APPENDIX TO CHRONICLE. 



299 



pieces of the vessel, of no great 

 value, not in the whole amount- 

 ing to 501. 



This case being proved, Mr. 

 Marryatt, for the defendants, 

 said they were not at all liable in 

 this action ; for with respect to 

 those parts of the vessel for which 

 salvage was due, the defendants 

 had given notice to the plaintiffs 

 that they had abandoned them to 

 the underwriters, and therefore 

 whatever was due on that head 

 was due from the underwriters, 

 and not from the defendants. 

 With respect to the other head of 

 claim, namely, salvage for the 

 lives of the men, no such claim 

 existed in our law. It was a duty 

 of humanity which the plaintiffs 

 weie morally bound to perform; 

 at most it could only be consider- 

 ed as work and labour done for 

 the defendant's servants. And it 

 had been ruled, that where a 

 senant had broke his leg in his 

 master's employ, the master was 

 not bound to pay the doctor. The 

 defendants, howe\er, though they 

 were not liable for any thing, had 

 nevertheless paid .501. into court, 

 which \\ as abundant compensation 

 for the use of theplaintiff^s vessel 

 for the day which it was occu- 

 pied. 



]Mr. Justice Abbott said, that 

 this action was the first instance 

 he had ever recollected of a claim 

 being made for savijig the life of 

 a man. There could not be any 

 salvage for the life of man, for 

 salvage was a re>vard proportion- 

 ed to the value of the thing saved ; 

 but the law contem|)lated the life 

 of man as above all measure of 

 value. It was consideied in law 

 as inestimable, and although no 

 reconjpence could in this case be 



legally demanded on that ground, 

 he was sure that the humanity of 

 British seamen would always be 

 equally exerted on behalf of their 

 fellow-creatuies in distress. With 

 respect to the articles of the vessel 

 which were saved, and for which 

 a salvage would be due, the de- 

 fendant had disclaimed all title to 

 them, and therefore they were not 

 chargeable on that head. The 

 only way in which the defendants 

 niight be at all chargeable in this 

 action might be for work and 

 labour, and saving the servants 

 of the defendants for the plaintiff^s 

 benefit . The measure of this sort 

 of benefit saved to the defendants, 

 would be the value of the services 

 so saved. The jury would on this 

 head consider whether the 501. 

 paid into court would satisfy this 

 part of the case. — Verdict for the 

 defendants. 



John Bennet, Esq. and others, v. 

 The Rev. Thomas Prevost. — The 

 plaintiffs in this cause are owners 

 and occupiers of lands in the 

 parish of Tisbury, in Wiltshire; 

 the defendant is vicar of the same 

 parish. 



It appeared, that in the year 

 1801, a bill was filed by the vicar 

 in the Court of Exchequer, call- 

 ing on the plaintiffs to account to 

 him for the tithes in kind of the 

 following articles : — cows, calves, 

 heifers, eggs, poultry, and gar- 

 dens. The plaintiffs in their 

 answer insisted, that there were 

 in existence, in and throughout 

 the ])arish, the following moduses, 

 viz. • — three-pence for a cow, 

 sixpence for a calf, three half- 

 pence for a heifer, one penny for 

 eggs and poultry, and one penny 

 for gardens. On the heaiing in 



the 



