The Liverpool Standard and General Commercial Advertiser. — Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1839-04-09 00:00:00

. . 10Vilt LAXCASHIRE ASSIZES. 'CROWN COURT.—PainAT. "''TEEM TOtrigrOltinN RIOTS. George Turfifr,tged 22, and James Lord, 26,1verev\harged Itith.having, dn-the2 s l4t` of November last, at Todmorden, with divers otherixtrsonn, unlawfully, riotciesly, and tumul tuously assembled, and then and there demolished, pulled down, anti destroyed- the' windows, vtindow frames, doors, and certain futniture in the dwelling-house of ;William and also certain windows, &c., in a mill belonging Ito the said ‘l. - -itHitta'Helliweill, Mr. Sergenntliteherley and Mr. Brandt for the prosecu tion. Mr. ilitolidstng Mr. Bliss, and Mr. Blain defended Lord, and MrADWitta*, and Mr. Cohhett appeared on behalf 'a 'Turner. ar2 1 .1, )-c Mr. SergesniAtensamty stated the case to the jury. WilliaaVifeltiwell deposed that he was a cotton-spin ner, Pear'TodutOriltrftw There had been in that neighbour hood an nnioir under - the new poor-law, whi c h was very un popuisir.in thitepartlff the country, so much so, that several gentlemen had restgned the office of ~ , , : uardians. He (witness) was a gnardiaff balder the act on the 21st of November last. On that day therelvas- a considerable assemblage of riotous persons at Teldmorden, Mr. DusreA . .4 'Said he was counsel for one of the prinoners. He believed it tad been ruled that, before the circumstances of the riot were prnved, it was essential that the presence of the prisonerilimongst the assembled mnititude should be made evident. His LonintniP'said he always understood the practice to be just the Cotftraty. Mr- DuNnltt-eaid he was present at a trial at York, when it was so rand by Baron Alderson. The learned counsel read an extraCt . from 'Sir Gregory Lewins's book, which showed thatlhe course had been confirmed by the judges in special commtesion, and acted upon at York by Baron Alder son. His LORDSHIP went out to consult with Baron Alderson. On his return he said the learned baron (Alderson) had no recollection whatever of the circumstance, and his impres sion was that the report alluded to was inaccurate. He (Baron Park)elowever, had a perfect recollection that the special commission, of which he was a member, had ruled otherwise. He was not disposed to depart from the ordinary course. Mr. Helliwell proceeded with his evidence. The mob went away, and returned a second time, when they advanced to his houses iThe mob consisted of about thirty persons, who broke his windows, smashed the iron rails in front of his house, brake the . panels out of the front door, and even smashed in the window. frames. There was a great noise of shouting and yelling. He considered that there was much danger, andtheiefore *aced his wife and children up stairs in a place olJeefety, and he and a friend who was with flien armed themselves: The stones flew very thick. Next morn ing he set hiff;fout upon a stick as thick as his arm, which had been thrown through the window, and there was in the room a stone as thick as his arm. It was about half-past four o'clockswhan they arrived. James Greenwood, corn dealer, stated that he was dining on the day in quistion with his friend Mr. Helliwell. Heard of the approach. of the mob. Observed the mob. Saw seve ral, the principal - part of the mob, with bludgeons and sticks. They broke Mr; Helliwell's windows, then proceeded along the road to Mr. Bakup's house s where they did some injury, and returned when they broke all the windows and window frames, the doors and rails. They then proceeded to his (witness's)•brotlaer's, which was nearer Todmorden. Soon after that his brother's windows, doors, and rails were bro ken, also those of his brother's mill. Went home to Hare Hilt.- The mob proceeded towards Todmorden Hall. He (witness) could hear them. He heard great shouts and breaking of windows. When he got to his mother's at Hare Hill, he ordered the house to be secured. He put the fami ly into thefeellar for safety. The mob approached with blud geons of different descriptions sand plenty of stones. They demolishecisoll the windows, and entered the house in great numbers. i-He (witness) had not taken any part in the new poor-law : he was attacked because he was a friend of Mr. Helliwell. The kitchen and .the breakfast room were both set on fire. The staircase which led from the breakfast room to the sleepttkrooms was set on fire. His Loatetwfies-That was a much more serious offence than a riot: - Mr. Greenwood, in continuation.—Several of them called out, " BrisrAellint out, bring him out, kill him !" They were principallr fieteey people.' His Loansit sP=said he thought there was now evidence enotigh of ridt •' they might now give evidence to connect the prisonefe with it:: Williamirkfriered called.—He stated that his brother lived on the NM; to Btfc,op. On the 21st November he saw the mob. Their-thee* stones at him, and cried, " Kill him, kill him ! he liele bastile chap." The individuals were armed withbludtedet, They were workers in the factories. Eli Crossley stated, tbat he was in November last a ser vant to Mr..Helliwell. On the 21st November, as he was brlhging theehildrert home from school, a little before four o'clock, hVeraw a.mob coming. He hastened home, to get the childrAleinto the house. As they were coming, he saw George Turner the first, and James Lord in the back part of the crowds t'lled.known Turner well for several years. He and Turner went to school together. Had known Lord about sit' months. Had heard him (prisoner) call him " Skilly Billy." - They used to call his master that, and he. believed it Was-a term applied to poor-law guardians. He did not knoir what. it meant. The crowd kept together, and theprisoners'paesed in with them. He saw the crowd come back, bueit was getting dark, and he did not see the prison ers return with them. By Mr. -Moment's}, for Lord.—Did not see who threw the stones, as they came so fast that he could not see who threw them. They 'were loaded with stones as they came up, and did' not: stay to pick any up. There were a good many small boys amongst them. There was another person whom, he could have identified, but he and others had left the country, and had never slept at their own houses since. Lord lived at' a mill about half a mile from Mr. Helliwell's. He was a Working man, and had a wife and family. He was taken at the White Hart. The prisoners were all brought up in irons . , and when he saw them he identified the two prisoners:' Knew a man named Joseph Barker; never had. any conversation with him about the prisoners. Never , asked him if Lord was amongst the rioters. Barker said he wondered at him knowing Lord. He (witness) told Barker that he was unhappy ' • he was unhappy because he was threat ened. Did not think he said that he might be mistaken in speaking . to the presence of the prisoners. Did not say so. Said he remembered Lord once at a buff-hunt at Todmorden, where they were going to sell some calico that was distraiied for a fine. • Lord was abusing the auctioneer. liy Me: - Irusnsas (on behalfof Tut ner.)—Was standing in Mr. Helliwell's front room when he observed the mob. Stood near the whit of the window. Re-czar/lined by Sergeant ATCHERLRY.—Had this conver- . sation with Barker one day when taking the children to school, elnee the riot. Lord was in Mr. Fielden's employ, and Barker also. By tlfit4ctroz..—Could not see whether the mob had bludgeottear not. =They had pieces of wood. Mr. I:bsitiom: wished the witness to be asked if Turner were a ntartied matt. His lordship said this was not a legiti mate qutift - It bad nothing to do with the inquiry. Richaidtehambers deposed that he was a stationer in Tocl mordent:4lls shop was near the house of Miss Hult. About three 01-lbatror a little after, on the 21st November, heard a great nafrairi , the street, and went out. Saw a mob of about 300 pera4ts.: , : They went towards Mr. Helliwell's. Took notice °Veit:crowd, and recognised George Turner in the middle eft' t.; He was carrying a very large stick over his shoulder!" -Mad known Turner half-a-dozen years. Saw also James Lord walking on the causeway, by the side of the crowd, the bulk of which was in the middle of the street. Some of the crowd had gone on before. He might be one of the crowd dr he might not. He had not aclub—but those in the middl6 of the street had. Had known Lord about half a year beford: -He passed close to him. The mob went into Mr. Fieldteir-ghouse; By Mr.Abtsti.nus.—He (witness) looked in for curiosity, and a goOd•niiiity people did the same. By Mr. DuNDA.s.—Was standing in the street. The road there isigir yards wide. It turns into the highway, which is a goodNvidth. The mob went by at a pretty-quick pace. William Greenwood was, in November last, an assistant to Mr: Suggen, a grocer at Todmorden. Saw the mob on the 21st November. -Witness went out. Saw Turner with the mob. Me -yaiabout the middle of the road, with a sti c k lik e a piece of peeled oak. A stone was thrown which went past his head through the shop window. Could not speak exactly to the time. It.might be between five and six o'clock; it was dark. Some one called out to the mob—" What the devil aki ; you. doing there—go to Hare Hill the next." The snob im mediately proceeded forward. When they were op posite to Todmorden Hall, from whence they came to his master's house, he heard a great noise of glass breaking. By Mr. Dusina.s.—The moh stopped opposite to his mas ter's shop, but did not see more than one stone thrown. Thomas Lord was in Mr. Holliwell's mill when the snob came up. • Before they went up to Mr. Ormerod's, observed the actions of the mob. Thought, but could not just positively swear, that he saw James Lord. He thought it was the per son ; was high up in the mill, and could not see distinctly. Jane Ramsbottom, niece to Miss Holt of Todmorden. Remembers the mob of November last ; was standing at the window between three and four o'clock in the afternoon; saw the mob ; they were armed with clubs. Saw George Turner; he had a club over his shoulder; had known him about four Tears, and was quite certain he was the man. Some time afterwards they eame to her aunt's house, and threw stones. Joseph WoodcoCk deposed that, on the 21st November, he was about three mile* , from - Todmorden, at W oo d m il, th e owner of,which Was . a guardian. The mob came there about three o'clock, and broke the windows of the house and mill. Saw Lord in the crowd; 'he was not doing anything. Knew him before very welt. They went back towards Todmorden, passing, by the house of Mr. Hill, who was al s o a guard i an. They said he (Mr. Hill) was a guardian, and they would break his windons. He said they should not ;he would re sign. They obeyed his orders, and walked forward, Lord accompanying them. When they got a little forward, they said they would take Todmorden Hall next, the residence of Mr. Taylor, a guardian, and a magistrate. Lord said they would go first to Dervel's Gate, the residence of Mr. Helli well. They called Mr. Helliwell " Skilly Billy." James Lord was the person who so designated him. They went for ward in That 'direction. Mr. .flts4has said he would call his lordship's attention to what he conceived tube a fatal objection to the indictment. The jury were called the jurors of our sovereign lady the (men, instead of the jurors for our sovereign lady the qtieen. This was contrary to all precedent. The jurors were to inquirer" for " our sovereign lady the queen. MrOcrgeant ATCHERLEY contended that the jurors were of the queen, and th a t p rece d en t s f requ ently run so. His LORDSHIP thought not. It would come properly in the shape of an arrest of judgment. If any authority could be produceip support of the objection, he should be influenced by it. His present impression was, that it was not material. PerVps jf r an arrest o f j u d gmen t or a writ of error were . here afte itartd,.*Mne authority could be produced. Acting on his own unaided opinion, he thought the defect was cured by the capti9p.: Mr.l66llnitus addressed the jury on behalf of Lord. He Contended that the only evidence which materially affected the prisoner for whom he appeared was that of the witness Woodcock. The testimony of this witness, he conceived, taking into account the manner of the witness in the box, and other matters, to be altogether unworthy of credence. According to his own account, lie must have been as much present with the mob as the prisoner against whom he gave evidence. So far as any other testimony went, Lord was merely present, and not concurring or aiding and abetting, the proof of 'which he conceived to be essential. It was shown that he had no stick, lie was not seen to throw a stone; andlosict.or :word was imputed to him, except by Wood cock, that could implicate him as an active partisan, There were individuals abut the crowd looking on as well, presum ing him to have been present. He was, however, instructed that Lord was not present at all, and that even the witness Crossley- was mistaken. The learned counsel then dwelt on theaeettt4ifficulty that there was in identifying persons, and t'aeafititient mistakes that had occurred. He pointed out that "fieither Mr. Helliwell nor Mr. Greenwood would venture to speak to the identity of the prisoner. He thought it was very likely that Crossley had been influenced in his judgment by theinstilting expressions which Lord had foolishly applied to Min.. Mr.:DDNDAS, on behalf o f T urner , c h arge d t h e attorney gemitilr'ke tUntiounty palatine with unfairness in having questitrift.d . ohe , of the witnesses respecting the supposed pro motioieof Lord, by Mr. Fielden, in his service. With much ermat-ire &Welt upon the conduct of the tories, who, he said, ha&-*edivery means in their power to excite the minds of thg . PfiVirbier-the - whole of that part of the country against th(peii'litior law. It was not such men as Mr. Fielden, who, he *relied was now a public character, but it was the tories who had at the -last election plastered the walls over the whole district with blue bills, which had set up the backs of the people against the new poor law. He thought, and had al ', ways thought that the poor law was a most excellent measure, and when 14 beneficial effects were made more manifest, he did hot know but it might turn out one of the greatest mea sures of the present government. The learned gentleman proceeded to analyse the testimony very ingeniously and nsi , gutely. There was no evidence, he said, except that Of Ali Crossley, that the prisoner Turner was in the mob . actively engaged, and the evidence of Eli Crossley was 'such as no prudent man could rely upon. He dwelt upon the difficulty of recognition under such eircumatances. The evidence amounted to no more than mere suspicion, and he'eatnegtly called upon the jury to 'acquit the :priSorier. Grace Sutchif (ealled by Mr. AboLPitus).--Witness sta ted that she knew Wordsworth Mill, which Was a good piece of a mile from the church of Todmorden, on the Bacup road. Holt's house was about -half a mite from the same place. John Holt was the father-in4aw of Lord. Went into Holt's house on the day of the riot, about ten minutes after the mob passed. Found Jantts Lord there. He was eating. By Sergeant XTCHERLEY.—Saw him about five or ten minutes. Never said that she only saw him just as the riot ers passed, Henry Sutcliffe, son of last witness, saw the mob pass 'on the 21st of November, a little before four o'clock. Had tea about five o'clock. While at tea heard a noise of bustle and many voices. Saw the prisoner, Lord, between the 'time when the mob went up and the time be had tea. Saw him at the Woodsworth mill toll bar, 'about twenty or twenty five minutes past four. The mob had.passed.a littlepaa four o'clock. Did not see anything of him. Witness give the prisoner ' Lord, a goodcharacter. Sally Holstead, wife of William Trblitead, publican, at Woodsworth-mill, was at honic'on %'he 21st of November. Saw the mob pass a few minutes before four o'clock, in the directionof Mr. lielliwelfs. After they had pissed saw James Lord. It was about twenty minutes or half an hour after. When he (come in he called for a quart of Ale. Four or five persons came in and joined him in drinking it. He remained 1a till after the mob came back. Hewes there per haps halt an hour altogether. A man named Luke Barker came in after the mob came back. They sat down, but when the mob came b ac k, L or d wen t t o th e d oor , H ef re turned in again, and stopped some time, but she could not say how long. On cross-examination by Sergeant ArentieY, witness said there were about ten persons- in the 'house altogether, but she could not state who any of them were except Luke Barker. Luke Barker, Schoolmagter, deposed that, on the 21st of November, he was at Coaholme, which is about 300 or 400 yards from the White Lion. He heard a great noise and shouting, and went to the White Lion, where he saw Lord. The crowd went past, and they went to the door to see it. Lord remained after the mob had gone past ; he took a pint Hof ale afterwards; and seated himself in the kitchen. Deaning Whittle stated, that he was in the employ of Mr. Fielding. This witness deposed to having seen the mob bear Todmerden Hall, and subsequently when they were leaving that place. He saw Lord looking on, and he and Lord went away together. Joseph Barker, servant to Mr. Fielden, , provedthat rross ley had asked him if Lord was present at the cache of the riot, and that he said he was very serrylehaganything to do with it—he did it because others did ; he had sworn to him (Lord,) but he was not sere he was there ; perhaps he might be mistaken. Mr. Sergeant ITC RE replied.—He opened his address by alluding to the observations made by the tories relative to the new poan , linr. He confessed that he had made asser tions respecting Mr. Fielden, which he had failed to prove. Ile chartaerised the allusions of Mr. Dundas respecting the tories as irregular. I4is LORDSHIP said the learned attorney-general had him self been guilty of an irregularity in introducing the name of Mr. Fielden at all, but the counsel on the other side had been guilty of a much greater one, in introducing anything whatever about party politics. Mr. DUNDAS said he felt compelled to do so, in conse quence of the attorney-general having distinctly stated that Lord had been promoted in the service of Mr. Fielden, an insinuation that was materially affected by the fact which he had stated in his address. Ills LORDSHIP said the proceeding was nevettlitiest ex ceedingly irregular. Mr. DuNDAS.—Your lordship says lam 'irregular. Your lordship will please to remember that I nra counsel for the prisoner, and that the learned Attorney-general is counsel for the government. Baron PARKR.•=It is always the case, that one irregularity begets another of greater magnitude. The counsel on one side are irteetlar, and those on the other take care to repay the irregularity with interest. We ought not to have any aliesieft whatever 'to party politics. Such influences are not proper in a court of justice ; they are not usual, and, I trust, never will be. The learned SERGEANT then proceeded with his reply. The JUDGE charged the jury at great length. He said with respect of the policy or impolicy of the law they had nothing to do. Every man that did not like the law might, in this free country, express his disapprobation of it in a proper place, they had the privilege of petitioning parliament against it, but so long as it was the ease, all men, as good subjects, were bound to obey it ; the jury, whatever their opinion might be, were bound to inquire whether the law had been obeyed ; and it was his (the learned Judge's) busi ness, if it were proved that the law had not been obeyed, to apportion the punishment.. _ _ The jury retired at four o'clock. They returned at half past six, and 'delivered in a verdict of acquitted as regarded Lord. Turner they pronounced Guilty, but recommended him to mercy, they being of opinion that he had been insti gated by others. Tire learned JUDGE ordered that Lord should he dis charged, Turner is to receive sentence this moesdtsg. SENTENCE OF MARY ANN RV X'S Mary Ann Ryan was placed at the bä 1.. His LORDSHIP, addressing the prisoner, said the jury had found her guilty of having administered poistn with intent to murder Mrs. Power. He had ordered judgment of death to be recorded against her. Theitrry had recommended her to mercy, on account of her youth. Though, through the mercy of God, there had been no loss of life, yet that did not lesson her guilt ; and he had had great hesitation in yielding to the recommendation of the jury, and in bringing himself to the conclusion that her life should be spared. His Lordship, after commencing with much feeling and force on the magni tude of the crime, and on the degree of malignity that, notwithstanding her youth, the prisoner had evinced, inti mated to her that she would be transported for life, and that she would be placed amongst the worst class of criminals, and where she would be for the remainder of her existence, not merely in a state of slavery, but in a state of perpetual confinement, in one of the worst abodes of wretchedness and misery. SENTENCE OF NATHAN motn. Nathan Booth having been placed at the bar, his LORD SITIP proceeded to pass sentence upon him for having fired two loaded pistols at Timothy Parkinson. The learned baron said, the offence of which the prisoner had been convicted was, in the altered state of the law, no longer capital. The jury had found a very proper verdict. After he (the prisoner) had had the advantage of a most eloquent defence from the learned. Counsel (Mr. Murphy*) . who took charge of his ease, a number of witnesses had been called to testify to his ehb.- Meter. He was sorry to have to remark on this part of the evidence, that it had been of a nature that he feared was too frequently brought forward in voarts of justice. He was sorry to find from the inquiries that he had made, that the evidence as to the character and disposition of the prisoner was not exactly true. He was satisfied that the prisoner was a man of violent passions', especially when he was under the influence of intoxicating drink. He (the prisoner) had fired a second pistol Prisoner.—Will you allow me to state how it was that I fired the second pistol, my lord ? His LORDSHIP said it was now too late. He (the prisoner) hail fired the second pistol, after he had fired the first, hav ing, from the state of nervous excitement in which he was, missed his aim. He (the learned judge) had considered, and maturely considered, the case. He should not have done right if he had not, and he thought it was his duty to pass as severe a sentence as possible. His lordship passed sentence of transportation for life, intimating that he should give di rections that the prisoner be placed amongst that class of felons where he would be least severely treated. * His lordship has twice In the course of the present assizes complimented Mr. Murphy on his eloquent pleading. NISI PRIUS COURT.—FRIDAY. Baron ALDERSON took his seat on the bench at nine o'clock. DOE V. 13ARLOW. Mr. WIGHTMAN applied for the setting aside of the non suit in this case, on the ground that the action was only de layed by the plaintiff because part of the lands in question had been given up, and a peaceable yielding of the rest was expected. Mr. WARREN opposed the application. Five assizes had gone by, and the presumption was that there was no case at all. The action was for the recovery of lands held by the trus tees of a school. The court refused the application. TAYLOR AND ANOTHER V. LODGE.—MARINE INSURANCE. Mr. CROMPTON opened the pleadings. This was an action on a policy of insurance. The plea was that £l5O, paid into court, was sufficient to cover the damage. Mr. CRESSWELL appeared for the plaintiff. The vessel was called the Exchange, and in 1832 she sailed from Liver pool for New York, thence to proceed to Charleston; and re turn to Liverpool. The policy opened upon the voyage was for £l,OOO, and the estimated value of the ship was £1,500 : and the loss was stated to be by the perils of the sea. The defendants after a long lapse of time, had admitted that they ought to pay £l5O in respect of the £l,OOO which they had insured, and had paid it into court ; and the question now re solved itself into this, whether that sum was sufficient. The payment of this sum negatived many pleas of defence, often set up in such cases as the present. The learned counsel then proceeded to describe the sailing of the vessel from this port, and when she was obliged by stress of weather to put into Plymouth, where she underwent repair under the superin tendence of the surveyor of the insurance company. After that, she had again very bad weather, and, after imminent danger of going to the bottom with all her crew, she was, by great efforts, put into Machias Bay, near Boston, with her sails almost all blown out of her boltropes, and damaged in her hull. It becomes then then the duty of the master to do what his owner would have done under like circumstances, ' and he accordingly made a protest, founded on a survey, which the learned counsel read. The protest set forth the injury sustained by the vessel, which was made by these ship masters; another protest was also put i n an d rea d i n w hi c h two othr shipwrights, in addition to the preceding three, stated their belief that the' vessel could not be repaired under a cost of 5,000 dollars ; that there was no convenience in Machias Bay for the repair of so large a vessel ; that she was not worth repairing, and they recommended that she should be told in lots or parcels. The captain accordingly ordered her to be sold. But it happened the owner of the vessel, a Mr. Huntington, was in the neighbourhood, and finding that the captain claimed the proceeds, he out-bid every one else for the purpose of preventing the money falling into his hands. His bidding raised the amount of the sale by 1,000 dollars. Mr. Huntingdon claimed that the vessel was a total wreck, with benefit to the underwriters of salvage from the wreck. This is an undisputed principle of law, that when a vessel is so damaged that no prudent person would repair her, she is a total loss, and the whole of that falls on the underwriter, to the extent of his assurance ; but that if she is not a total loss, she is to he repaired at his cost, and one third of the cost repairs allowed for the difference between new and old material, so had this vessel been re paired at 5,000 dollars, one-third of it would have been thrown on the owner. It therefore became the interest of the underwriter to insist on the vessel being sent to sea and repaired, as he thus got rid of one-third of the expense ; and if ever after she is ricketty and unsafe, let those who have to sail in her afterwards look to that—his interest ,was not the less to set off with only two-thirds of the loss. The owners made their claim, the underwriters disputed it, and negocia tion ensued. The underwriters, it seems, thought the case suspicious, because Mr. Huntington had been the bidder for the vessel himself. But to that he (Mr. C.) was fully pre pared with a sufficient answer. Mr. Huntington said, in a. letter to them in 1834, that if they thought he had bought it too cheap, they might have it again at the price he gave for it, or he would sell it over again for their be ne fit ; th a t he had. found that the captain had notified to the auctioneer that payment must be made to him alone, and, knowing the cha racter of the man, this was the only way to preserve the pro perty. Accordingly, Mr. Huntington offered either to repair the vessel at the ,cost, or to sell it for their benefit. Mr. Huntington in the lapse of time found no disposition to ac cede to his just claims, and after waiting until the six years were nearly expired, he was at length compelled to bring this action. There was now put in, on the part of the plaintiffs, a vo luminous mass of evidence, consisting of answers to about forty interrogations, and about as many cross interrogations; taken under a commission at Machias Bay. Mr. James Ashton of this town, ship-builder, and Mr. W. , • • • . , • . - G 6111 4 .118 paitner, 'were called 'to pro ve 'the 'prObabie coat 'of repait4g the vessel, Which'they estimated at £llOO. Wionfikkrureplied for tliedefendantln Plaintiff ap peared before them in'this‘caSe'6ll6iiik fora total loss. The courts' originally held 'that totalloss could only be claimed for, when•the Vessel. was actually lost and destroyed. Since then, the 'definition h a d b een en l arge d, an d a constructive tothi'less Was held to be equivalent to an actual total loss f t or* purposes of insurance. That is, that though the Vessel continues to exist as a ship, if she be in sus b .state that her owner, in the exercise of his best distretion, would not 044 her worth repairing, there sits*. be construed to be jiti dettial loss. But as that was tonAruction which. *as. eilienittY liable to abu se , it i s t i lins gintrded-,.H,thal lletdire tVe insured party can etaita tonstructiVely teltal 144§, he must glye no tice to the insurer 'of his intenthin WandOnlthe vessel, and leave it to their . disereflini eittiO . to repair tier, 'Or to acquieSce in her bein g feoivka total 'loss. , of abandonment hsd^rje6l given, 'therefore he 'Mr. Wlglitin.ae.), contended that 'his learned .friekid no - kroWri'd a action. The learned Coun s el •e4eil'ailtitillir lAithorities bearing out his views, and their pitieeede , d to analyse the evidence — the - Written evidenee 'fro% America. Mr. Wightman con cluded by'renaindint the jury of the necessity of protectino• underwriters WS well as other men, an d that their interests' ought to be entitled to consideration. They were a body par ticularly liable to be imposed on by accounts which they had no means of checking, and here they were called on to answer a statement made wholly by parties residing abroad. and Wri confirmed by one of the crew of the vessel alleged tolie totally lost. The first witness called bY Mt. Widn'i'vf.h* Vi as I:llXert Mackay, who stated that he had been a . tniveydr of since 1828. Before that he .was a masterYfigl4. fle went to Krim% in r 832. The Dcehlinie Ift there. He saw and examined her. flad 'seen the first survey now handed to him. From Vs knowledge of the vessel, he was of opinion' hat the 1% ., u fit to have been repaired. He had been At kit did not know the cost of repairs there. He iota heard that they were much the same as here. He could trace nothing in the the survey to show that the ship had settled. The cargo might have settled. There was nothing that he could see to show that the vessel required complete new coppering. Looking at that survey, he was Sf opinion that it would have taken, to repair the whete Of the damage therein, the sum of £304. Cross -examined.—He was the reritai'snirveyottothevom.- pany. If the damage described in the survey had been 'Mt-S -tained by a ship she have been very much strained.' If a vessel had ken strained, with a Coal cargo in her, 'he dig not think that it would have been 'Safe 'to.** tid 'her to t'e'a again without a thorough "exaniinitiOn'nfler bettom. If he had heard that a'ship had beett sir attained, and sent to sea again 'witbotrt that exaMination, and was lost on her passage, he could not - htrOe rerdrted her as a sea-worthyvessel. Mr. `titi:ssAVlti.a. took the witness through the greater part of the items in the survey, and, obtained from him his opinion as to the amount which would be required to repair the da mage described in the survey. The witness's estimate, thus aken, amounted to £591. Re-examined.—The vessel. if she had beerr in the state de scribed in that survey, could not have made a voyage from Port Machias to Boston. If she had been repaired to the extent he had stated (304), she would then have been sea - - worthy. A vessel might be strained in one Orb, so as to render it necessary to strip the whole of het ;kottOin-, Mr. Bailey, formerly a ship carpenter, 'and *h hill had much experience, had seen the two stub As ,Ont in. In his opinion a vessel that had sustain eel the injuries therein de scribed was worthy of repair. He had Made an'estimate of the expense of repair, a,cording to the LiverpoOl oc Londiin prices, and it wonld have aniounted to £3OQ, Or' .£320. As to the rapper, there might be injury.:ontlie larboard bow and in the upper works, without Tendering it necessary to strip the whale bottom. He - considered the estimate of Mr. Ash ton too high. Mr.`Cit - esSw i iri replied, contending that the notice of abandonment referred to by his learned friend (Mr. Wight man) teas hot necessary in the circumstances. If the damage sustained were such as to render the loss equivalent to a wreck, that was a total loss, and needed no abandonme n t t o make it one. The simple rule which the law laid down as the criterion whether a total loss had been sustained or not ) was, that were the damage sustained was so great that a prudent man, uninsured, would not go to the expense of It pairs, then that its nature was equivalent to a total loss of the ship. Now the vessel had been pnrehasvil by a gentleman (Mr. Worcester) and he, instead of repairing her, broke her up, although he could have nOthing to induce him to do so but a conviction of his own interest. The witness Mackay', when driven into a corner, arid exarnined on the survey item by item, admitted that a sum of £591 would Would tfe re quested to repair her, and he had only alloWed £too for cop pering, when another witness proved that £4OO must be allowed, £lOO would therefore have to be added to £591, together with the Value of the sails, deck, &c., and then the two calculations would be found as nearly as possible the same. The learned JUDGE summed up, laying down the law of the the case as it had been do ne by Mr. swell. He then went briefly over the evidence. If Mr. Huntington', Imme diately after purchasing the vessel, had put her in repair and sent her to sea, then he would have pronounced judgment against himself on the very +potted on which the jury would have to form their opinion. That, however, had not been done. After having remained about six months at Port Machios, she *as slightly repaired, sent to Boston, and there sold by ipunlic auction to Mr. John Worcester, for the sum of 33 1 25 dollars. That person made no attempt whatever to repair her, and, although known asa particularly skilful man, he sustained a loss of 300 dollars by breaking her up. It was therefore for the jury to decide whether the vessel was really in such a state as that a wholly uninsured individual would have deemed it an act of prudence to have repaired the vessel. His lordship then pointed out the difference be tween the estimates of the two parties, and said that the one party had not seen the vessel, and were determined to see no injury that was not put down. The truth sometimes lay be- tweenthe extremes. The questio n th a t th e j ury wou ld h ave to decide was, whether the loss was a total loss or not If they decided that it was, then they would find for the plain tiffs—damages, £406 Os. 3d. But if they decided that it was an average loss, they were to award the sum which, in their judgment, would have been sufficient to put the vessel in a proper state of repair, -allowing one-third, new for old. If they thought that that sum exceeded £l5O (the amount paid into court by the defendant) they would specify was the excess was; and if they were of opinion that the £l5O would cove: The loss, then they would find for the defendant. The jury immediately returned a verdict for the plaintiffs— damages, £406 Os. 3d. PALMER AND WIFE V. ROBINSON AND ANOTHER (ExEcuTous.) This was an action brought by Mr. Paltrier and his wife Eliza Palmer, to recover from the, e xecu to rs ofJohu Morston, father to Mrs. Palmer, the sum of .El5O. Mr. Cresswell land Mr. Crampton,were for the plaintiffs, and Mr 4. Alexanderand Mr. Watson for the defendants. Mr, envssvti ir, stated the case. The plaintiff, Mr. Palmer, reattitd Miss Eliza Marston, a daughter of John Marston, an&, together with another of the children, was entitled to a certain sum under the will of Francis Marston,. their grand father. Mr. John Marston, at the time of his father's death, owed to the estate of his father the sum of .£4OO, for which an action was brought against him by his sister Mrs. Bed , dowes, the executrix under the will o f F ranc i s Marston. An arrangement was made,. by which Mrs. Beddowes, Eliza Marston, and her brother, Francis Marston, agreed to allow the first and last-mentioned £12,5, and the second £l5O to be deducted out of the legacies to which they were entitled un der the will, for the payment of the debt due by Mr. John Marston. The payment was voluntary on the part of all but Eliza Marston, and a note of hand was given for repayment. Mr. John Marston afterwards came into possession of some property, and died leaving £3OOO for certain purposes, subject to the payment of his debts, among which that now claimed by the plaintiff was not mentioned. During his lifetime his children had not pressed for payment ; but they called on the executors to pay it. The plea of the defendants was, first, that the debt was ne ver due, and, secondly, that it could not be claimed, as it had been owing for more than six years. He (Mr. Cregswell) should prove, however, that the debt had been paid for Mr. John Marston, as mentioned, and he should bring an acknow ledgment of the debt within the last six years, which would take it out of the statute of limitations. Mr. Francis Marston stated that he lived at Ascot, and proved the facts of the case as stated. Mrs. Beddowes also was examined. Both admitted that the payment was volun tary on their parts, and the latter said that she never expected to be repaid, but that she thought it likely that her brother would have repaid his own children. Mr. ALEXANDER rose to reply, when a conversation took place between his Lordship and the counsel on both sides, as to whether the debt, if due, was barred by the statute of limitations. The point was ultimately reserved for the judges. Mr. ALEXANDER, after deploring, as had been done by Mr. Cresswell, the bringing of the action into a court of law, addressed -the jury on the matter of facts, contending that the arrangement by which Mr. John Marston's debt was paid had been a voluntary and final one on the part of the daugh ter, as well as the son and sister, whose object must have been to prevent a long litigation, and the bringing of a dis pute between two members of a highly respectable, though reduced family, before the public. The Learned JUDGE summed up, and the jury returned a verdict for the defendants. The Court rose at half-past five. CROWN COURT.—SATURDAY. Upon George Turner being found guilty of having aided in the riots at Todmorden, on the 21st June last, being brought up to receive sentence, ' Mr. DUNDAS, on behalf of the prisoner, named an arrest of judgment. He had not been able to find the case to which he had alluded, but he would refer his Lordship to the title of the indictment as contained in the 4th Hawkin's book, 2d cap. 25, sec. 12.—" But there is a precedent in Saunders's reports of a caption setting forth that the indict ment was taken by twelve men, and yet no exception appears to have been taken on this account. Also many indictments taken in inferior courts have been quashed for want of the words "prOborum et legatium kominurn" in the caption ; but this exception the court above afterwards over-ruled, as is more fully shewn in the 16th section of this chapter. Also many indictments have been quashed for want of the words " jurat et orerat" in the caption, and also for want of the words " adtunct et ibidem" before the words " jurat et l overat," and also for want of the words " ad inquirandum pro ditto domino rege et pro corporecomitatis." And then the ques tion was, whether the caption would cure the indictment. In the second volume of Hale, 164 and 5, it was stated, " The caption of the indictment is no part of the indictment itself, but it is the style or preamble, or return, that is made from an inferior court to a superior, from whence a " certio rari" issues to remove ; or when the whole record is made up in form ; for whereas the record of the indictment, as it stands upon the file in court, wherein it is taken, is thus : " Juratores pro domino rege sapei sacramentum suum prte sentant ;" when this comes to be removed upon a " certio rari " it is more full and explicit, namely, in this form." And then the form of the caption is given below. In the same book also it is stated, it seems requisite also to add the clause," " oneroti et jurati ad inquirendum pro domino rege et pro corpore comitatis predicti." Many instances had occurred In which the caption had been amended, but there bad never been an instance known in which an indict- i ment had been amended. If the objection were to go for nothing, it would be sufficient to say, " A. B. is charged with so and so," and th6n it would be replied, that the irregula rity was cured by the caption. The learned gentleman con tended, that the loose way of drawing up indictments would lead to much inconvenience if not checked. Mr. WIGHTMAN, on the other side, contended, that the jurors of our lady, the Queen, were " the jurors f or our lady, the Queen,' the words being sufficiently co-extensive. The learned gentleman quoted from Chitty, on crime, Ist vol. 327. After a long argument on this point, his LORDSHIP said he should not suspend judgment. He then proceeded to pass the sentence of the court ; and in doing so, said, the prisoner had been convicted of taking part in a riot of a very aggra vated nature. It appeared that there was a determination on the part of a great number of individuals to oppose, by every possible means, the introduction of the new poor-law into the Todmorden union: The orders of the poor-law commis sioners ought to have been obeyed by every good subject ; and it could not be permitted that any person or number of persons should endeavour to set aside their orders either by fraud or by force. The jury had been pleased to recommend him (the prisoner) to mercy, on the ground that he was an agent in this transaction, and had been set on by others. It would be hard in him (the judge) to make any remarks on any individual who was not then before the court, but he must say, that he agreed in the opinion expressed by the jury. If persons were so situated that they were beyond the reach • of the court, they must be taught that they cannot procure agents who will escape without punishment. Be (the learned judge) would not punish the prisoner in the same degree as he would have done if he had been one of the real leaders in the riot. The sentence of the court was, that for this offence he would be imprisoned, and kept to hard labour, in the castle of Lancaster, for nine calendar months. His lordship then proceeded to try Nisi Prins causes-. The first cause taken was that of GREGORY V. GREEN AND iv This was an action for the,:eorery.,9T he 'valUe 9f some goods bought by the ,two defci/dantS ,upon a joint contract. Since the ,purchase, the defendant Woodhead had become itts9lvtint, and 'die oth'er defendant sought now to show that lie 10 of ‘PiirclaSed the .goods. The jury, however; .re '&ilied a verdict for the plaintiff to the :full amount-0.949yd. , ANDED.SQN AND ANOTHLDV. • :%lArktf,-04) Wightman *Red f6:r the, plain tiffs, and *eggs ) 1,11,0401 ayld 81/?ktscizi thE'llefendants. „Mr, . Cor.tiv•c , tiSrietved. e.ase. This was an action, 9koElit lry Ore who are merchants at Buenos Ayres, the defendants, Messrs. Chapman and Willis, who were shipowners at Liverpool, owning the ship Kingston, which left Buenos Ayres in the l'nonth of April last, in which the plaintiffs shippte, t quantity of tallow, hides, grease. Akins, and bones, and the action was brought for the revery of the value of 27 casks of grease, which the ddenittgii hittler took to carry to Liverpool ) and tto latitalJe ihidsteliv ei in good condition, the datTett!O ;fhb .4ea Whitie.:eiedpted. The declaration ) 4gettitig forth the aboye undertaking on the i aftot part of tilt Isi'efferidkiit, 4100d-:that the. detendants.did not I teke 'Pieper and that in . conseiyue,uee nozl i ect,of the I defendants, s in stowing; and fvot.the da4,cis sea, the oA:Nie K e..dam44o,.. The•defendai4!plearded, first, that there ,was ,nn such i;Yednis'et ar.'d secondly, that there had not been oh their part. WIGHTMAN: in stating the case to the .jurj, said that this was an action to recover the e.T.Zlliii of damage done to 27 casks of greake,_whith had been shipped on board the ship Kingston, at Buenos Ayres, and consigned to Messrs. Mot ray Ahcl Syme, of Liverpool. • The Kingston sailed from BuenoS Ayres in the month of April, last yeat, with s rat'i'o consisting of bones, tallow', hides ) dry and Wet, grease, etc., and arrived in Liverpool on the Ifltt Rile, hod,her 'cargo was discharged on the +.!th AinOngSt the ,eargo was 27 cask Ot grtale!, the Vi•`perty`of the defenda.nts, and the ques- Ml\ itto the jury 'w 'to inquire as, whether the defendant s were 'really, liable to . ;phy,., as the question of dairkage,(if ,a.Terdiet iveic to be !corned. for the plaintiff) would be -ettUkl. ishere. Th pititinOlie 'grease and ta/Io* iii Natd, one of the casks sllplied frcnn th li 6 eEt., and fell upon a cask of grya b ie,.„*hicl. was •Stairid in. The grease was in casks, and ivr,s ttoived iti the main hatch, in the third or fourth tier ' and the bones were stowed amongst the cas k s , th e ca l c i ne d hones being at.the top of all. - Before the vessel had been long on her vbyage it was found that the creation of heat wag 'very great, and it increased to such a degree that the forecastle (where the seamen generally slept) became unfit for their oc cupation, and they were forced to leave it. • When the vessel got into a cold latitude the heat was not so great, Upon the arrival of the vessel at her destination she wal visited l vy, a custom-house officer, when it was tonod that ab'64 24 ' ` tie casks had leaked, some of 'theta lAirm nea'rl'y teriky, '&'nd the remainder more ot less dbfrelent . . I<t Was bentiefided by the learned itelknsel that bOftes tiet beefi properly dried, and the p4rgo 'Coriehuelice of the sweating and titktfrig 'die liWit6. The flat of lading. wits l h r, awl It ; ayiPearect.tha:t ,there Vva~s en `exemption from liability from Making 'good loco tiy •. ' bhit Waiehan3", i6A he railway, but in P 37 wakchief .the Ktllgston ' on her voyage from Bilenos ',Nvteeg, ittaq the mode in which the vessel was la ger'', hetl after the vessel had proceeded on her voyage, tne bones, which had been stowed in a wet state, began to sweat, and the casks were " chocked, with bones instead of quoins : The heat was most intolerable. William Fenton, a tide waiter, ;iaied, that he examined the cargo of the Kingston. Other witnesses were called to prove that the leakage and damage must have taken place from improper stowage:, Mod that the casks in which the grease was ?tared-, were Otitable for the purpose for which they' had been . Mr. Duivnas addressed the ..-y for. he ' efendants, and commenced bymtating that whatever Might e the 'result of the easey it wdott Maim no difference in the respect al* friend shils thleithitient by his Clients, towards MeSnrs;. Murrayn and tyrne, and then he pr ' Oceeded to Contend tha t t the caripS had 'been properly stowed, and that thetaSkS In which the grease deposited, were 'totally ntfit for the pirpose. The. learned gtefttleinakt theii called several witnesses,. who stftedin eVidrence) that the stowage had been properly stowed, via that 4 . - he'eaSks used on the,occasion were totally unfit for the 'purpose ; that they had not been properly coopered, and that there was no extraordinary degree_of heat occasioned by the fermentation of the bones. The jury found for the plaintiff £l2, being the vabie of the cask of grease which had been destroyed Mit i.ficon a gene ral question, a verdict for the defendaAt. NISI PART COURT.—SAT-unnay Before MI-. Baron ALDERSON. WATSON AND OTHERS V. MORT. This was a special jury case, which was tried in the course of the last assizes. The action was brought by the plaintiffs, Messrs. Watson and Co., engine-manufacturers, at St. Helens, to recover from the defendants, Messrs. Mort and Co., proprietors of the St. Helens Pottery Works and of the Herculaneum Pottery, the sum of £575 8s 11d., the value of goods delivered and work done. There was no dispute as to the accounts; but the defendants pleaded, that they were not liable, in consequence of the negligence and unskilfulness with which the work had been done. Mr. Alexander and Mr. Wightman were for the plaintiffs, and Mr. Cresswell; Mr. Crompton, and Mr. Henderson for the defendants. Mr. ALEXANDER stated the ease. The plaintiffs *ere Messrs. Leigh Watson and Co:, engine mannfacturers. at St. Helens, and the defendants were the Orepfieters of the Li verpool Heecninnetitti Pottery.. In the year 1836 the defend ants, being Aboht to establish a pottery a t St. H e l ens , ap plied to, the plaintins, who had frequently bee n em pl o y e d by in the, about the purchase of an engine. The plaintiffs several years previous, had made an engine, nominally of six-horse power, but capable of working to the extent of eight-horse power, for Mr. Orrell's colliery, and on the termination of Mr. Orrell's works the plaintiffs, who were in the habit of purchasing, as well as building, engines, repurchased that engine from Mr. Orrell for £175, of course, for the piirpose of sale. When the defendants applied to them, that engine was mentioned, and the defendants went Over to the colliery, examined it, and ultimately purchased it for the sum of £220. The plaintiffs were also employed to construct the mill for grinding flints, which was to be worked by the engine in question. The principle, however, with the knowledge of the plaintiffs and their agent, was something altered from that in general use, the mill being so constructed, that the " run ners" (or large stones which crush the flints) were dragged over the flints, intead of being, as by the common method, propelled or driven forward by the arms of the mill. After the engine and machinery had been erected the account of the plaintiffs was sent in as had been the in'aCtide ; at the end of the quarter. A part Of the account ; for other work done by the plaintiffs, was 0.4 bitt although several applications were made, at the end of subsequent quarters, for payment of the account for the engine and the flint mill, no answer was returned iMtil the 13th of March, 1837, when Mr. Mort wrote an answer to the following effect :—" It is evident that .the engine put up by you cannot perform the work which you engaged it should do when we purchased her, and we there fore, require, that you will do what y ou engaged. Our loss, from your delay, is very considerable, which we beg you will take notice of." In reply to this the plaintiffs stated, that they had never made any engagement that the engine should do any particular quantity of work : that they had sold it to the defendants as it. stood : that it was to be paid for at the time of setting up, and they, therefore, requested that pay ment might be made. This, however, had been refused up to the present time, the defendants contending, that the en gine had been purchased and the mill constructed on a war ranty, that the whole should be capable of performing the necessary work, which, they alleged, it was not capable of doing, and that, therefore, they were not liable ; and the plaintiffs contending, that no such warranty had been given, but that, the engine had been purchased out and out by the defendants, removed by them, and ought, therefore, to he paid for. The first witness called was John Cunliffe, the overlooker of Messrs. Bromilaw's colliery. He was formerly in Mr. Orrell's colliery, where the engine in question was used. It was employed to take up baskets of coal, and would work up . to the extent of ten horse power. It was purchased by Mr. Watson, one of the plaintiffs, in the summer of 1836, from Mr. Orrell. One of the defendants, Mr. Simpson, with ano th er ' person came over to Orrell's coliery, in July or Augu s t, 1836, to look at the engine, and they asked him (witness) what its power was. He told them that it was a high-pressure engine of six horse power, and would work up to ten horse power. He also told them, that it was not to be sold, as it had been previously purchased by Mr. Watson for £l7O. The engine was worth £2OO for winding coal. He would have given that sum for it himself. Cross-examined.—lt had been in use for seven or eight years. It was his opinion, that the engine had been worked up to seven horse power. He had never noticed the weight on the valve for a regularity. John Deacon, book-keeper to the plaintiffs, stated, that the plaintiffs had been for some time employed by thedefend ants, whose practice it was to send in quarterly accounts. The qurterly accounts were then put in. The first, dated September, 1836, mentioned an " eight horse engine, as per agreement, £220 ; fly wheel, £14." This item continued to be mentioned down to the period previously stated. It had been part of the plaintiff's business to buy engines, and sell them again at a profit. James Dixon, book-keeper to the plaintiffs, proved the cor rectness of the invoice handed to him, containing an account of the work done for the defendant. He knew of applica tions having been made to the defendant. There was great difficulty in obtaining money, but some was obtained on account. Re-examined.—The last payment was on the 25th August. Peter Arrive had been plaintiff's draughtsman for several ' years. He received instructions to draw the plan of the ma chinery for the. St. Helens Pottery, first from Mr. Dalglish one of the plaintiffs, and then from them, through Emery, their agent. He began the plan in the month of September, and completed it in the month of - December. The machinery was made to suit the first -size of the flint-pans furnished by Emery. It could have been made to suit,the pans of any size. The machinery was, in all respects, properly made. On one occasion, when the whole of the plan was in procedure, he had had some conversation with Emery, who stated, that the weight of the stone to be employed in the pounding of the flints would be 20 cwt., -at which he was much surprised. He was then ignorant of the capabilities of the engine. Joseph Webster, now in the employ of the Dublin and Kingstown Railway Company, as an engineer, was formerly in the employ of the plaintiffs. He was at the defendant's when the engine started : it started very well. Emery was present, and acknowledged that she did start very well. The first trial took place without the attendant machinery, merely to try the engine. In about three months afterwards, when the machinery was completed and attached, she was started again.. Emery then said he had no doubt the engine would do the work required, provided she had a larger boiler, or another in addition to the one-then in use. There were, at that trial, four stones in the one pan : altogether, the stones would have weighed two tons.- Emery told witness, that they had bought the engine for an eight horse power engine. In his opinion, it would have required an engine of sixteen or eighteen horse power to do the work proposed by the defend ants. The pressure at which the engine was worked was 221bs. to the square inch. The engine would then be work ing at an eight horse power. Emery and Wareham came together to my employers, and were shown a larger fly-wheel, which Emery said would do better than the old one. Cross-examined.—The engine went very slowly at first, but when the steam was got up, it went very well. He could not tell how many revolutions a minute were made. The engine, however, would not keep " agate ;" and witness pro posed that the pressure should be increased. That was done ; and, the steam blowing off, Emery became alarmed, saying, " You are going to blow her up." They found the engine would not do the work required. Re-examined.—The weight employed was 281bs. The steam blew off when they were waiting for it to get up, previous to starting the engine. That alarmed Emery. The engine was a very good one when at the colliery. The reason it would not work was, because it was overpowered. George Charters, who was formerly in the employ of the' plaintiffs, was at the pottery during the erection of the ma chinery. The pans were made by the defendants. The en gine worked extremely well previously to its being attached to the machinery. William Dean, an iron -founder, at Bolton, was acquainted with the manufacture and construction of steam-engines. An engine, employed at a colliery, would generally have a smaller fly-wheel than one for the work at the pottery. Mr. Mansfield, an earthenware manufacturer, carried on the same business, with the same description of machinery, as the defendants. He himself used an eight-horse condensing engine. At the Herculaneum Pottery they used one of thirty, horse power. The model of the pan "produced was one of average roughness at the bottom. 'With his engine, he gene rally commenced with a " runner" of iiiii.rivt.), and worked with that for eighteen 1;140; afOpiihidb the !`, runners': were increase:... it iths,A.Progeas which required some care. An engine',..4d ..partibularly a small one, of eight-horse power, - Could easily be scotched. 'When the pan was smooth, he had increased the runners ,in his,two,pans to eighteen cwt. each, but tlalitwas the greatest', extent to which he could go. To begin - with a rough pavement at the bottom ot,the pan, and put in weights to the extent which had; beets riam4l„(iia the -case of-the defemlants;)7Wptild 7 atop ;tirt 6,riginei ~ .I.t wasitri poSsible4that; it eoniktVbrlt. .He had `see d ; ii the pans of the defendant*, thl.6e- hones, one about fifteen cwt., the two others of about twelve cwt. each. He did not thik that his engine, though a good one, would have moved the largest of the three stones. 1 Cross-examiner's—The engine of the defendants was not working when he saw in the pans the three stones mentim)ed. To break the flint s , a certain speed was required: In an eight feet six inch pan, !sixteen relthitibtit a Minute Shdtild 146 Made. Heniy 1101t.hatt he aiti tht e\:iitiiikti as the oteetnitig wit neg. Ih RS 14Pillidd; it Witt 100 ebri;ect:. . Thbilaits Bell; VM.illWright arid.iFon-fousid'ef; and Maker of engineh,,at ti,xerpool; had seen the engine at Mr.. Mansfield's. It is •a ten-horse power condensing engine, ••41e!liad Made experiments .!on that; enginc , With , :different Weights.: With 37ewt: 3qrs:: .111).„ on - ,,a..aMptir ba ,, infieet ; tin; engine was stopped; ; ,• With ,V ci;,''.:. the would work, but not at the pro per speed. She would make sixteen revolutions per-minute, with twenty-five cwt: in the two pans. There was•no defect in the engine. - She was absolutely overpowered with 37cwt. .3qrs. 4lbs. - . Crass-examined.—He went to make the eltßiblefits with a view to!give evidenoe in Ike peetent OSP: Re-eztatnined.—Alt highlireSsilit pitgiiie, w i th an tieton ' hieh cylinder ( the sjie of the •tlefentiants% and t*efitHiVe 114 S: presSute, wditid iii 4,.0.0,1 t- ,, ,„litirk,finier `ongine. It wen/111A ati! ekCealent engine if it resisted a.pressure•of forty fik''e lb - S: 4 Underthe.pi&umstances which had been described by One df the 'preceding witnesses; the preSsiire must.have been fiarty-five lbs. within a fraction on the engine of the de fendants. •- : ; ,'' - ! '.••, i . ':' • i i - '1; , , ~,.. % Mr. GRESSWIELL,- f9rk t i he ;tlefengants,;,Alien frOVeo. t h e gro!myls.o . rr , Nylkich his erieefS thought it right to resist the demand "trade on them. He trusted that he should be able to shONV; that they were justified in so doing, 'inasmuch as the plaintiffs, who had been employed as careful and skilful en gineers, had shown themselves•not to be such. The demand which was. made on the defendants arose out of a transaction whereby they became possessed of a steam-engine, and of certain machinery to be worked by it. The plaintiffs sold the engine to turn the machinery, and erected the machinery to be turned by it ; and although the engine might have been good for other pttrposes, and the machinery also I)lig s lit have been good, if it bad to have been, ?*kei - I.,hy.'.7..safticient moving power , vet s it theto vsSnibition I,lt of no *o . , then the Whele-yeb ri`e`,;*' - .4,Wkii-tblegi,..titte4Y.:Vainelriss to the par ti4.br ,Whi - ,ra it *4 dOpe,and the plaintiffs could not reclaim by.l.of. , 'such, as he' shonld.Prove by evidende, was the fact; • and the, law of the'ease,was, thatif a custemeoventtO a. pro fesied engineer for the purpOse. of ;haying certain! work. done, that engineer, was bo,und Oa Sytpply,-.llilt.qs welLts labbur ; and even tho Ugh Ile,rOight 'rteeiveAgtait! instrifedelis. frbm his . ! employer, he ty.as,bpnild i'f" he rd'and nun going to erect some thing that Wottrali'dt answer the intended purpose, to tell him %b, ueeause he, as a skilful engineer, ought to know what was right and what was wrong in the circumstances. If, after that, the customer chose to proceed in his own way, he did so at his own responsibility. Evidence was then called. David Ashcroft is in the service of Messrs. Mort and Co., at the Herculaneum Pottery. His duty was to grind. flints. In 1836, during the summer, MrcLeigh Watson eame In the pottery to . examine the machinery, Whitt griti&i.the flints. Mr. Sim son g brie ef tile . 4tieYieiAta , :c‘tas With him: They examine th*' Whi`ntisr. ThelaWthe 'flint pans; The ran i 'lei:SW& ' rite zi bef,6& tif the•hr, - and riot dragged behind. The dihiriefer O'fthe,'Pa'ris is /2 feet ti inches'. , The engine is thirty linrae-"ppwei'. . It. drives :66, flint pies, ef 12. feet t; inehes in widtb,; fiVt.' gliii,e;pans, ; 'six • colour, pans, sine;plastemiiill', A chty 'mill', oe„pav of.rolferS„ aildnikalili4/itike ft'. r . i. Laing the matertaT, Itals:!? WOles aantrrtp. • Fie has had much experi ence.ha a, 'liiit graider. He recollected, some months after the Petidd first mentioned, going over to St. Helen's to pave the pans there, which he did pave in the usual manner. He He saw the engine first tried. - .Joseph Webster, Richard Emery, John Roughsedge, and Matthew. Smith was - theres They set to work by, putting one stone,. of betwixt 7: and 8 cwt., into the pan. The e4aging,drove,that ; until the bottom came to a face. They then, put, i,n another abetit thi: Same weight ita the t ftrit:. , The' tones Were lint In so as to be drag ged., . Whisii.t/Ve Weetind iLoile was put in, the engine made, while the steam was well up, nine revolutions per minute : then it gradually went down to three, and then stopped. Not many minutes elapsed from the • starting till the stopping. They kept firing, and starting, and stopping, but could not get the engine to go for any length of time. The pressure was increased, but the engine would not work properly. He went away when the heavy weight was put on the safety valve, being afraid of being blown up. From his knowledge of flint pans and machinery, the apparatus would never work properly. The engine and marhinery was not fitted to grind flint. Crbss-examined,---If there Was another boiler, it woidd nit do then. The engine was not sufficiedtly powerful. If there was sufficient power in the engine to work the machinery it would not grind the flints: The Construction, iii hisopinfon, was faulty. Dragging would not dd. Richard Ethery had been accustomed do the. brieltWork for niaChidety; He recollected; in 1.837; Mr. Valglish and Mr. .. Simpson speaking about thi; ereetion of Seine maChinery, to drive whieh.they were to have an engine then standing at Mr. Orrel'b colliery. There was 'some 'conversation about flint panh. They were to have been twelve feet in diameter. There was also to have been two glaie-pans, and three colour-pans. He afterwards went ;to - Mr. Orrell's to look at-the engine, which he examined, and took. the dimensions of the brickwork. Wareham, the overseer, was with him . , and witness asked him the strength of the engine. He, Wareham, said it WAS ii six-horse power engine, and would work Alp to eight-hoise power. Witness told him he wit conscious, then; that it would not do to .grind flint: He then went back to St: Helens. Mr. Dalglish and Mr: SinipSon were there: Witness told the latter. the engine vienld never do: Simpson introduced the subject to Mr. Daiglish, Mentioning what witness had said, and added that he himself was of the same opinion, and that he thought some error in the calculations must have been made. Mr. Simpson, however; acknowledged, that he knew nothing about engines, and that he should submit his judg ment. to Mr. Dalglish. Mr. Dalglish replied that the engine would do, and that no miscalculations had been made; Mi.. Simpson then said,'`, very well; but ' , you ptit the engine op, and attach the machinery to it, an it willnot then do the (i f work, it will be of nib. Asc. to its, tilt „ therefore, we shall not pay you.'/ Mr: Dalglish replied, " certainly not." Mr. Simp son then &set-Vett; "that is what we wish to be understood in order that there may be no disputes hereafter." Mr. Dalglish came down again two or three days afterwards. Witness re peated his consciousness that the engine would never do the work it was intended for. Mx. Dalglish laughed, and said, " Well, Emery, I think you are right ; but if it will not drive twelve-feet pans, it will drive eight-feet pans." Witness ac knowledged that - that would make some difference, but still persisted that ft - would never answer. The engine was, ulti mately, fixed up ,under witness's directions, he receiving or ders from Mr. Dalglish. The machinery was altogether com pleted about the month. of March. The arms of the pans were made to drag the stones by Mr. Dalglish's desire. When the machinery was all completed,. they set it a-going. One stone was first , put in. He believed that that weighedseven and a half cwt. That was dragged easily enough, and was worked fiont ten to twelve hours. Another, weighing about ten cwt., was then . added. The engine wrought those well while the. steam could be kept up ;, but gradually the revolu tions became less, until the engine stopped. The weight then on the valve (which was the original one) was about ten lbs. After it had gone with two stones some time, a third was put in, and the pans were charged with flint. When the charge of flint *as put in,. it was first worked for three or. four hours with the two stones. About nine revolutions per minute were then obtained. When the third stone (about eight cwt.) was put in, they could get no more than four or five revolutions a minute, which was of no use. He then went to Webster, and. told him what had occurred. Webster came, and the engine was again tried, in his presence, with the twenty-seven cwt. of stones. Webster took away the weight ; of the safety-valve, saying that it was too small ; and, in.a day or two afterwards, he returned with one about three times as large. Witness said to him, " Why, you are going to blow her up." He said, " You know nothing about it." Witness went away, and did not know how far along the lever the weight was put. The lever is twenty. inches long, and the greatest space it was re moved, while witness remained, was two inches. ' Mr. Dal glish was present, and said, " Damn her, blow her up." Mr. Dalglish said, " a twelve-horse boiler ought to be put alp, the furnishing of which would rest upon the kind of bargain made between . Mr. Watson and Mr. Mort. . The engine was never got properly into work. Cross-examined.—He was told that, when the small weight was on, there was a pressure, according to mechanical calcu lations, of 401b5.. on the inch ; and, he should think, th ere must have been much more with the large one. _ James Bailey, a foreman at the pottery, at St.. Helens, saw Mr. Dalglish and Mr. Simpson there, m July, 1836. The machinery was set up. by Messrs. Watson, without any in terference on the part of witness. s employers. Experiments were made, from time to time, but without any successful result; The principle of the machinery was improper. In consequence of. the. want of an efficient engine, they were obliged . to send to Staffordshire for materials. _ _ John Murray, an engineer, residing in Liverpool, examined the engine.at the St. Helens' works, in .1837. The judgment which he formed at the time was, that.she was incapable of working the machinery attached.to her. On the 21st March he went, in company with two other engineers, and made a perfect examination of the machinery. The diameter of the pinion to the spur-wheel was as four to one. .Every.stroke of the piston gave.one . revolution of the pinion, and four revolutions of the pinion nea r ly one o f th e spur -wheel. They set the engine agoing, without anything in the pan, and got from 36.t0 40 strokes per minute. The length of the stroke is three feet. The rate of from 36 to 40 strokes per minute is the proper one. . They could have got more, but it would have been a waste of fuel to have done.so. They then put a runner of 71 cwt. in the pan, the face of which was well worn down. Nine revolutions per minute were obtained. It ran with that .an hour. A second runner, of 61 cwt., was then put in, and with a pressure of 361bs. on the square inch, they got eight revolutions. A third, weighing 10 cwt., was then put in,.and, with a pressure of 401b5., they got nearly seven revolutions. That rate, however, could. not be preserved for many minutes. It would not be safe to work the engine with a pressure of 401bs. regularly. The Mill machinery was strong, and any engineer might have immediately known, that the engine was not calculated to work it. Taking the engine; and machinery , together, they were worthless. It is much easier for an engine to draw than to drive the stones. Cross-examined.—The engine, has not power to work the two pans.. The machinery itself, without any charge of flints, required considerable power to work it. Thomas Turner, an, engineer and millwright, was in the habit of making engines and machinery for the grinding of flints. He had accompanied the preceding witness, and assisted in making the experiments spoken of by him, of which Mr. Murray had given a correct s t a t emen t, as we ll as witness himself could have done. In his opinion, the ma chinery was unfitted for grinding flint.. Cross-examined.--With an eight-foot pan, such as that in the mill at. St. Helens, from 16 to 18 revolutions, per minute, ought to be, obtained. George Kirk, a practical engineer, was acquainted with the construction of flint-pan machinery. The dragging principle was improper, becadse the runners were lifted from the flint. The mill-work. at St. .Helens was improper alto gether. The fly-wheel shaft was too light, and the spur wheel and pinion were strong enough for an englne of 20- horse power. The spur-wheel and pinion were not in proper proportion to each other. He had never known any mill work.construeted on the dragging principle. . Cross-examined.—The fly-wheel shaft was 41 inches in diameter. Thomas Findler, a glass-grinder, at Stanley Moss, had been in business many years. He has an engine of 20-horse power, which works three flint-pans, colour-pans, &c. The largest flint-pan is 16 feet diameter, and in, that he works in stones of five tons _weight. In the two smaller ones, stones of 35 cwt. were used. The, engine was capable of working the whole. .He had seen the machinery at St. Helens, and was of opinion, that the engine, was not calculated to work it. . . . . Mr. ALEXANDER replied, maintaining, that no agreement or warranty such as that contended for by the defendant's counsel had been entered into, and that in fact, his clients would have committed an act of the greatest folly to have given such a warranty. No evidence had been produced to show that the engine was not a good eight horsepower engine, for which it was sold, although sufficient had certainly been advanced to show, that it was not capable of doing what the defendants seemed to desire, namely, the work of a twenty horse engine. With respect to the Jilin, two complaints were made : first, that it was too strong for the engine ; and; secondly, that it wag constructed on a new and faulty princi ple., . The.first fault, if one it were, was owing to.the defend ants themselves, who had. Oven directions that the mill should be made strong ; and with respect to. the second, even admit ting that the construction was bad, and that the blame rested wholly on the plaintiffs, it was a fault that could be easily re medied, and which would cost the trifling sum .of £l4, , unly. That, thereforeixtattld.uot entitle the ; defendants to refuse payrneht athe Whqle amount claimed. • 1 His ortiiSt i ttli atini*d it; tit letigth, .itatilik, that thi.!ie *A ,:t mid be three qiiestions for the consideration of the jury—First, whether the bargain for the engine was an inde pendent and out-and-out bargain ; secondly, whether the bargain was for a conjoint engine and machinery, to be used in the trade of the defendants; and, thirdly, whether; if it were a conjoint bargain,, the machinery was fitted for the in tended purpose. If they should answer the first question in the affirmative, then they would .find for the plaintiffs the value of the ettgitie. if they were of opinion, however, that it was a Conjoint bargain, then, they would ascertain whether the whole lafOthhory Was Atto for the ,tiroOtible use r find, if they 'thought that it , Wai, dot, then they could find to what stun the plaintiffs were "entitled , short .of the. amount claimed. The jury ratired.tarlinsult.npun theln:eidi;:t at 10 minutes to six? arld'return at five mainu&;s to seveii, With a verdict for thy-plaintiffs. damages £420. CROSS V. GRAND JUNCTION RAILWAY COMPANY. By consent of the parties, a verdict for the plaintiff was taken, damages £250. NISI PRIUS COURT.—MONDAY. Before Mr. Baron ALDERSON. SHARP AND WIPE V. LEPEYRE, REP. OP THE PROTECTOR LIPH ASsWHANCE COMPANY. This *AK all action brought by the plaintiffs to recover he9V,oo.4lnoiint.tit 4 , ..p01icy Offnsurttnee effected on the life of a person, nanaed,Penton, Wiiii to 146. 7 'son named Brown, the former husband of the female plain tiff, shehaving,administered on 'the same. , , • Ms. ALEXANDER `Stated;:thfOhia,action- wa.l' brought, to recover; then moutit of,a Pol• jcY, of irisuhaftee, eirected on the WM' bne W.tn, Fetittin; - fer the SAM of £2,000, dated 4th November, 1830. In the month of October, or beginning of November, 1830, an application was made by Mr. Fenton to the agent of the Protector Life Assurance Company,. to have his life insured. Mr. Fenton, wir - §C or' me would be more particularly detailed to them, was then 27 or 28 years of age. He had ruined, by the dissipated course of life he led, a constitution that was perhaps originally good ; and therefore it became the Interest 'of others to secure at his death, which Was then fast apPrtJaChing,the ifilibunt of a laige policy of insitraritt; that 'ecai s ldhe effectetlo.ll,Altaile hhe.- miurii: aPPliea tri Downtrig, the agCnt. Of - the coniiimir, and reeeititl frOnt •liini the necessary information to enable him to.effect the,poliey. Downing himself is now in New York, but tho;doeuments are .here containing' the proposals of the insurance company, and also the declaration which it was necessary for 'him to , sign, 'stating his age; the condition...o; his health; - his.: 'desire: tO have , arr iitSUrapeei on his life effetked•,, and qpromise to abici Vs , tbt etlle.rof .the A company.,, Ther t e,is certificate on k the back of the deOara.: Lion ; erintaiiit certain nu mber of questions to be answered—as to age, and the state of the health, whether afflicted with gout, rheomatisni, hernia, asthma, consump tion, or any other disease " tending to shorten life ; ' and this was also to be signed by the party. To the last question, the 'party answered in the, negative. It is also necessary to make a reference to Medical men, and lie re. ferred to a medical gentleman hatted Harrison: tin looking over the papers, there was found a lettei'. &din thO.direetors to Harrison, as to thA 10 t i tre,. Had he was entohAtiehlVT, feminad .1311 . Partiettlar. I . n his answers, as. tflywo'Uld .te basis '9f the. wrance, and any deviation from the facf, wou ld be a : forfeiture of, the policy. Attached to this ; letter was, a. series of queries; relative to 'the health of Mr. Fenton, all of. which; wore favorirably answered: Ano thee :question.w.as proposed trehira , , , ,gavoyofi AttvAdeft,,gr. Fenton, tymir.„medicp4 capanity, aild, if so; and for what,cauee'?, riftsweh *a's, " Once, on account of a wound heter;td'iii. the cneek." The eighth question was as to his habits, whether they were temperate and sober ? Mr. Har rison replied, I believe they are, although he had only known Mr. Fenton for about 12 months. The eleventh question was,—Are there any other particulars in your knowledge respecting him, with which 'the directors. ought - to be made acquainted? He replied he knevcof none ~ •., - SO, that the.ln sutzance:Offirie lOarnedlrom the medical refer& that Fenton wasin good health,. that he attended him dice foe A*thinditi his eh'eek ; that his habith Were temperate and regular, and that there were no other particulars to be communicated to them. This document, so filled up, was forwarded to the office ' and the consequence was, a poli c y W as e ff ec t e d, d a t e d Nov. 20th, 1830, and the premium, fees, &c. amounting to £5O, were paid by a gentleman named Topham, and the office, of course, bound themselves in the sum of £2000.. Until the August following, the office heard nothing further re specting him, and at that time a person named Baynes called at the office in London, and announced the death of Fenton. The office discovered, that this young man, at the _period of his life, stated, had proposed to bate insurance effeeted on his lift, to the amount of neat £10;000: He had three in surance with the Eagle for £7000; one With the Economic for £2,9991 Heproposed to have an insurance , effected for Seven yearS for £500; at the Asylum office, but the proposal Was rejected, Similar applications were made to the Eagle, for a renewal of the policy; wbich wehe rejected; and all pre tiohsly to the present Polley being effected: Oii these, and several other tact being . krinktrri, the , office refused to pay the insurance in question, the:conseqnenee,wa'S, that the Claimants gave up, the c ontest-the matter ended — and fromthe year 1831, down to the present time, nothing was done to establish the right now set up. This was a prudent course for the claimants,, as many of the per sons, who were acquainted with the habiti of the de'cea'sed, and with the circumstances under Which the 06110 in ques tion was effected were now iteal Tht of cad cannot; there fore, , avail itself of the testimo n y that could ha v e been pro duced, had the claim been made. at an earlier period. The writ was issued on the 9th November; 1838; the policy was eirected in NOVe, mher, 1830; and the person died in the month of Augnst, 1831. The action having been brought, they re newed the inquiries, as the other offices did in 18297—they found that many of the companions of the deceased were dead, and they experienced great difficUlty in setting up a defence to this action, as stated in the pleadings. The first issue to be tried refers to the fact, that he was afflicted with a con sumption that ended in hi's .death; and that it ryas actually existing in him when the policy was effected He had men tioned that the insdranee was effected with the Eagle for, £4,500; in 1829, btit, t beCordrig necessary to make an ap- Plieation iii Oetober, 18:10, to renew the policy at the end of the year; a doctor's certificate 'as to the state of his health was required. In consequence of the irregularities of the de-' ceased, the certificate was refused, Mr. Manifold, the medi cal.officer of the office, having examined him carefully, and declaring that he was inadmissible, from the state of his health, and could not be recommended for a renewal of the policy. The stethoscope was applied to him, and Mr. M. gite it as his opinion, that he (Mr. Penton) was consumptive— that he would not certify for him, and if he did n ot a men d his habits, (which Mr. A. described as extremely dissipated) he could not live twelve months longer. A similar applica tion for a renewal of the policy was made in his :behalf by a Mr. Young,. but it was impossible to give it. Th e result proved the correctness of Mr. Manifold's views, for he died within the time mentioned. He still frequented his usual haunts of dissipation. Knowing that suchNere'the opinions of medical men respecting his health, he applied to the Pro tector Office, and returned the answers he (Mr. A.) had read, to the queries put to him. Was it possible; under such cir cumstances, to come to any other conclusion, than that con sumption existed in his frame at the time of effecting the policy ? and that he was aware that hislife would be short, and he had misrepresented the state of his health. The office also complained. of Mr. Harrison's answer. The second issue raised that - point, namely, were the habits of the de ceased temperate and sober, and were there any other parti culars they (the directors) ought to be acquainted with ? He answered both in the negative. It would be found that Harrrison attended him. in the year 1830. The next issue is, was the policy obtained by fraud on the part of Fenton, and others in colluSion with him? The de ceased was not a married man, he was exceedingly poor, and therefore on what grounds, he would ask, was the insurance effected ? For no other purpose than to enable persons in terested in effecting the insurance, by advancing the requi site premium, to obtain, in a few years, the large s um f or which the policy was effected. It is impossible to get the confession of fraud from any one, but when they saw he had no family, that he was in destitute circumstances, that he was unable to raise the money to pay the premium, they must come to the conclusion that some one else was assisting him. The next issue refers to a concealment of the state of his health. They could not entertain any doubt, that gross fraud and misrepresentation were committed here. Upon the sixth issue they could have no hesitation in coming to the conclusion, from the evidence that would be produced, that the insurance was effected for the benefit of a Mr. Brown, who had no interest whatever in the deceased, with respect to the sixth and seventh issues, they were mere points of law, and more for the consideration of his lordship than the jury. But it appeared that Mr. Fer_ton had an acquaintance, the Mr. Brown alluded to who, though of good family, was of dissipated habits, and had married th e b ar - ma id o f tne i nn (th e Union) which he was in the habit of frequenting. To this gentleman Mr. F. assigned the policy for £2OO ; and it was only this amount the plaintiff, the administratrix of Brown, now claimed. Brown died two or three years after, and his widow subsequently married the plaintiff in the present action. He (Mr. A.) had mentioned the application" made to renew the policy at the. Eagle, and thatit was rejected: After this Mr. F. continued at the Feathers, in Clayton-square, till March, 1831. Then he went to Birkenhead.' After which he is not heard of till the month of June following, when he is found at the King's Head public-house, Great Tower-street, Lon don, and he died on the 26th of Arigust, in the same year. Several witnesses were called to prove the dissolute habits of Mr. Fenton, and to 'corroborate the various statements of Mr. Alexander, when Mr. CitEswEm. rose, and in a very ingenious address re viewed the evidence that had been adduced to resist the claims of the plaintiffs. He censured in severe terms the conduct of the company in refusing the performance of their contract, and called several. witnesses, who deposed that though Mr. Fenton was a man of convivial habits, he was not . intemperate. Mr. ALEXANDER then rose to reply, but ho. had not pro- . ceeded far when one of the:jurors interfered, and said they had made up their minds to find a verdict for the defendants. His LORDSHIP said that he was precisely of the same opi nion. One reason for Mr. Brown not bringing this action was this, that a bill of discovery might have been filed, and he would have been called upon to show what consideration ' he gave for the assignment Of the policy, for it appeared the office could not be' called upon for ,payment until two years after his death. " • • • The jury then returned a verdict for the defendants on all the issues; except the 2fid, 3rd, and Bth, which referred to Mr. Harrison's conduct. . BLACK V. RENNET AND ANOTHER. This was an action 'brought by the plaintiff, a grocer in Burslem, to recover from the defendants, the representatives of the Anderton Carrying Crimpany, the sum of £ll5, the value of six chestsoffea,, and one barrel of coffee, which had been entrusted' to,them to 'carry from Burslem to Liverpool, and which, owing to :their Alleged negligence, were destroyed in the late tremendo us hurricane idthe month of January last. Witnesses were called to prose the delivery of the goods. The receipt acknowledging their delivery to the cothpany en gaged to send theria to Liverpool on the 3rd January. They did not do so, and the Consequence was that, having arrived on a Sunday; instead of a Saturday, they were exposed to the storm of the fellowing Monday morning, and totally destroyed. Even if they had arrived at the reguiar time agreed upon, it was contended, ,and witnesses were called to, prove, that the slip in which the boat lay was not a proper place,—that it was more dangerous than the open river, for, the boat was so dashed against the sides of the slip, as to make her a complete wreck. ' A notice from the defendants was read, stating that the goods had arrived, and lay at the risk of the owner in the slip. Mr. DuNnAsjor the defendant, denied the contract, and submitted'that it would be too hard if this or any other com pany were made liable for the damage done• by such an un precedented hurricane as that of last January. He stated that the ship had been used for ten years, and that until that destructivegale, no accident ever occurred to goods lying in it. Every "exertion was made to secure the goods, but all was ineffectual. It would be extremely hard to make the carriers responsible for this act of God, and he trusted, that as they did all in their power to prevent loss, the jury would find a verdict in their favour. Several witnesses were called on the part of the defend ants to prove that the goods were not promised to be in Li verpool before Monday, and that when the defendants sent, expressly for the goods about six o'clock on Saturday even ing, they were not ready, and the waggoner did not return untileight, when the boat in which room was reserved for the goods had sailed. . • His LORDSHIP in summing up said, that there were two questions for the consideration of the jury : first, what was' the bargain between the parties, and whether the neglect, if,any had taken place; was such as to produce the inlgrr complained of. • The Jury retired for a few Minutes, and returned at half- • after sevenowith a verdict for the plaintiff—Damaies — w hen the court adjourned. . • • • • NISL,PRIUS &foie. Mr. - I - His Lordship took his seat in-the Crown Court - at a q uarter before ten o'clock. DUCKWORTH V. HARRISON. In this action Mr. Edward Duckworth was the plainti ff ' and William Harrison defendant. Mr. WATSON stated the case to the jury. The plaintiff in this case, Mr. Edward Duckworth. had been for forty year,' a warehouseman in the service of M essrs . E w art, Myers, an d Co., of Liverpool, and the defendant was a joiner and.builder: also carrying on business in Liverpool. The plaintiff had been a trustee of some property, and a dispute arising between him and ,111;11... Harrison respecting a sum .of ,X2OQ,. Mi'... Par' respn •brOuilit.an &akin againtat Mr.inuultwigh for ilt t strg , : The caiite, was, abont to be tried : .at the , liiyerpoell SP•rtnift-:,,, ; sizes, 1836, when, by the interposition:of mutual friends, 1 7 matter was referred to arbit ra t ion , M r . D uc k w orth appoint, ing Mr. William Bowm an , , o f Li verpoo l, i ron -f o under, and Mr. Harrison appointing Mr. Berry, of Liverpool. account ant; it was also agreed that Mr. H. Banner, of Liverpool, accountant, be appointed referee. The appointment of the arbitrator did not take place as a g re e d. By the agrAe; ment, the third arbitrator was to be, appointed on 25th of April, and the Ist of May was the time appointed for makin; the award. However, it was not unttl the 16th May that Mr. Banner was appointed the third arbitrator, and then the arbitrators finding that they could not conclude the business by the first June, extended the time for delivering their awald tki . :the illst.Deember; in that yea 4; TherVAii no lesS than six meetings Oa the month of June, „anti 1 1 1 arbitrators having heard thb evideHoe, on ,hpth„vittcs, ,oH:tg. 31st Recto-lie, awarded that Mr: Harrison had? 7i9 fOr action, and adjudged that he should pay to Mr. fine .; worth the costs to which he had been put .in defending 1 - o `,' ' action brought against him, and should also pay the costs of the reference. These costs amounted to the sum of p.. ; He (Mr. Watson) would call the arbitrators before him; an • _ . would mew that tn.; ~ , i .efendant and his solicitor attended thi different meetings. The arbitration and award having been put in and 1)1'0 4 ' witnesses we're ailed ; - Mr: Unbiiritiii foe the &tenant, took it hilifilief bf frelt!, nieed, ti.hbetihti tlol qie afbitfatiknb, On 4.11. ilk +t.*lik the 1 1t Cle: - -)4ed figAiita.the elAntitint, itlifoll;vSS,lese' l ryq-A..,,' - ''"' The jury, under the direction of hiviordsliq . j .. found•ave re ' diet. for ,the .plaintiff, !el/tillages . £49 4s. 8d..,, with- , leaVef! o move to enter a nonsuit, on the ground that tthe costs of . tir agreement were not stated ott the declaration. . . , ~- .'N ''" 'cirAnTeic-VAHTY,'P " ' ''''"• '.4 t'g •In this daate,lhaars4 . 4. F.)3retil;:aucl,W.. r &clilit:otte-or ~,_ plaintiffs; and iNtr,toCorgo,Yatt.s, •broker, .defendant ; and ti ' . acht , ol - I.Was,brolight flit a htDaCh of Charter Party, ' 1 Mr: WATSON opeited the pleadings; the iiitbitNtir-Gt s NERAL stated the ease tb the jfify. This Was an action broue felt the redo Very of the . sum of X 450 for a breach by the de', fendant of a charter party, the agreement for which to?,a. place on the 30th September, 1838. In the year 183 8 , t he ship . Mary was under repair in Liverpool, and this Ay: having been made known to the present defendant, a charter. party Was entered hitt) tin the 29th Of ?September, betwee, It. F: tread ; W,illieltn Ectslort, Anti Cleorge. Pate & to.ehtl ter tilt Mdf :I y i AA Wal - Er inligtel', tei„ghil to pot Pl. 4.- . • i'lqi . tia, roi .thq §upi of •!5 ,-2l lolig days,SithattYs;•' / F cepted, ;at Ltverpool,ft. F. Bread and Co, to be .at lihela to •put onboard of her 4,000 bricks,. three hogshead* of !A, . • two _sofas, four bales.of sacks, or 14 bales at most, tIS tong; coals, and 50 , pieetesof COttort bagging'•fret of r - expensal. t d vessel rlo s .t to •soffel".anY, detflptiOn at Gibraltar or Srartial'igi Yond t4, - iiiilb iiebeagal7 to digiiharge her goods at t- ' plaCes. Ile sum agreed for was £4so—lay days to at e mence on the .29th of September. This was signed .13/_ .. ,„`" parties. When she lay in the Graving Dock •somerootds„7 4 • placed on board. Sh e l e ft th e G rav i ng D oc k on the ou '''_., • October, and the lay days would expire on the 23d October'. The master applied for a berth for her in the Queen's Doe" - _,' She - could not leave the Gravi ng D oc k as soon as she In. ready, in consequence of the st a t e o f th e tid e , an d it was l l` until-the Sd'of o.etober Ahat kike'qeftl the Dook,tanditln: 6th gbt her berth in Queen's Dock. Upon this an ; aOO I A.7H, tion Wiii inane to the defendant to put his cargO in ljoarT; but instead of doing that, he chartered th e L ou i s a. In u;. plea, the defendant said that he did not niakea charter at an d : secondly, he said that the vessel was not sea worthy, an • that he (Sergeant Atcherley) supposed was the great point 1/1 dispute. Mr. WIGHTMAN (who, with Mr. Alexander, appeared fC i.. r , • the defendant).—That she was not s e a - w o r thy f o r the Pa' pose of putting the cargo on board. • el • Mr. Sergeant ATCHERLEY.—The fact was, that the vess,-, was under repair in the month of September, under the d i , , rection of the ,J.:doyd's surveyor; which eipairg Nett C 9. • pleted oil the 3d Obtbbell' at an 6. pease of X•3;C.) O P: ~, vessel was built- in 1828,- anti platted on clagg 1 at.1.14'4 ; After ten yearg service; it is custbinarY kir tessela 0 , 6 bottom' remOted tb the botto of the listat 'Llhyd'S' in We the not put itt thorough repair in the,rneatt While, • The v e if ' was in eotisetpienbe 66nt to the Graving Doai and aft, •. • being_ repaired; she was surveyed and replated in her sitt e q• tion in claaS 1. The ve ss el, in eohsetnienbe bf the default o 4 the defendant, did not Sill till November, when she sailee t li Smyrna in' Perfect Safety, And delivered her earge, in s° l ';i • condition, and, returned to Liverpool with a Cargo Which l " Of the most delicate description: ' The learned sergeant then Called_Mr; H. D: Glyf l ri ,, l l. , ° piched the Signature of the defendant to the charter t. aill'i,i • Jell Walter, the master, was nest call e d, And he Sft lt V • the fa:6 lif the Vessel hAtinbeen reaired iii teraVinP c • ! • the removal bf the ship to the Quee p n's Dockhand hersub s! : quent loading.. When the defendant tame down to the ship' he said he would not trust his old shhe round the Head Iv , t her. In hit cross-examination, the witness `said that tP .; vessel made more water (iii consequence of being a nalln{ , built vessel) than a broad-bottomed ship. The defentla.d desired him to keep the water in the vessel till the 9e ll, 'I I ?, , he never came on board again: The ves s e l h a d b ee n in t o ~ graving dock several weeks in the aummer, aiid Made ne t kel water in consequence pf beilik built of harcl Wood: , She Ml. 41 on the 15th November, for , Smyrtiaifid Malta.; hod bt'Ous a back a cargo of ('molter roots and yellow berri es ; Anil return on the 14th March last. Her cargo had since been di sc har; and a drier c a r go never en t ere d th e port o f Li verpoo l, tb s being no sympto m of we t. H e cou ld no t t e ll w h en t h e -hatl e th were down ; he tho ug ht th e rigging was complete on the 1„ October; she was quite fit to g o t o sea on th e 15th Octo7, . After an examination of other witne sses , o t, Mr. WIGHT:WAN, in addressing the jury for th e defends A said his Lordship would tell them that the vessel was bours to have been ready on. th e 29th S e pt em b e r, an d un less -i t , was so the defendant must h ave a ver di c t : H e s hould ':-',',. I able to show, from a l e tt er o f• M r . E cc l es t on ' s , t h a t the s! r at • had not got a berth till the 11th October. Independen' t ,;, this, he should be able to show that the vessel was in 3 tally unfit state to receive dry goods. l'he learned gentleman th en ca ll e d a man nam ed "%" 11 „ i t n :, wright, some tune ago fore man o f Mr. petries.shipwrg-,ijo who enumerated a number of thi ngs i n w hi c h t h e s hip r deficient when she was taken to the Queen's Dock. f a Mr. Adam Kellock, who had been 20 years master 1.1 8 0! -- ' • vessel, stated that on th e 6th O c t o b er h e b oar d e d the the There were a numb er o f men emp l oye d i n cau lki ng above - o water. The vessel was not in a condition to receive a car of goods. - Two other witnes s e s were ca ll e d t o corro b orate t h e evide n t, „ Mr. Sergeant ATCHERLEY re pli e d at considerable lenabthe observing that the original ques ti on a t i ssue was w h e ther ( 0 vessel was sea-worthy, and it was quite clear that any gl c i, that might have been put on b oar d cou ld h ave b ee n sill' ently protected had it been shipped. - -ye' His LORDSHIP asked the jury to consider whether the sble sel was at her berth in the Q ueen ' s D oc k w i t hi n a re ason ; time after the 29th September. Foreman.—She was at her berth on the 6th October, a n ; it•was a reasonable time. . r eady ' The JUDGE. — next question is, whether she was " - a ir. to load on the 6th October, regar d b e i ng h a d to th e other ; cumstances. dsli i ? The jury retired to consider th e ques ti on , hi s Lot .0, telling them that another question for their consideration " 4 ,. whether there is any usage in the p or t o f Li verpoo l to ev sider a vessel so incomplete as ready to receive her cargai re. s After an absence of 25 minutes they r e t urne d, an d the i ° o o. man said, she was not ready to receive g ood s on th e 6tit,. there was no usage. (16' ' Verdict for the plaintiff on the first i ssue , an d f o r the fendant on the second and third issues. EJECTMENT.—DOE DEM BARKER V. WRIGHT. .. p .4,0 Mr. MARTIN opened the pl ea di ngs , an d Mr. Dv,;ent' stated the case to the jury. This was an a c ti on of ejecti . . t be brought by the plaintiff, - Mr. Richard Barker, agai iis 'obe defendant, Mr. William W r i g h t , to recover possess i o n ' ° de: Brunswick Hotel,' Toxt e th- par k , w hi c h was let to the fendant, at a weekly rent of £2. ' The t ena n c y col:wil e :0 on the 19th May, and he paid his rent regularly up to ta: r iea August. On the 11th February a notice to quit was 6 ' on the defendant by the attorney for the plaintiff. /, 1 the Mr. Mouritv,,for the defend an t, called Mr. Wta',.`;'ere attorney for the pl a i n tiff, w i t h a view of showing tha t t i the had been a lease of the premises executed in favour of defendant, but failed in doing so. • dsi iiP The jtry found a verdict for the plaintiff. His 1 -e r granted immediate execution. . GAIR AND OTHERS V. MIN. , 0,. 1,3 , Mr. CRoMpTON opened the pleading, and• Mr- s l ^:ht l''' stated the case to the jury. This was an action brot, _ de , Messrs. Baring and Brothers, of Liverpool, against the re . fendant, formerly residing at Leeds, and was brought to, 0 cover the value of seven 'bills of exchange, anionnti.no,) £576 6s: 6d., (or with interest to the sum of £690 FL' . the alledged to have been accepted by the - defendant. „, I `,,'ist , - year 1834, Mr. Ikin gave an order to a person narned,,'b -- 3 10 3 ' at Buenos Ayres ; to give orders to purchase for him 2 uv a tlie " .of wool. Mr. Ikin gave orders to Guest tO•draW Ull i t 0 plaintiffs for two-thirds of the amount. Notice oug 0 1.1 have been given to Messrs. Baring of this cireumstanl Oil ' ' the 11th of August, the Mary Wi se , (th e vesse l in v. 41 , 1- C-, a tiff' wool was shipped) arrived at Liverpool; and the 1 11-a t 'hir°' were to have there accepted bills to the amount of tw°' %Oa` of the invoice price, and in consequence with IVlessrs e for, inermaaand .Co:, they accepted two of the bids, 553 £7OO, and the other for £3O; as o n acc o un t o f Mr. II"' and a third bill they aceepted on to the honour of Messrs' 31r. merman and Co., the payees and endorsers of the bili:s ; ;ti e Ikin accepted the seven bills' in question. The plaints ett et • ; not at all aware of the transaction . till they received a t beq informing them that the wool had been consigned-tot lit o and that bills had been drawn upon them to the es :11‘1° two-thirds of the value. Messrs. Baring .then Wrote, .`'. ° r ote for some account of the transaction, and he in reply ;} ' that he had no doubt the goods Would , be of such a q u a tiat, e , would justify 'them in accepting. . The bills were nag Di e' to Messrs. Zimmerman and. Co., and July came ta, e ' s lo o The bill accepted in honour of Zimmerman -was for t h e bill' of £2OO. For the remaining third portion of the w °° N tess'l' were drawn in honour of Messrs. Zimmerman by • I , e fetti'' Baring and Co., and notice having been given to the bill' t he 1, ant, he said he was not able to meet the bills, and, 00.. s were accordingly' taken up by Messrs. Baring. r -l e o lan', were sold in March, f0r.X1085 . 9s 3d, which gave . fli on that account of £59 5s Bd, in favour of Mr. 1103 ' e action was for the amount of the bills. l l' A large quantity of correspondence, with reference to t i ~ r esat above facts, was read. His LORDSHIP, after the correspondence had beer c o . -0 • _t; said that the letters entirely put the defendant out ? I st a ft . e . ; with the exception of the 6th plea, which alleged, tr i b . t o !!'_ s Messrs. Baring took up the bill, they sent them lfeol`o, 5 1 ` , .• party, and the money was paid before the a ' LI e , tli: brought. i ' for n ot Mr. Sergeant ATCHERLEY in addressing the ,a.r),,,,?e not defendant, said that the real plaintiffs in the caus e co op Messrs. Baring, but Messrs. Zimmerman, on whos,e,...„Asonti, the 6 1.76 -_. the present action had been brought against who had not received a single farthing from t h e tra t r o arr 4 ; and of this circumstance the plaintiffs were peefe e _ ' a ll; The wools were not of the quality, and the bills wer`.._e r ;; :. ' it by the son of the defendant, on behalf of his far r l a r c i !e t if he had known of the real state of things, he '7 , GO , tb7 o i have accepted the bills, and told Messrs Baring an • ,-, ~, they ought to apply for the amount. , ha d m' ` l ` His LORDSHIP said that th e learned sergeant c i s , of -i' mistake, for the defend a nt h a d r eceived the proee e • l i o, f i wool. ; „ c eoa' a: . ! Upon the correspondence and statement of the,_`"ing rea d. ..,' between Messrs. Zimmerman and Messrs. Baring,ntrader iota over, it - was clear that the action had been brought__ er ror direction of Messrs. Zimmerman, and there was a " 0 1,1.) 1 about £6OO in'one account. •• an ts s'r °, ,lt• 4 betat appearing that the investigation of the Ito . er , work of considerable time, the cause was reer4 i 7 h - P ow,. •,;' Armstrong, to try the question on the sixth plea , ' .- - to raise any points in the award. , . --, •• • - p - ' WILLIAMS V. SHAW. ••nitanaSt::d b Mr . Ral ph willetoor This was an action brought y , A , recover the value of a thorough bred mare, Wu ''' . . , i l the Plaintiff, and 51ef°11 clant p • ve s, and thec 14,ePOSitory fr Its pre mises, Mr the defendant l at the 13A S, niare had b !nout to leav ,„ inare awae 17,!ete NVa 8 th4t ti fil oa bettin g ao( v. r . r d::thesses to the The ff, 'TTokN EI ,.. ( Jury 'be fu und a did not ri/ E , 4 rii------F t i p Nra?ei • ti q• c i ,Llri th e ear NletrkLEs BATH: • ce will 1* iLt 4,3 4 , 11 , 2 , tir r aaPriri erB can; he) ci Pled fell a are th„ free Live t oc h en o b f ' t to rY in nor • eve O l t t o : I)i strant °'• that thai tb.' to e jet I L r`at t Fill f d _election ;Public re* °ll te °tit( ' not 4 th q Prorni !n i tentl if:re 404 I . e; gat , Üb~ ore} sb ikr ate d toi„ lhE Zlich L' 444 like t ar t i t l4e Y I: r e xl)eri mkis e °t ight ( t, av, 4.1 16 h _ tt 1 1 b ee "t h • i tfree rn , *44 04t ee w i„ 0 , 4, ipea c h tlt "lid in r aordi esen -4clfi 41arY Punic4(l to rice tl oti; I l etno brib e Leh uld be cr leeei~ yell is. of Co rrt Poo] )11) didbill ipt. was to ki Nrr 4 ' 51 OCC Pi ke . ea-t ° Our rat °lie h i: any holis •,( Jo gged : under the / °l. th e 1 t he 4 ' a Y s e t el eago al the ' is ac it o ur e , _ ti.s. a e _ . httli liher; k N "ed or rtce 9f P( tied . May, sh t kile :Wh o t. 711 0 ( ltih rle ti , ed a uunt \ IV}; ari d alw g a ent r- ' l leet ) t s I te r , 'eal a(l bank h et (Ir„, ---4 clik-tY, Slid ces the t° he v 44 1 e 4 'ne t a ' t) Sri 1. °I)0 1 3er l jtlt. tlettlePeo 1 1111. t 1e3 ari d ri wh (1 _ b ear t so ? Fat It de " Pei angel off; .e 44 yinan . d oubt tr t1 (1 (tr avel a i in \:( :"tleet s ) and Ilt,N,h4ppenedwitl pi 4ja tl titdel bn, v, d ohn 4,„ e 11 14, ` 1 N 1 ,,, a 1 q t h mi taf f : r( iPleBt ey,, °eel, turned, ear 1 ..1 t0 IN o f 1 , 14 4 tn r 4 doll ; ell , L it ft -err - k 7ll ee e rPool faii city most 1, t, ust 711 e ve, bl l 111 thrillt hi off t h. • tto ;rne rlat te ttlaY b b e4B to hear. ~Ve Y a but p h : qt ; L . 18 11 ed, d oes 14 his 8 p hi relY; bu t . 15 4 11*) h i B e t if th e r'h th r ic h e p ale little eigh t .e Justice 'tL 'fir, l4 ' a ble t 1 413, era 4 Ite lkl3 orti v 4411 Ala e orle, thee i ll a 3 z4p tittn ri brib(l44;llN of \' oli 4 l: 4l clre b : h ibt .A ve —ar 1 7:3' hear etert d th i . 4 k eth e. ,Lt , to of t.lh:n w. t o; 44d vet Ltie • • rllt at