LORD CHIEF BARON POLLOCK. The fact of its being on the record is nothing unless there is some evidence to connect it with the Alexandra.

The SOLICITOR GENERAL. The ground we submit to your lordship is shortly this, that Miller, junior, is proved by the witness to have had the entire superintendence of the whole of the business of the yard and the construction of the Alexandra in particular. That being so, in the course of his employment he goes on this trial trip as a matter of business. One of the ships built in the yard is built under his superintendence-and during the whole time while that conversation is going on the construction of the Alexandra under his superintendence is also in progress. I would submit to your lordship, therefore, that the res gesta concerning the Alexandra on which this witness is employed, as superintendent in the yard, are sufficiently connected in point of time and circumstances with the time and circumstances of this conversation to make it admissible, bearing in mind that this trial trip of the superintendence and partnership of the yard is itself a matter of evidence as far as the business of the yard is concerned. As a partnership it stands in an inconclusive state; but I think that the witness did distinctly say that he made his dealings as with the firm, although a particular contract was signed by the father.

LORD CHIEF BARON POLLOCK. He said he never had but one dealing with him.
The SOLICITOR GENERAL. Never, my lord, but this.

LORD CHIEF BARON POLLOCK. The inference from that is that the firm was under the name of Miller and Son, and old Miller dealt under the name of Miller and Son.

LORD CHIEF BARON POLLOCK. He was not a partner. He was clearly nothing but a servant, and his declaration in giving directions would be evidence, but I think not his conversations on board the Emperor.

The SOLICITOR GENERAL. If that should be so the only other remark I venture to submit to your lordship is this: If in fact the father carried on his business under the firm of Miller and Sons, he was clearly holding out his sons, or one of them, and that the son in the yard, to the world as a partner, and that put him, so far as the world is concerned, prima facie in that position.

LORD CHIEF BARON POLLOCK. I don't know how many sons he has, or which son he held out as a partner.

The QUEEN'S ADVOCATE. We will not press that question, my lord.

We were on the question as to the time when you were on board the Emperor on this trial trip. You said in answer to a question which I put to you before that you had seen Captain Tessier often in Mr. Miller's yard?—Yes.

I want now to draw your attention to a particular occasion. Do you remember after the Emperor's trial trip, I am not sure whether it was after the first or the second, but it was after one of the trial trips of the Emperor-do you remember being in the cabin of the Emperor with Mr. Miller, senior?-He was in the cabin when I was there. SIR HUGH CAIRNS. Was this at the trial trip?

The QUEEN'S ADVOCATE. It was after the trial trip.

SIR HUGH CAIRNS. Was it after the first or second trial trip?

The QUEEN'S ADVOCATE. (To the witness.) Was that after the first or second trial trip-The second.

Now, on that occasion do you remember whether young Mr. Miller came down and called to his father?-He did.

What did he say to his father?

SIR HUGH CAIRNS. Wait a minute before you answer that question.

The QUEEN'S ADVOCATE. Did he say anything to his father?-Did young Mr. Miller say anything to his father? Just answer the question simply ?—He told him that Captain Tessier wanted him.

What did Miller do?-He came up.

Did you go with him?-Yes, I was up close with him.

Did you both go on deck?-Yes.

You and old Mr. Miller ?—Yes.

And then were you and old Mr. Miller, and young Mr. Miller, and Captain Tessier on deck at the same time?—Yes.

Did Captain Tessier on that occasion say anything to Miller, senior, about the Alexandra-first of all, say "Yes" or "No." Did he say anything ?—He did,

What did he say?

SIR HUGH CAIRNS. Now, wait a moment. This is a statement, my lord, made by Captain Tessier to Miller, senior.

The QUEEN'S ADVOCATE. We do not know what it was yet. I have only asked him if he said anything.

SIR HUGH CAIRNS. No. I quite agree. The question is, did he say anything about the Alexandra? I apprehend, my lord, that a statement made by Captain Tessier, who has no control over the Alexandra, to Mr. Miller, senior, cannot be evidence. There is no doubt that Captain Tessier's name is in the information, but still that does not make it evident.

The QUEEN'S ADVOCATE. It is not on that ground.

LORD CHIEF BARON POLLOCK. That is not the ground. That is merely a notice given.

SIR HUGH CAIRNS. Does your lordship think it falls in the same ruling as you have already given.

LORD CHIEF BARON POLLOCK. Since I have admitted what Miller, senior, said, I must admit what is said to him in reference to the ship.

SIR HUGH CAIRNS. You will allow us to take objection to this as we did to the other. The QUEEN'S ADVOCATE. (To the witness.) Did Captain Tessier say anything to Mr. Miller, senior, respecting the construction of the Alexandra ?—He did.

What was it he said?

The ATTORNEY GENERAL, I may state, my lord, that this is the question we wish to put. It is merely to alter the form. Instead of the question which my friend objected to, instead of having the question generally, did he say anything as to the Alexandra ? We put the question, did he say anything as to the construction of the Alexandra ?— Yes.

The QUEEN'S ADVOCATE. He did?—Yes.

Tell us what he said with reference to the construction of the Alexandra ?—He wanted the combings of the hatch higher.

That is what he said?—Yes.

Did he say how much higher he wanted them ?—Three inches, I think it was.
Of what hatch?-The main hatch.

Did Miller, senior, make any answer?-He did.

What did he say?-He said he would not do it. It was according to contract.

LORD CHIEF BARON POLLOCK. What was done was according to contract?—Yes.

But what was proposed to be done was not according to contract?-No.

The QUEEN'S ADVOCATE. That is, that Mr. Miller said he would not do it, because what was done had been done according to contract?—Yes.

Cross-examined by Mr. KARSLAKE:

How long have you lived in Liverpool?--I was born in Liverpool.

What was your first occupation in business; keeping a sailors' boarding-house?— No, sir.

Was that your second occupation?-I am dealing in sailors.

I did not ask you that. Did you keep a sailors' boarding-house?-My mother did. Did you keep it afterward?-Yes.

Do you keep it still ?-No.

Now you are a member of the tug company and also supply crews to vessels?—A what!

Are you a member of the tug company?-Yes.

Do you supply crews to vessels?-To ships.

Do you arrange to do that under the superintendence of those in authority under the passengers' act ?-No.

You got into a little difficulty with them on the subject once, did you not?—Yes. I beg your pardon, I was agent for the ship in that case.

You were agent to the ship, and shipped men on board, and they came off to you, and you were fined?-I was fined, certainly, but they were passengers.

LORD CHIEF BARON POLLOCK. For what were you fined ?-A breach of the passenger

act.

Now you are part owner of the tug Emperor ?—I am.

Was the Huddersfield being built by Mr. Miller ?—The Huddersfield was on the starboard side of the Emperor.

Then the Phantom was on the other side?-On the port side.

These three were lying abreast-They were.

Was the Alexandra astern of the Emperor?-No, ahead of her.

Now the Emperor was your tug ?—Yes.

When was she laid down?-About some time in August, I think she should have been laid down some time before they did lay her down. She was delayed for these other vessels.

In August, 1862 ?—Yes.

And when was she delivered to your company?—I do not know that she is delivered yet; I cannot tell; I don't know whether the certificate is got or not. The manager is in court, and he will tell you more about it.

But you know that in consequence of the dispute, Mr. Miller has brought an action against you and the rest of your co-directors?—I am quite ignorant of it.

You do not know whether an action has been brought against you or not?—No.

You are a happy man. Will you swear that you have not had an action brought against you -I will swear that I did not know that Mr. Miller has brought an action against me,

Will you swear there is not an action going on at the present time against you?— That I will not.

Has it never been under your notice ?-Never brought to my notice.

The Phantom, Captain Tessier commanded, did he not ?-He took her away from this port-from Liverpool.

And was he generally down at the Phantom at the time of her being built ?—Both at the gunboat and at her.

I did not ask you that question?-He was at both.

Was he frequently down at the Phantom during the time she was building?—He was, and at the gunboat.

I did not ask you that question.-I am answering you both.

I ask you about the Phantom ?-If you ask me whether he was coming there, I must tell you what he was doing.

I ask you about the Phantom. You can tell us about the other. I ask you now about the Phantom?-He was at both vessels.

You say you saw him give an order on board the Alexandra?—I did not see him; Mr. Welsman, not Captain Tessier.

The QUEEN'S ADVOCATE. No, he did not say that.

Mr. KARSLAKE. He said, "I did not hear him give orders;" he "was about superintending."

I observed you dwelt particularly on the word "saw;" did you ever hear Mr. Welsman give an order?-I did.

What was it?-He told a man to knock off; he was doing something different to his wishes, and the man did knock off.

That is, he stopped work?-He stopped work and went away.

Did you see the Alexandra launched?-No.

Do you know that she was launched on the day that the Princess of Wales came to London-I could not tell the day; I do not know.

Was that about the time?-I do not know.

You live at Liverpool?—I do; but that is a long way from the place where this vessel is built. It is away to the north end.

You do not know much about what was going on?-When I was there I did.
How many times were you there ?-Twenty times.

Will you swear that ?-Yes.

Were you ever there more than four times during the time the vessel was building ?— Yes.

You were?-Oh yes.

Now, on this trial trip of the Emperor that you have spoken of, the second trial trip, there was a champagne luncheon ?—No.

Was there at the first trial trip?—I believe there was. I had nothing to do with the champagne. I do not drink it.

What did you drink ?—I drank a little wine, I think it was.

Champagne is wine. Was this rather a merry party on the Emperor?-Not at all. A dull one?-They kept it to themselves. There was a lot by themselves. We kept to ourselves; the directors with me.

Do you recollect the second occasion ?-Perfectly well.

Who had you on board on that occasion ?-Mr. Thomas Miller. Do you want to know the whole of them?

They were not very numerous, were they?-There were only five or six of them. There were Mr. Thomas Miller, Captain Tessier, Mr. Speers, Mr. Cawkhill, Mr. Green, myself, Mr. Cairns, Mr. Taylor, and Captain McStoker.

And Mr. McIlroy?—No.

Mr. Cawkhill is a brother director?-He is our manager, and he knows a great deal more about it than I do.

Who sent for you, or who came to you to give some information on this subject ?— No person.

You went of your own accord?-Do you want me to tell you, sir?

No, I do not. I want you to answer my question. Who did you first give any information to on the subject of the Alexandra-The consul asked me.

Who did you give information to? Was it to the consul?-The consul asked me.

I do not ask you what he asked?—I am not an informer.

Who did you first speak to about the Alexandra ?-The consul.

The American consul?-Yes.

What is his name?-Dudley.

When first did you go to him?-He sent a note for me after the 3d of March; I think it was the 4th.

When first?-After the trial trip; after the 3d of March.

Do you mean after the trial trip of the Emperor ?—Yes.

The second trial trip?-Yes, I think it was.

Did you also go to Messrs. Duncan, Squarey and Company?—No.

Have you seen them?-I have since.

Are the solicitors to the American consul and government at Liverpool?—I do not know that.

Did you go to Mr. Hamel and be examined before him?—I did.

Was that after you had seen the American consul and after you had seen Duncan, Squarey and Company?—I did not tell you that I had seen Duncan, Squarey and Company. Oh! yes; I beg your pardon. Yes, it was after.

Can you give us the date of your going to see Mr. Hamel after seeing the consul and Duncan, Squarey and Company?—I could not give you the date.

Tell me about when it was?-It was after this; some time in March. I do not know; I am not certain about it; I should not like to say.

Did you see McGuire, the detective?-I saw him after I got out of the custom-house. You saw him there ?-Yes.

Was he going in as you were coming out?-He was going in.

You have spoken about some blocks in the yard. Were those blocks under the Phantom?-They were under the gunboat.

Well, if you will have it so, I suppose you must. I asked you about the Phantom. The QUEEN'S ADVOCATE. We have nothing to re-examine him upon, my lord.

Mr. JOHN WILSON GREEN called and sworn and examined by the QUEEN'S ADVOCATE : I believe, Mr. Green, you are a ship-builder in Liverpool?—Yes.

Of very considerable experience, I believe?—I have been for many years a shipbuilder.

Do you remember being requested to look at a vessel called the Alexandra ?—I do. When was that?-A fortnight back.

For what purpose were you requested to look at her?—To make a report of my opinion as to what purpose she was built for.

Did you go and look at her?—I did.

Did you examine ber?-I did.

Now, Mr. Green, will you be so good as to tell my lord and the jury what was the result of your examination, what opinion you formed?

SIR HUGH CAIRNS. Do not ask him that.

LORD CHIEF BARON POLLOCK. All he can tell you must be the facts.

The QUEEN'S ADVOCATE. Yes, my lord.

What did you find?-On going on board?

How was she built-I found her bulwarks differently formed from any merchant vessel, or any other vessel than a vessel of war.

Will you go on if you please with the description? Of what timber was she built?— The bulwarks, to which I first alluded, as being different from any other vessel but a ship of war, were composed of very thick planks, three inches thick inside and out. LORD CHIEF BARON POLLOCK. What was it?-It was teak.

The QUEEN'S ADVOCATE. What was the thickness?-The inside and the outside planks were three inches thick in the lower part, and two and a half inches thick in the upper part, and they were about two and a half feet deep. That would be from the deck to the top.

Do I understand from you that that is an unusual thickness for a merchant vessel?-Yes.

Had she any masts ?-She had three masts.

Had she a propeller?—Yes, her propeller is under water.

What were her dimensions? How long was she?-Her length was one hundred and twenty-five and a half feet, and her breadth about twenty-one and a half feet. She was not particularly measured-not to the plumb line-but sufficiently near to obtain an approximation. She measured about two hundred and seventy-six tons, builder's

measurement.

Did you observe her rudder?—The rudder was very strong, and a very thick formed rudder-unusually so.

Was it thicker and stronger than would be used for a merchant vessel?-It was. You have spoken of the Bulwarks; did you observe anything about the bulwarks— any arrangements made for the upper part of the bulwarks to be fitted up with anything-I discovered several iron stanchions for hammock racks which were not put up, but there were arrangements being made for the staples to receive them. They were on board, but there were staples in the side of the vessel to receive them. What, in your judgment, were the hammock racks for ?-For hammocks.

Is that usual on board a merchant ship?-Very seldom.

Did you observe the arrangement of the deck-was there anything peculiar?-The scuttles or hatchways were not suited for a merchant vessel.

Would you tell his lordship were they or were they not of the same kind as you would find on board a man-of-war-Yes, quite so.

They were of the same kind?-As a small class man-of-war.

Did you observe the engines and the boilers?—No, they were only partially up. Did you observe whether there was any particular space before the boilers?—Yes.

What was that ?—I could not say what that would be appropriated for; there was an entrance to it by a narrow scuttle, not sufficiently large for a hatchway, it would suit a narrow staircase.

Was this particular space before the boiler usual in merchant vessels?—Yes, in merchant vessels built for cargo.

Was it fitted for carrying cargo?—No, because there was no hatchway, there was only a narrow scuttle.

It was not fitted for carrying cargo, because there was no hatchway?—No, it was only what might be termed a narrow scuttle, which does not come under the denomination of a hatchway.

Did you observe the forecastle?-I observed that it was not fitted for a merchant's forecastle, but as I have seen yachts and small vessels of war.

Let me ask you, did you observe a cooking apparatus ?-Yes, there was a cooking apparatus in the forecastle, sufficient for one hundred and fifty to two hundred people. Was that the kind of cooking apparatus which is usual on board merchant vessels ?— Only on board of passenger vessels; merchant vessels which are passenger vessels have as large and larger cooking apparatus, or ships which go on long voyages have as large. But a common merchantman would not have so large an apparatus ?-No, not a small vessel like that.

Did you observe the cabin?-Yes, I did; so much as was put up of it.

Was there anything peculiar in it?-Yes; there appeared to me to be two compartments, which would either be fitted for pantries, but they were larger than pantries are, as I have seen pursers' or officers' cabins and also the cabins of medical officers fitted.

As you have seen pursers' and medical officers' cabins fitted?—Yes; somewhat similar in their fittings.

What did you find on the starboard side of the cabin?-There were two sleeping berths, each with a bed place and drawers under the bed place.

You found two sleeping rooms on the starboard side?—Yes; they are sometimes called rooms and sometimes berths.

With beds, and drawers underneath the beds, you say?—Yes; drawers underneath the beds.

Was there a third room?—There was a third room, but it was not appropriated. I cannot say what it was.

But there was a third room?-There was a small room fitted as a pantry, which I might represent as being at the foot of the entrance of the cabin.

Was that the one you spoke of just now, or another one ?-No.

You have spoken as to the starboard side; now tell me as to the port side?—I think there was one cabin with one bed place on the port side.

What sort of a room was that?-The bedroom was similar to the one on the starboard side.

What kind of a room did it appear to be destined for ?-There was a room before the bedroom which did not appear to be appropriated. I could not say what that was intended for.

Was there an after cabin ?—Yes; a small after cabin.

How large was that?-Nine or ten feet. I am not sure about the exact size.

Did you observe the deck beams?-They were closer together than is usually required in merchant vessels.

Now, I will ask you your opinion as a gentleman of science conversant with shipbuilding. I will ask you for what purpose do you conceive that the Alexandra was constructed.

SIR HUGH CAIRNS. I object to that; that is simply a question which may become material for the jury.

LORD CHIEF BARON POLLOCK. He has stated already that it was unfit for a merchant vessel.

The QUEEN'S ADVOCATE. I was only going to put the question as I should to an expert in these matters.

The LORD CHIEF BARON POLLOCK. You cannot do that, because there is no expert required. He has not come here in the character of an expert.

You are a shipbuilder?—Yes, my lord.

The QUEEN'S ADVOCATE. Therefore he is a skilled man,

LORD CHIEF BARON POLLOCK. I can only take facts from him. What occurs to me as the proper course is to get from the witness facts.

The QUEEN'S ADVOCATE. I have this already.

LORD CHIEF BARON POLLOCK. Then let the jury form their judgment on them. But for a man to say, In my opinion this vessel was unfitted for such and such a purpose, is usurping the functions of the jury.

The QUEEN'S ADVOCATE. I will state the question first to your lordship. The witness need not answer it. But I was about to put this question: "Was she, in your judg ment, adapted for a merchant ship, or for a vessel of war ?"