lloyd’s, lost no time in providing for their comfort; the females were placed at Mr. Durrell’s, the Rose and Crown Inn; the men were lodged and fed by Mr. Chamberlain, where they remained until Monday, when they were conveyed to Colchester, and, by the kindness of the directors of the Eastern Counties Railway, forwarded to London free of expense to the care of the Bremen Consul.

Many of the unfortunate persons - men as well as women - lost everything except what they had on. Great credit is due to the smacks’ men for their united exertions in saving the lives of the poor emigrants, many of whom, if not all, would otherwise have met with a watery grave. It is hoped that the German Government will not suffer such exertions to go unrewarded, they not having risked their own lives only, but also their property, to save those of their fellow creatures.

Very soon after the passengers had been got off the vessel became a total wreck. She belonged to Messrs. Glogstein and Son, of Bremen, and, besides passengers, had a general cargo, valued at 2,000 dollars.

Messrs. Billingsley and Co., the Bremen vice-consuls at Harwich, paid every attention to the emigrants landed at that port. They remained at Harwich till Tuesday, when the Adonis steamer arrived from London to fetch them.”

​

THE SUFFOLK CHRONICLE - 13 August 1853 - “WRECK OF A COLCHESTER VESSEL. We regret to announce the loss of the schooner Amethyst, 100 tons burthen, belonging to Mr. Harris, shipowner, of East Donyland. This beautiful new first-class vessel which left Liverpool a few months since with a cargo to the West Indies, intending to bring home fruit, foundered on the rocks while outward bound, about 20 miles from Vera Cruz, but fortunately all the crew were saved. Captain Harris, son of the owner, despatched particulars of the melancholy catastrophe from Vera Cruz, dated 4th July last, which have just been received by his father. We understand the vessel is insured for about 1,500l., partly in the Colchester Ship Insurance Society.”

THE ESSEX STANDARD - 28 October 1853 - “SALVAGE CASES - The Anjer from Amsterdam to Batavia, having unshipped her rudder at the Longsand, and been taken to Sheerness by the smacks Atalanta and Prince of Orange, of Colchester, the owners and underwriters have we understand settled the claims of the salvors by paying to their solicitor, Mr. H.S. Goody, £500 for the services of the two smacks.- On Tuesday last John Bawtree, Esq., and J.W.E. Green, Esq., two of the county Magistrates, sat at the Cups Hotel, Colchester, for the purposes of deciding a salvage claim by the masters and crews of the smacks Good Agreement, Joseph, and Snowdrop, all of the Port of Colchester, for services rendered to the Neptune, of Norway, when in distress on the Whitaker Sand, on the night of the 18th inst. It appeared that the ship was bound from Hornesand for London, laden with timber, and had taken a Trinity pilot on board at Yarmouth, but, with the wind blowing hard from the S.S.E., she got ashore on the spit of the Whitaker. The three smacks went to her assistance, got her off the sands, conducted her by a very intricate channel round the Buxey Sand, and eventually brought her into the Colne. The ship and cargo were valued at £2290, and the salvors after asking a higher figure reduced their claim to £200, so as to bring the case within the jurisdiction of the local justices.- Prior to the case being called on Mr. Goody, who appears for the salvors, and Mr. Chamberlain, of Wivenhoe, agent for the owners and underwriters, retired to arrange the matter, which was eventually compromised at £147. 10.”

​

THE ESSEX STANDARD - 21 December 1853 - “COLCHESTER CASTLE - Dec.17. FURTHER SUMMONSES FOR CONCEALMENT OF WRECKAGE - [First case mentioned: Daniel Collison, master of the smack Benevolence, of East Donyland, Wm. Stiles, John Ames, and John Brown of the same vessel]... THIRD CASE- There were five similar informations against Ambrose Walford, of East Donyland, master of the smack Industry; Daniel Harvey, Henry Simons, Joseph Talbot, and Isaac Ellis, for concealing a barometer, some cut rigging, &c., of the value of £1, on the 9th of December.- Policeman Moffat proved serving the summonses at the defendants’ houses, but said all the men were at sea.- Under these circumstances the hearing of the case was adjourned till next Saturday.”

THE ESSEX STANDARD - 30 December 1853 - “COLCHESTER CASTLE.- Dec.24. THIRD CASE OF CONCEALEMNT OF WRECKAGE - In reference to the information against Ambrose Walford, of Rowhedge, and five of the crew of the smack Industry (the hearing of which was adjourned from the previous Bench, upon the supposition that being at sea, they might not have heard the summons), Mr. Neck, who appeared for the prosecution, said there was ample time for the friends of the parties to have communicated with them, and, as the forfeiture was small, perhaps the Bench would think it right to deal with the case in their absence.- In reply to the Bench, Mr. Chamberlain said the parties were cruising in the Swin, but as there were constantly smacks going out there intimations might have been sent to them.- The Chairman thought where partied did not appear to a summons the preferable course was to bring them up by warrant.- Mr. Neck said he was quite prepared to take that course; and made application for the warrant, which was granted.”

​

THE ESSEX STANDARD - 4 January 1854 - “COLCHESTER CASTLE - Saturday Dec. 31st. Before T. L. Ewan Esq., Chairman; J. Bawtree, Esq., E. Brett, Esq., and C. H. Hawkins, Esq.- Another Case of Concealment of Wreckage - Ambrose Walford, of East Donyland, master of the smack Industry; Henry Simons, Daniel Harvey, and Joseph Talbot, mariners; and Isaac Ellis, apprentice (who it will be recollected did not appear to the summons on the previous Bench day), were brought up under a warrant, charged upon information laid by Mr. Raggett, Comptroller of Customs, with concealing on the 9th of December a barometer, cabin lamp, some spun yarn, and cut rigging, of the value of £1, salved from a wreck, whereby they had forfeited double the value of the goods and a penalty not exceeding £100. The information against the boy Ellis was withdrawn.

Mr. Neck, as before, appeared in support of the information; and Mr. Goody for the defendants.

Mr. Goody said before the case was gone into he wished to remove the impression which the Bench were probably labouring under, that proper respect had not been paid in their summons - a point which he should be also satisfactorily to explain. The men had been at sea ever since the summonses were issued, and were not aware that they were to be charged with this offence until so informed by the smack Eagle, on Friday, the 23rd. They at once prepared to return; but, from the violent gale blowing the smack split her foresail and was not able to reach the port till late on Saturday afternoon. With regard to the information itself, two of the defendants, Walford and Talbot, belonged to the smack Industry, and he should advise them to plead guilty to the charge; but the others, as he should be in a condition to prove, were utterly innocent, they having been merely taken on board from their own smack, the Elizabeth, which had proceeded to London with a schooner, on which salvage services had been rendered in the Black Deeps. This was some days after the wreck of the vessel to which these stores belonged, and the Elizabeth had duly reported everything which she had picked up from it. The only excuse which Walford and Turner (sic) had to offer was the small value of the articles; but with regard to the others, they were entirely ignorant of any wreckage being on board.

Mr. Neck said he could not entirely adopt the appeal made on the part of the prosecution because he was informed that it was a frequent practice with these smacks to change hands; and as the men he believed joined in the denial that there was any wreckage on board they were clearly particeps criminis, and had as guilty a knowledge as the other defendants.

The Chairman said if the statement made by Mr. Goody had been admitted by the prosecutors or borne out by evidence, the Bench would have been happy to have released the parties named, but instead of that admission it was insinuated that smacks were in the habit of exchanging hands with a view to deceive the officers. The parties must therefore plead guilty or not guilty.

Mr. Goody said it was due to Mr. Heath(?) that he should deny that insinuation as regarded his vessel and crew. He would appeal to Mr. Chamberlain whether it was not a fact that the Elizabeth had previously made a report of stores picked up from the wreck.

Mr. Chamberlain said it was true that some stores had been reported, but he could not go to the extent which Mr. Goody suggested.

Mr. Goody said he should be sorry to do anything that looked like flying in the face of the authorities; and rather than occupy the time of the Magistrates further he would advise all the parties to plead guilty.

The Chairman said the matter might be put to very strong proof by calling one of the Revenue officers. If these parties took upon themselves to answer that there was nothing of the kind on board he would infer that they were guilty, because their simple course would have been to have said - “We do not belong to the ship, and know nothing about the matter.”

Mr. Neck said, with submission to the Bench, the men having pleaded guilty, he did not think it desirable to go into the evidence.

The Chairman, You think the old adage may be true in this matter - “Least said, soonest mended.”

Mr. Neck wished to mention, publicly, as a caution to smacksmen, that the Receiver and Comptroller (Mr. Chamberlain and Mr. Raggett) were determined in future to prosecute in all these matters very strictly.

After some further discussion between the legal gentlemen, whether each defendant should be fined double the value of the goods found, or whether the £2 should be divided.

The Chairman thought as this was one of a series of cases they must deal with it in the principle adopted with regard to the others, and divide that portion of the penalty, but the amount of fine in addition was in the discretion of the Bench. Addressing the defendants, he and the Court adjudged each of them to pay 30s., including 6s. fine and 14s. costs, which was very lenient treatment compared with what they had made themselves liable to. With regard to their being brought up by warrant he advised that course in the first place, because although the law gave the power he did not like to convict in their absence, in the second place, because he wished to have the opportunity of saying something to them personally, and so that they could give any explanation it might be in their power to offer. They might, probably, have heard or read the observations addressed to the parties summoned on a former occasion, and he wished to repeat that for the future they should not allow these cases to be passed over so leniently. The allowance of one-third the value of any goods they might pick up he thought very good pay; and they might depend it was much better to earn one shilling honestly than 4 or 5 times the amount by doing what was wrong. If a neighbour’s house was on fire and they were able to rescue some of the goods they would not think themselves entitled to keep them; and a wreck was a very similar case. To appropriate such goods, however they might have been accustomed to look differently upon it, was nothing more nor less than a robbery in usual point of view; and although the law did not make the act a felony, it nevertheless visited it with severe penalties, and he was glad his brother Magistrates agreed with him in the determination not to pass over future cases of the kind in the superficial way they had been in the recent instances brought before them. The captains especially would be severely dealt with, because they were the most responsible parties and ought to set a good example to those under them.

Mr. Bawtree expressed his concurrence in the views of the Chairman.

The fines, &c., were paid.

There was no other business before the Bench.”

​

THE ESSEX STANDARD - 23 June 1854 - “SALVAGE QUESTION.- Henry Crickmore and others v. Henry Powell, East Donyland.- This was an action to recover £7.17.9. claimed by the plaintiffs as their share of the salvaging of a Dutch vessel, the plaintiffs and defendants all being smacksmen of the above place. There was another action by the plaintiffs for the same amount against a mariner called Ponder. This case appeared to create considerable interest among the seafaring population of Rowhedge, a large number of whom - both sailors and their wives - were in Court.- Mr. Jones appeared for the plaintiffs, Mr. Goody for the defendant Powell.- Mr. Jones, in opening the plaintiffs’ case, observed that the plaintiffs were the owner, master, and crew of the Blue Eyed Maid smack of this port; the defendant Powell was master of the Gipsy; and Ponder, the other defendant, was one of the crew of the Prince of Orange; and the present claim arose in consequence of the salvage money in which all parties were alike interested, having been paid to the former. The three vessels went into partnership as it was customary for them to do, agreeing to share their earnings, whatever they might be, whether derived from fishing, salvage, or any other source. The master of the Blue Eyed Maid, in February, received directions from the masters of the other two vessels to keep within the Swin; while it was arranged that the others - the Gipsy and the Prince of Orange, were to go sweeping higher up the channel. The two latter, following out this arrangement, fell in with a Dutch vessel, the Hendrika Jantina, which they saved, and received a total sum of £296 salvage, which the defendants of course now claimed their share of, though actually absent at the salvage.- Mr. Goody here interposed, observing that, although concerned for the defendant, Powell his client was really anxious that these parties should recover; but an important legal question was involved in the matter which it was necessary should be settled; and there were a large number of smacksmen interested in the decision of it. The smacksmen had no doubt been in the habit of contracting partnership in this way, and, until a question was raised upon the understanding, had always been honourably observed. The question he referred to had been raised at Rochford: it had been agreed to submit it to the opinion of Mr. Lloyd, who was of course a man of great experience in such matters. The law, as he (Mr. Goody) urged, was that in salvage a man could have no partner who was actually at the wreck.- His Honour said that a very different rule had certainly been observed at Southend. If it were a question of partnership it did not follow that all the partners must be present to entitle them to their share.- Mr. Jones said the Blue Eyed Maid claimed a share of the salvage, at which she was not present, and that he should contend was under an agreement to share everything by whichever of them taken.- Mr. Goody said he was afraid his view of the law was correct, and the reason of it was that it was against public policy to allow participation in salvage to smacks not present, because it was thought that the sailor would not risk his life in saving, when he knows that he has to share the booty with a number of partners not there. Mr. Goody repeated that if His Honour could take a different view in favour of the plaintiffs no one would be more glad than his client, the defendant.- Without going into evidence the facts of the case were admitted by Mr. Goody as proved, and the question of law was left for His Honour’s consideration, Mr. Goody giving him the cases upon which he relied in support of his opinion.- Ponder, the second defendant did not appear, being now at sea in the Margaret, of this port; but his wife, who attended for him, consented to abide the same result.”

​

THE ESSEX STANDARD - 14 July 1854 - “IMPORTANT SALVAGE QUESTION - Crickmar and others v. Powell.- In this case the action had been brought for £7.17.9. the plaintiff a share in the salvage of a vessel. The plaintiff, defendant, and others, it may be remembered, were smacksmen, and, as is customary with them, had agreed to divide their earnings whether derived from fishing, salvage, or otherwise. At the last Court the facts had been admitted by Mr. Goody, who then appeared for Powell, and judgment was entered against him, and also against a second defendant Ponder, subject to a point of law, viz., whether the agreement into which the parties had entered was a legal one, so as to entitle them to share money earned at salvage, except where all the partnership vessels were actually present at the wreck.- Mr. Jones again appeared for the plaintiffs; but Mr. Philbrick on this occasion represented the defendants.- Mr. Philbrick being under the erroneous impression that judgment had not been given,  and that the point of law remained for argument today, his Honour suggested that the case should be heard in the  nature of a motion for new trial.- Mr. Jones consented to waive the usual notice of motion, provided Mr. Philbrick would give him the grounds upon which it was based.- Mr. Philbrick said the ground of the motion would be that the agreement was void.- The question, he observed, was one of great importance, affecting a large body of persons. The action was brought by the plaintiffs to recover a share of money received by the defendants on account of the salvage of a vessel. Now the intention of all the statutes giving rewards to parties engaged in salvage was,  that those rewards should be for services actually rendered by the claimants to the ship in distress, they being present and taking part in the salvage. That was the general policy of the law; and therefore, if, as in this case, parties agreed to share their earnings, whether present at the salvage or not, such an agreement would be in contravention of that policy, and therefore not to be upheld. The Judge at a Court of Admiralty had, in his judgment upon a salvage case in February 1843, condemned such agreements as repugnant to public policy and highly injurious, as taking away from the actual salvors the motives to enterprise and energy, where they had to share the proceeds of an enterprise upon which they risked their lives. Mr. Philbrick quoted the 7th and 8th Vic. and the 13th and 14th Vic., the Merchant Seamen’s Act, the latter of which enacted that in case of any stipulation by which any seaman consented to abandon his right to wages or earnings, any such abandonment of his right should be wholly inoperative. This, he contended, was in the same spirit as the judgment he had referred to in the Court of Admiralty, and that the Merchant Seamen’s Act of 1850 had been framed to prevent the mischief which was calculated to arise from such agreements. It had been indeed against the whole policy of the law to sanction an agreement such as these parties had entered into; and he submitted that upon the principle laid down in the Court of Admiralty it could not be upheld.- Mr. Jones, in behalf of the plaintiffs, observed that the only point upon which he could agree with his friend was in the important character he had given to the question, for if this practice of partnership were interfered with, the effect must be to almost annihilate these little fishing villages, and reduce the greater part of its smacksmen to beggary. He submitted that the Merchant Seamen’s Act referred to was never intended to apply to a case of this kind; but referred only to an agreement supposed to be entered into by the seamen at the time they were hired. It clearly referred to agreements between the owners of vessels and crews who were about to sail in them; and in the case of the present agreement he submitted that the plaintiffs never abandoned nor thought of abandoning or foregoing any right. With regard to the judgment of the Court of Admiralty in the case of the Louisa, in 1843, he reminded his Honour that the Admiralty Court was not a court of law, and therefore a decision there could not bring with it any weight upon a point of law. Mr. Jones was pursuing his argument, when he was stopped by an intimation from his Honour, who, after dwelling upon the terms of the several acts of Parliament, was of opinion that they did not apply to such an agreement as the present. He thought the case of the Louisa was not parallel with the present one, and he could not see that it was either against the law or public policy that three boats, being employed fishing in different places, should divide their earnings where one portion of the partnership happened to be called into a more profitable trade - a trade at the same time very serviceable, and one which ought to be encouraged, viz., in saving the lives and property of their fellow creatures when wrecked. He therefore refused the motion for a new trial.- Mr. Jones applied for attorney’s fee for opposing the motion, which was granted.- In the case of Ponder, the defendant in the second action, the money had not been recovered under the judgment, and his Honour said he could not allow the motion. It was therefore struck out.”

THE ESSEX STANDARD - 11 October 1854 - “SALVAGE DIVISION.- Henry Crickmar, Wardley, and others v. William Watson.- This was another of the several actions brought to recover the sum of £7.17.9., the plaintiff’s share of money received for the salvage of the Dutch vessel Hendrika Jantina (sic, Justina). The circumstances under which the plaintiffs claimed partnership with the salvage smacks engaged have already been more than once before the public; and the claim was strenuously resisted by those who have received their share in the division.- Mr. Jones appeared for the plaintiff; Mr. Philbrick for the defendant.- Mr. Jones again explained that the plaintiffs were the master, owner, and crew of the Blue-eyed Maid, and the defendant Watson was sued as a mariner on board the Prince of Orange, both of this port. The plaintiffs claimed their share of the sum of £286.5. paid to the Prince of Orange and the Gypsey, for the salvage of the Dutch vessel Hendrika Jantina. In October last the plaintiffs made a bargain with the master, owner, and crew of the Prince of Orange to share whatever they earned, whether by salvage, sweeping, or otherwise; and in the February following a third vessel, the Gypsey, was taken into the partnership. The Blue-eyed Maid received directions to remain in the lower part of the Swin, while the other two went higher up the river. While thus together the Prince of Orange and the Gypsey fell in with this Dutch vessel in distress; and they, being the actual parties engaged in the salvage, had received the amount above named from Mr. H.S. Goody, to whom the division was entrusted. At the division of the money the plaintiffs also attended to receive their share, but the defendant and his companions acted upon the principle that “Those should take who have the power, And those should keep who can;” and taking all the money themselves, they left the unfortunate plaintiffs to pursue the present troublesome remedy. Since this time the Blue-eyed Maid had picked up some timber, and articles of not much value, and in the division of that the three smacks had shared; which, he submitted, was the strongest proof of partnership.- Evidence was then given by Mr. Goody as to the amount of salvage money divided; and by witnesses on both sides as to the partnership which existed. The evidence of the latter was confused, and of no public interest in detail. It was proved by William Wardley, the master of the Prince of Orange, that the vessel and the Blue-eyed Maid were, as before stated, in partnership, and that they subsequently took in the Gypsey. The defendant’s witnesses repudiated any connexion with the Blue-eyed Maid. The case occupied several hours, and His Honour, after hearing the evidence, said he had no doubt that there was a partnership between the three vessels; the Prince of Orange having made it, and the Gypsey subsequently ratified it; and that it was only an after-thought on the part of these men to refuse them their equal share in the salvage. He gave judgment for £7.12.8., the amount arranged.- In consequence of want of time to-day Mr. Philbrick is to move at the next court for an arrest of judgment, on the ground of the illegality of the partnership, as argued before the court on a former occasion. There are other cases pending the result.”

​

THE ESSEX STANDARD - 22 November 1854 - “COLCHESTER COUNTY COURT. Nov.20.- At the monthly sitting of this Court on Monday the business was slight, and was concluded before one o’clock. Geo. Frederick Levett v. Wm. Wadley, East Donyland.- In reference to this case (an action by the plaintiff to recover £11.9. the half share of the defendant’s son, who was lost whilst rendering salvage service to the Dutch vessel Hendrika Justina), which, it will be remembered, was adjourned by his Honour at the last Court for the purpose of considering a point raised by Mr. Philbrick, solicitor for the plaintiff, the Judge now said, that having well considered the Acts of Parliament upon the subject, he felt very decided that a verdict must be entered for the defendant.”

ALSO - “Henry Crickmore v. Thomas Ennew, mariners, East Donyland.- Action for £2.16.1.- Mr. Jones, for the plaintiff, said the case stood over from the last Court, when defendant admitted the debt in writing, but he had since claimed a set off. Plaintiff was now at sea, and under these circumstances he (Mr. Jones) felt that he should not be doing justice to him in his absence.- Defendant being sworn, admitted the previous acknowledgment of the debt to be in his hand-writing; and his Honour said he would give judgment for the plaintiff for the present claim; allowing Ennew the opportunity of entering an action for the set-off.- Mr. Jones said, if his client on his return home found defendant’s claim correct, it should be settled without further proceedings being taken.”

​

THE ESSEX STANDARD - 16 May 1855 - “COLCHESTER COUNTY COURT. 7 May.- Thomas Lay, smack-owner, v. Daniel Taylor, jun., mariner, of East Donyland.- An adjourned action for the balance of a partnership account.- Mr. Jones appeared for the plaintiff.- The parties had been concerned together in some salvage transactions in the smack Industry, of which plaintiff was the owner and defendant the master. The earnings of the vessel were to be divided into shares, and the present action was for a balance of £1. 13.1d., due to plaintiff.- The case, it will be remembered,  stood over from the last Court to enable the parties to come to an arrangement. Each now produced an account in writing of the transaction, and, there still being a difference between them as to certain items, his Honour said the better way would be to enter a verdict for 13s. 7d., the amount admitted to be due, and refer the disputed sum to some friend for investigation, as it was impossible for him (the Judge) to come to a decision upon the matter as it at present stood. He would recommend that in future, before entering into such a transaction, an agreement should be drawn up in writing between the parties.- Mr. Willett was named as the referee: and in case the parties should not be able to effect a settlement it was arranged that a new trial be granted.”

​