The Liverpool Standard and General Commercial Advertiser. — Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1838-04-06 00:00:00

TOWN COUNCIL PROCEEDINGS slieeial meeting of the Town Council was held -on-Wed nesday at eleven o'clock in the Town-hall. From the report of the Fin•tuce Committee it.appeared that the probable expence of the pro,3ecutions for nuisance, tried at Lancaster, would be ETA and of - those tried at Liverpool .Z3(10. Some uegociations respecting the bridge over the river at Fiddler's Ferry had also taken place, but nothing had been de cided upon. It appeared that the committee required further information ou the subject, and that it had been decided that the corplration would not, as conservators of the river, offer any opposition to the bill about to be applied for, it it could be shown that the bridge would not injure the port of Liverpool- The bridge will shorten the communication with London seven -miles: INLAND BONDING WAREHOUSES. The TOWN-CLERK had submitted to the committeethe follow -ing letter from Lord Sarydon on the extension of warehousing to inland towns:— London, March 20th, 1838. " Dear Sir,—Mr. Wainwright having shown me a letter from you in which the corporation of Liverpool exi;ress a desire to know whether there is anything in auy bill before parliament which shall extend the privilege of warehousing to inland tovvn%. I have thoeght it my duty to put the question to Mr. Poulett Thompson, who assures me that there is nothing of the kind, and, moreover, that he does not see his way at present to any extension. 4 the existing principle. " (Signed) " To Richard Radcliffe, Esq." ALTERATION IN ST. MICHAEL'S CHURCH. SANDON, Mr. Councillo; Josurks 1141 RN BY, in reference to a resolution of the Finance Committee, respecting a memorial from the congregation of St. Michael's Church, praying for an extension of the gallery, thooght that the committee had acted incautious ly in coining to any such resolution after they had referred the subject to the Church Expenditure Committee, of which he was a member. There were seven hundred children attended that -church, for whom no accommodation was provided. The con sequence was that the children were disposed all over the church, much to the annoyance of and disturbance of the con gregation, as there was no control over them under such cir cumstances. With regard to the desired alteration, he could not see any thing in it that was not in accordance with the principles which the council had adopted. They had the con tent of the church, and they ought to take care that nothing took place which could inconvenience the congregation: What he complained of principally, however, was that the Finance Committee should have referred the subject to the Church Expenditure Committee, and afterwards have come to a resolu tion themselves. Mr. Rornby concluded by moving that the report be confirmed with the exception of that resolution, and that he referred it back to the committee for re-consideration. • Mr. Councillor Bor.Tos said in the first place they thought it proper to refer to the Church Expenditure Committee for them to examine how far such alteration was necessary. They next had to consider whether they could with propriety recom mend an expenditure from which no income would accrue to the church. He had to consider whether the expenditure was warranted by the acts of parliament, as amongst those which they were bound to incur. The increased accommodation was not considered to be of that character. He was of opinion that the question of increased accommodation to catholic or dis senting children was one that might with equal propriety be adopted by a decided majority. Mr. Bolton concluded by oh serving that they had a great number of seats unoccupied in St. Thoinas's Church, and of the private individuals who contribut ed to the support if the schools in question thought those would answer their purpose they might have them at a moderate rental. Mr. EAR LE said, notwithstanding what had fallen from Mr. Bolton, be thought the Church Expenditure Committee had great reason to complain, for they had take❑ the trouble to go to church and examine into the state of the case. - Mr. Pt. ATT made a similar statement. He went to the church, ancl•he made inquiries from the minister and other per sons. There were 800 children attended the church, and all the congregation wanted was, that the gallery should be ex tended so as to accommodate 300 of them. The expense of this, according to the report of the surveyor would be only £205. Mr. Henry LAWRENCE seconded Mr. Hornby's motion. Mr. BLACKBIIRN opposed the motion, and expressed his opinion that there was no informality about the matter, as it was referred to the Finance Committee altogethe4, and it was for them to examine into the principle. Supposing, however, the Finance Committee had committed an error, that was not to be made into a ground for them doing wrong. Mr. Black burn then went on to contend for the principle, which be said, was adopted by the council, of not expending any money in sectarian objects. Mr Henry La wiIENcE said lie did not think the Finance Com mittee at all exculpated, because they ought not to have re ferred the subject at all to"the Church Committee. It had been said that they could nut sell it. They had sold it. (A ,been said—" only the advowson.") They had disowned a certain benefit. -He could not see the reason why gentlemen mentioned the catholic schools. If there were any catholic chapel the property of the corporation, they would be fully justiaed in giving increased accommodation to the congrega tion.if it were required. On the corporation schools he believed there had been - 1'2155 expended, and he thought they ought to spend £205 upon this church. NI r. SHEIr. contended that they could not grant the prayer of the memorial without violating the principle which they had laid down. They had sold the advowson with the present ac commodation. Mr. Sheil. alluded in the course of his speech to a resolution passed 3d August, 1836, which was afterwards read by the Town Clerk. It was to the effect that an applica tion from a catholic school, that the renewal of a lease gratui tously could not be granted, and that in future, no grant could be made for any schools of any denomination except the cor poration schools. Mr. G. H. LAWRENCE inquired, if in making the required alteration, they thought they could increase the pew rents, and this increase tube derived from the church, they could not then be .justified in complying with the prayer of the memorial? •The NIA Y On. replied that he thought if it were conceived that any' alteration could tend 'to diminish the expense, on that ground alone would it be in the power of the council to enter tati 'the question; Iti.i:xos thought if the children were dispersed up and dawn' the church, they, would occupy many seats which would otherwiie be let. 7.Mr. E. thavEY said they were making considerable alte rAtions for the children at Paradise-street chapel, but they did ni>l apply to the council to bear the expense. They considered ititheir duty to do it themselves. IMr.- HORNUY briedy replied. He thought it was the duty of the corporation, as well as their interest, to see that there was prat*" acethnnuldation in the church. The children in this church were dispersed all over the aisles, and the, individuals attending it were so much annoyed that they might give up their seats. Mr. 1 HORNBY'S motion was then put, when there ap peared in favour of it, Messrs. J. Holmes, J. Heyworth, Hodg son.' Logan, Houghton, Preston, Rawdon, Frankland, H. Holmes, Mellor, Seeds, Birch, Woolwright, Bright, H. Hamby, Bibby, C. Lawrence, H. Lawrence, G. H. Lawrence, COoper, Wood, Earle, Coglan, Mason, Leigh, Smith, Platt, Currie, Ramsden, Duncan. Booth, J. Hornby, Brown, Lea thern, Berm, Moon,,C. Heyworth, and the Mayor. . Against the motion, Messrs. Thornhill, E. Harvey, Walmsley, Bolton, Priestley, Lassell, Carson, Morecroft, Hig gins, Blackburn, Sheil, Jones, Evans, Holt, Freme, Barclay and Robinson. For the amendment 38, against it 17, majority 21. The proceedings of the Finance Committee were then con firmed. In the report of the proceedings of the Watch Committee, it was stated that the opinion of the Town Clerk had been taken respecting the legality of lighting Bootle road. The Town Clerk had expressed his opinion that if the safety and convenience of the public required it, the road might he lighted, but, being a private road, a❑ express agreement must be entered into with the proprietors, and permission obtained to lav down pipes and remove them whenever expedient. The reports of the Watch Committee and of several other committees were confirmed. GALLERY OF ART. The report of the committee appointed by the council on the ith of March to take into consideration the memorial of Mr. Felton, and to inquire into the best means of establishing a per manent gallery of art was read. The report set forth that it was desirable that a permanent gallery of pictures should be estab lished, and that the council should afford sanction to the under taking. As the council possessed a lease of 1-1 years in the rooms granted by the late council to the Liverpool Academy for their annual exhibititins, and those rooms were only occupied about four months in the year; the committee recommended that the rooms should he granted to the committee formed for the purpose during the pleasure of the council, and under the direetion of the surveyor. Mr. Felton and Mm. Winstauley had informed the committee, that if such an accommodation were afforded }hey would immediately bring the matter before the public, and thus put it to the test whether a taste did exist mu Liverpool to such an extent as to maintain such an establish ment. Mr. LASSRI.I proposed the adoption of the report, and wab seconded by Mr. JOSEPH Hifi:NM After some discussion the report was adopted. POSTOFFICE REFORNI. The'reoort of the Postoffice committee was read. The com mittee stated that they were opinion that the present accommo dation afforded to the public for the reception and delivery of letters washy rto means proportionate to the great commercial importance of this town, or to the number and wants of its inha bitants. That the custom of closing the boxes when each mail was made up was highly inconvenient, and ought to be discon tinued ; that sixteen receiving houses should be established in convenient positions far the reception of letters; that frequent deliveries during the day were expedient, the first of which should be despatched from the postoffice not later than half-past eight o'clock in the morning; that distinct accommodation should be provided for the receipt of pest-paid, foreign, late letters, and those left till called for; that private boxes need not be discontinued; that an increased number .cif clerks is re -quisite Gt insure despatch; that. it is desirable that the post matter should keep an account with such persons as are willing to pay beforehand, whereby the evil of entrusting young persons with money would be avoided; that henceforth all Christmas gratuitiee to clerks engaged in the postoffice should be discon tinued, because such clerks were entitled to adequate salaries, without any contribution of the public thereunto. The report when on to state that the committee had deemed it desirable to have a consultation with Mr. Banning, the post master, and with the surveyor of the district. The result of their interview with those gentlemen was stated to be that they had reason to believe that those gentlemen would recommend four deliveries of letters in the early part of each day, and that twelve places of deposit for letters would be the number fixed on. The number of letter carriers also, it was supposed, would be increased, and the distinct accommodation above alluded to conceded. The committee pressed on the attention of Mr. Ban ninwand the surveyor the absolute necessity of an increased number of clerks to attend to the private boxes, and such in creased number of clerks for the business of the postoffice gener al-, that in future no complaint might be preferred for the undue detention of letters as at present. Mr. Banning thought it quite practicable that accounts could be kept with persons having private boxes, thereby doing away with the acknowledged evil of trusting money with young persons. The committee recommended that a copy of the report should be sent to the Post r master General and to Mr. Ba.nning, desiring their utmost attention to it. The committee expressed their thanks to Mr. Banning and the surveyor for the candid manner in which every suggestion was met and fully canvassed. Mr. itAMSDEN moved the adoption of the report. lle was assured. from the concurrence of Mr. Banning, that the Post office was most ready to make such alterations in the delivery as were requi;.ed, and to establish the requisite number• of receiving houses. He t hought tire number of receiving houses 'mentioned in the report were not sufficient. They ought to have At/least sixteen res.etving, houses in different parts of the town. At London, also they had seven deliveries, and they ought to heivet,the statue convenience here. Siveral gentlemen had - filitselltesk When the discontinuance of the gratuities to clerks was Inentioned s .its if, to express that that part of the report might at; Virr_beewleft.s.iut. Thete-had been a Strong expression of walkitly o that, adequate salaries should be paid in all Repartments, and that gratuities should he discontinued. He slid not see whs ? th is should not be extended to the Postoffice, and the Chrinuas v,ratuitizs to the clerks discontinued. Mr. BROWN seconded the resolutio❑ for the adoption of the report. Mr. BOLTON said the report enforted matters of detail which it would be impossible to carry into effect, and if once the report were passed-it would not be easy to recede. The boxes had been a source of emolument to the.postmaster, and the gratuities bad been so to the clerks. It was too much to expect that they should give up this, to which they had for years considered themselves entitled, without compensation. Any alterations that were necessary must be matter of arrangement, and he would suggest that a negotiation should be entered into with the postmasters of Liverpool and London. Mr. BROWN said, the postmaster of -Liverpool and the sur veyor of the district were present at the rngetings of the com mittee, and the report was merely intended to press the matter on consideration. Mr: EA rite did not egret with Mr. Ramsden that seven divisions were requisite in Liverpool, though they might be in London. He thought salaries ought to be paid to the clerks at the Postoffice in proportion to t heir labour. The whole system of gratuities was bad—the worst system that could be. Mr PRIESTLEY said, Mr. Banning had stated, before the Custom-house Committee that the boxes were no source of emolument to him. Mr. BLACKBURN thought the consideration of the subject should be postponed, as they had no jurisdiction in the matter, nor any authority to make alterations. _ _ Mr. lioncsoN said, there was a great deal of discussion going on at present on this subject, and he therefore thought it better to press any alterations which they wished to make now. The suggestions contained in the report he thought generally good. There were some of them, however, at which he should demur. He thought there was an assumption of power and authority in the report which might militate against their views. He thought, therefore, that it was much better that the report should be laid on the table, and that they should communicate with Lord Lichfield, and see how much of their suggestions he would be inclined to adopt. As to the gratuities, after all that they could do it might remain entirely at the option of those who chose to give. He thought the system of gratuities was good, as they were a much greater stimulant to action than fixed salaries. The MAYOR thought, if the report of the committee were adopted, it would be simply au expression of the opinion of the council, and not an assumption of power at all. Mr: BOLTON proposed the following amendment, " That the report be printed for the use of the members of the council, and taken into consideration at a future day, and that in the mean while there be a communication with the Postmaster-General and Postmaster of Liverpool thereon." After some further conversation, the amendment was agreed to. WATER TROUGHS FOR CATTLE. The report of the committee on the above subject was read. The report recommended that two water stations should he erected, one near the south-east corner of the Old Tobacco Warehouse, the other at the corner of Stanhope-street, near the weighing machine, to be constructed on principles similar to that at thelCentral Police Station. Mr: Franklin, the surveyor, had estimated the expense at E 6.5 each, to contain about 12 tuns of water, the expense of which would be about £l5 per annum. Mr. DUNCAN moved that the report should lie on the table. Mr. MELLort thought that the report should be printed, and a copy given to each of the members. He thought that was a course that it would be desirable frequently to adopt, as reports came suddenly before them, were read, and they were called upon to decide with but an imferfect knowledge of the subject. After some further discussion, Mr. MELLoa moved an amend ment, in the following form :—"'That the report be received, and taken into consideration at the next council." The amendment was carried by a majority of 28 against 24. WAREHOUSES ON THE DOCK QUAYS, The MAYOtt read the following memorial, from the owners of freehold land and warehouses, also of those holding land and properly under lease from the Corporation, and of others interested in the same, addressed to the Mayor, Alderman, and Councillors of the Borough. The petition, &c., SHOWETH, That your petitioners perceive wi►h surprise and alarm that the Dock Committee have passed a resolution to build ware houses on the verge of the docks. That in the opinion of your petitioners the proposed measure would be very detrimental, alike to the property of the corporate estate and of private individuals, amounting to four millions of money. That the proposed measure would be a great blow to the permanent cha racter of the corporate estate. That by depreciating the corpo rate estate, and depressing the warehouse property, which now contributes a fifth part to the local taxation, additional burdens must necessarily fall on the middle classes and the shopkeepers. That the proposed measure is uncalled for, because the ware houses already built are more than sufficient for the ample accommodation of the business of the port. That the proposed measure would be very unjust towards a number of persons who have expended large sums of money in the purchase of land and the erection of warehouses thereon, on the understanding that they they would not be opposed by the unequal competition of a public body having unlimited funds at the►rdisposal. Your petitioners, therefore, respectfully and earnestly pray that you will be pleased to put your veto on the resolution of the Dock Committee. The petition bore 119 most respectable signatures. Mr. LeaTitosi said a consultation had recently taken place with the members of the Duck committee, in consequence of some allegations that had been made, and the result was that he bad now to propose that the consideration of the subject should be postponed for one week, in order that gentlemen interested might have an opportunity of seeing their plans. The MAYOR said he believed the council could not put the consideration off beyond one week The TOWN-CLERK said the Dock committee was constituted a committee of the affairs of the estate of the Liverpool docks. By the act of 1825, 6th George IV., it was enacted that they had power and authority for carrying into execution all the provisions of this act. The next section of the act mitered that all the proceedings of the committee should be embodied in proper books, and sent to the council for confirmation or re jection. It was necessary to explain that the committee was constituted to carry into effect the provisions of the acts, and their proceedings were to be laid before a monthly council, or a council to be held one week afterwards. Biit he had no doubt if they had to consider matters out of these acts, or for which they proposed to go to parliament for additional powers, they would be like any other committee of the council, and that all such proceedings were the same as those in the ordinary way declared by a majority. These the council might take into consideration, as they would the proceedings of the other committee. Looking at it another way, the council were the tru4tees of the docks, to the committee and the proprietors of the docks. For all matter not in the acts they had the power of adjourning for more than one week. Mr. Ev ANS said he had the greatest respect for the extensive legal knowledge of the't'own-clerk, but he thought that on this occasion he was spinning the opinion too fine. If this had been the intention of the legislature, they would not have omitted a clause to that effect. He thought the council ought not to allow of any interpretation. That would have the appearance of grasping at more than their share of power. Mr. H. LAWRENCE said he had come to the council quite prepared to deliver the opinion expressed by the Town-clerk, in which opinion he completely coincided. Mr. C. LAWItfiNCE said be was an old dock committee-man, and he must confess that the doctrine was quite new to bin], and be had never heard it before. Mr. LEATrioNt said the doctrine was equally new to him. He moved that they adjourn to that day week.—Agreed to. Mr. COGLAN suggested that as the proposition was very im portant which they had to consider, that the gentlemen inter ested should he put into possession of the proceedings hitherto. Nr. LEATHOM said the plans of the proposed resolutions could lie ou the table in that room, and all might examine them. Mr. BROWN wished to know if the warehouses were to be fire proof, as a mention of that might have a material effect on the public mind. Mr. HODGSON thought it was of more importance to know whether the dock estate intended to be proprietors of the ware houses, or to sell the land for persons to build according to a particular plan. Mr. LEATHOM said they had lithographics of their specifica tions and resolutions, which, with the plans, could be on the table and could be inspected. The resolutions were read, from which it appeared that the dock committee were to be the warehouse owners. _ _ _ Mr. EvaNs said they had heard one memorial, and he would now present another. It had been got up in the space of the moment, yet it was most unanimously and respectably signed. Mr. Evans then read a memorial, urging in strong terms the utility of building warehouses on the dock quays. The me morial was subscribed with 108 highly respectable signatures. Mr. EARLE said Mr. Evans had spoken of the respectability of the signatures. He would ask if the signatures to the other memorial were not equally respectable. He knew he should be accused of being an interested party as he was an owner of warehouses, but he was certain that this would militate as much against the corporate estate as against private interest. It was exceedingly well, perhaps, to appear very patriotic when a mat ter did not touch their own pocket. (Cries of order.) It was au - reed that the subject should be taken into conside ration on Wednesday next. Several memorials and petitions were read, amongst others, one from a Mr. Quail arid others, complaining► of the adminis tration of the Court of Requests, which was referred to the Bo rough Court Committee. The Council then proceeded to the election of an Alderman in the room of Mr. Smith, who had sent in his resignation. Mr. George Holt was unanimously elected. The Council adjourned at a quarter to four o'clock. THEATRE-ROYAL, LIVERPOOL. FOR THE BENEFIT OF MR. POWER, And his Last Night of Performing until Easter Monday. /TIHIS present FRIDAY EVENING, the 6th instant, the _I Entertainments will commence with the Comedy of THE IRISH AMBASSADOR. Sir Patrick O'Plenipo (the Irish Ambassador) Mr. Power, As originally performed by him in London. To conclude with, for the eighth time at this Theatre, with new Scenery, Machinery,. B:c., the kidnal Serio-Comic, Roman tic Drama, written expressly f Mr. Power, by S. Lover, Esq., called RORY 0' MORE. Rory O'More Mr. Power, As originally performed by him in London with the most unprecedented success, in which character be will introduce a New Song, called " Oh t Maidens, Beware of the Blarney." - - - The Last New Play of THE LADY OF LYONS, now performing at the Theatre-Royal, Covent-garden, with distin guished success, is in preparation, and will be produced on Easter Monday. With a NEW COMIC PANTOMIME. • The early arrangements of the season will include the engagement of Mr. and Mrs. WOOD. TO CORRESPONDENTS. We have to plead the length of our assize report, especially theaction for libel brou,o,,htagainst the LIVERPOOL STAN DA RD, as our apology for omitting the favours of our correspond ents. We have received for the North Church of England School El, from the " Maid of Athens," per W. Myers. Ebe Eiberpooi g*:tantlarb. FRIDAY MORNING, APRIL 6, 1838. The Publication of the ST AN DA RD commenced this morn ing at 7 o'clock. THE NEW MARRIAGE ACT.—We last week pronounced this act to be a dead failure, and adduced the statistical returns of the Superintendant Registrar for Manchester in proof of our remarks. Those returns clearly showed that there were only seven marriages celebrated in all the dissenting chapels of that populous town, which must be considerably less than the number of places of THE LIVERPOOL STANDARD worship registered for the purpose. We have reason to believe that this is universally- the case throughout - the country. We are glad to find, from the last number of Black wood's Magazine, that we are by no means singular in our opinions on the subject, as the following corrobora tive remarks will. discover :--- " The Dissenters, Ranters, and other Radicals, whose delicate aversion to a marriage ceremony clogged with any reference to religion induced our very Liberal Cabi net W reduce it to the naked simplicity of a civil contract, have begun, in some instances, to be ashamed of their work. They now occasionally embroider it with a little extempore ritual of their own; have a preacher standing by to read a portion of the Scriptures, give his own no tions of marriagein a speech, and altogether make the affair put on some remote resemblance to what it was, and what, in spite of Radical reform, all honest men and women too, know that it ought to be. On this subject we fear that the-objects of the inventors have not been so fully realized as their ingenuity laboured to deserve. We are, indeed, perfectly of opinion, that the new act has turned out but a meagre source of revenue. Our near and dear relations and others taken under the Ministerial wing already croak- terribly. We doubt whether that poor and worthy novelist Mr. Lister has. been ,able to make his sinecure prolific of shillings; and whether .the general locust host who were to have fattened so com fortably on this new crop of patronage, have not been starved out of all patience. We believe that the inverr- Lion is an utter and ridiculous failure. But we must take the liberty of reminding its embroiderers, that neither priest nor harangue have any business whatever at the perpetration of the affair, which the Jack Russell law is pleased to call a marriage. The law says, that the regis trar must be present, and there it stops. It justifies no further attendance of any one; and of course what it does not justify, it totally disregards. The simple sta tute may be, consideted, it, 'is true, by having not - merely the preacher, but all the preacher's household in attend ance; not merely the reading of the Scriptures, but the reading of any thing that may amuse the fancy of the hour. Of course the law prohibits no merriment from the highest to the lowest order of popular gaiety; and this freedom the Dissenters have gained. We wish them joy of it. But they must not boast of having first strip ped the most sacred of all social forms of its religious de cencies; and, after turning it into a civil contract, dress 2 it. up again into the masquerade of a religious cere mony-." NEWS FROM CAN ADA.—By the Pennsylvania, Captain Smith, which arrived here yesterday, New York papers to the 11th ult. have been received. These papers an nounce the arrival of all the packets due from England excepting the Shakspeare. Respecting the affairs of Canada we have the following particulars : ( From the New York Evening Star.) "The arrivals of several generals, colonels, and officers of the British army at this port, on their way to Canada, to be followed with a heavy force, shoir conclusively the value and importance which Great Britain attaches to her possessions in North Ame rica. We have no doubt, with a judicious change of the form of government, a conciliatory spirit, and a correction of some abuses, Canada will settle down with great tranquillity and simi lar attempts at revolution will receive no countenance or sup port. In the meantime the patriots so called intimidated by the prospects of entering Canada, chilled by the inclemency of the season, have surrendered to General Wool on the Vermont side, and Col. Worth in the Michigan district—having given up their arms and dispersed. Gen. Van. Rensellaer has been arrested, and Mackenzie has wandered no one knows whither. Arrests will continue to be made, and the per petrators of several atrocious acts will be punished according to law. Here ends the patriot side of the question on our frontier. "The people may be thankful if the Canada war on our side of the question can be compromised at the cost of threa millions of dollars." We have also received a file of the Hamilton Gazette to the 27th of February, but. the news which these papers contain has been long since anticipated. LORD DURHAM'S MJSSION:—A most important discus sion took place in the House of Commons, on Tuesday evening, on the subject of the appointments of our new Viceroy of our North American Colonies. The Mare Buis of Chandos commenced the debate by moving the following resolutions : " Lord Durham's Mission,—Motion made and question pro posed,—"Chat it is the opinion of this house, that, the duties of the High Commissioner and Governor General of her Majesty's North American Provinces should be conducted with the ut most possible degree of economy consistent with the just and and ample remuneration of the several persons necessarily em ployed in the discharge of them :'—(Marquis of Chandos.)— Previous question put. "Chat that question be now put :'— " The house divided—Ayes 156, Noes 160." " Motion made and question proposed,—' that it appears, from an account laid before the house, that the total expendi ture of the office and establishment of the Earl of Gosford, as Governor General and Commissioner in Canada, distinguishing the salary and emolument accruing to each individual, for one year, amounting to the sum of £12,678. 13s. 6d. :'—previous question, that that question be now put,' put, and negatived. " Motion made, and question proposed,—' That it appears to this house, that such establishment was formed upon a just, and liberal scale, and therefore appears to constitute a proper pre cedent to be observed in determining the establishment of the Earl of Durham .'—(Marquis of Chandos)—Previous question, ' That that question be now nut,' put and negatived." The noble mover of these resolutions expatiated on the danger of leaving to the discretion of any individual an unlimited expenditure of the public money. Mr. Praed seconded the motion in a very effective speech. He predicted that Lord Durham's mission would issue in failure and disappointment, as " St. Paul's great cupola brought to bed, After large labour, of a small pin's bead." Lord John Russell followed. The burden of his speech consisted in a complaint that the resolutions had not been properly introduced—that the conduct of the noble marquis was not fair —and that the government were taken by surprise. This is the uniform plea brought forwards by the present imbecile ministry, whenever their policy is attacked under circumstanced which preclude them from the possibility of answering satisfactorily the charges made against them. Such was the dilemma in which they were placed on Tuesday evening. Professing to act upon economical principles, they had to stand up in justification of a lavish expendt ture of the public money ! This'was certainly forcing them into a very awkward position, against being driven into which they complain as an act of unfairness! Our readers will scarcely credit us when we inform them that the sturdy economist Joseph Hume spoke and voted with the ministry, in opposition to the Marquis of Chandos! On tile division there appeared— For tile motion l5B For the previous question Majority Thus it appears that the ministers had a very narrow escape from defeat. But for the delicacy of the gentle men mentioned in the following paragraph from the Standard the cabinet would have been beaten : " Lord Villiers, who otherwise would have voted with the Marquis of Chandos, and was in town, declined voting, as his brother is going out with Lord Durham. Lord Castlereagh, also in town, declined voting, probably from a delicate feeling, arising out of the Sheil motion of 1835. " Colonel Hope declined voting with Lord Chandos, though agreeing with his lordship, as he was going out to Canada. Mr. Dawson Darner declined voting from considerations of private friendship. Mr. Charles Buller, who is going out to Canada, voted notwithstanding, as did Mr. Hedworth Lambtou, Lord Durham's brother. Had the conservatives observed no more delicacy than the ministerialists, the majority would have been exactly reversed. Had Messrs. Buller and Lambton paid any respect to delicacy, there would have been no majority." SIR FRANCIS BURDETT, BART., M.P., AND THE CON SERVATIVES OF LIVERPOOL.—The Conservative Trades men's Association have resolved upon giving this pa triotic Baronet a Public Dinner, on Monday, the 23d instant, (St. George's Day.) Several other distinguished individuals will be invited, including the borough and county members. We regret that the shortness of the tone will prevent their erection of a pavilion for the oc occasion, feeling confident that no place hitherto used upon such occasions will hold half the admirers of the noble stand Sir Francis has made in support of Church and Queen. ~'+.. s .~► -.~ t ~ ~y LIVERPOOL SPRING ASSIZES. CIZONVN COURT.-TUESDAY AE,ON. Elizabeth Chapvel was indicted for having, at Ileaton-Norrk, on the 21st July,itfully set fire to a stack of hay, the property of Juhn Thornley, and Samuel Chappel, her father, was charged with having instigated her to do the same. Mr. Brandt and Mr. L. Peel appeared for the prosecution. Dr. Brown defended the prisoners. The principal in this indictment is a pretty, delicate-looking girl. She presented herself at the bar without any appearance of trepidation, and both she and the male prisoner pleaded not guilty. Mr. BR AN rYr said this was a very grave and serious charge, and the prisoners stood in the relation to each other as tattier and daughter. The learned gentleman, in the course of his statement of the case, said, the male prisoner kept a beer shop at Heaton-Norris, and he had been brought under the notice of the police in consequence of the manner in which his house was conducted. The prosecutor, 'l'hornley, was a constable, and the female prisoner had been heard to threaten that she would be revenged. Mr. Brandt went on to detail the course of evidence fur the prosecution, and then called the following witnesses: William Hultne stated, that in July last he was in the em ploy of Mr. Thornely, who resides at Grundy-hill, Heaton- Norris. Believes he farms his own property. On the 21st of July got up at three o'clo - ck, to go to his work. John Pott was with him. As they were going they saw a new stack of hay on fire. Went np to it. It seemed as if it had been burning some time. It was on fire in several places. Thought it was done on purpose, because there were some sticks laid across, and coals between them. Went back to get assistance. 'l'hete was an old hay stack at hand which was kindling. Cross-examined by Dr. BROWN.—The sticks were at the old stack. The brick-kiln was about 100 yards from the stack. Was once in Chester castle for nine weeks for poaching. Was tried at Chester. Had never been in any other gaol. Was convicted, and served 18 months in Knutstord gaol. John Pott remembered the morning of the 21st July. Saw a stack on fire at three o'clock. Went up to the new stack and found that it was burning all round, and appeared as if it had been set on fire on purpose, in three different places. There was an old hay stack near it, and that was slightly burned. Cross-examined by Dr. BROWN.—A great number of people came up, and amongst the rest his brother, Thomas Pott. He (Thomas Pott) had been about a good deal, and he was then wearing a pair of his mother's shoes. There was but little dif ference between his mother's shoes and Chappel's shoes. When the comparison was made (it was three weeks ago) the shoes that his brother had worn were worn out, but they compared another pair of his mother's shoes. Witness ran for the en gine, and when he returned there were about two hundred people there. Martin Armitage stated that he was book-keeper and cashier to Mr. Stocks at H eaton-Norris. Heard the alarm, and went to the stack about half-past three or four o'clock. Assisted in putting out the fire. A Mr. Kenyon was with him. There was a brick kiln about 63 yards from the stack. Looked for foot marks near the kiln, and traced them from a point at which they appeared to meet towards the stack. Noticed them only five or six yards from the kiln. One foot near the kiln, at a part that was most red, seemed to have made a deeper mark than the rest. Named what they had seen to Irlam. It had rained very heavily on the night preceding. The rain had par tially obliterated many other footmarks, but these were quite fresh. Cross-examined by Dr. BaowN.—There were numbers of people there before he pointed out the footsteps to Irlam. 'Thomas Newton Beaver stated that he remembered the Thursday night before the fire. He was at the Griffin public house till twelve o'clock. It had rained about eleven o'clock And was fine at twelve o'clock. Daniel Ashton stated that he went with Irlam, the constable, to the house of Chappel, on heating of the fire, at half-past five o'clock. Witness went in at the front door, and saw Elizabeth Chappel tome in at the back door with a light in her hand. Irlam asked Mrs. Chaopel (the mother) to take off her shoes; but she would not. The daughter was asked to do so, and she threw them off in a careless manner. There was coal, slack, and clay on the shoes, and they were wet. She said she had never been out after eight o'clock. Her mother said, "Yea, it was nine." Irlam asked her where she had been ? She said, only to the coal—that was to the ash-place. Irlam went out to the ash-place. Witness went with him.' The way to the ash place is one part flags and the other having stones. The clay he thought could not have been collected in going to the ash place. Witness and Irlam went then to the fire, taking the shoes with him. Saw footmarks near the brick-kiln. Irlam tried the shoes with the footsteps. They corresponded. The impressions which he tried were leading from the brick-kiln towards the hay-stack. Returned to Chappel's by the way of the Griffin public-house. Near the latter they saw more foot steps going towards Chappel's house. They appeared to be the same, but they were not tried. Cross-examined by Dr. BROWN.—lrlam took the mother into custody after he had made a comparison of the shoes. He did not take the daughter. Witness never was before the magis trates against the daughter. Can't tell whether the daughter was ever taken before the magistrates previously to the month of October. Henry Irlam stated that he was a constable in Heaton-Norris. Went to the stack at the time mentioned by the last witness. Saw the footmarks. It had been very wet and the impressions were exceedingly good. Measured the impressions. Took the length and breadth of a small stick. Traced the footmarks not only to the stack, but back to a gate which led into .a clover field. There were no marks in the clover-field, but the opposite gate of the field was open. Went to Chappel's house, and asked Mrs. Chappel , o take of her shoes. She would not. He then asked the daughter, and she kicked off her shoes. They were very wet, and had clay and slack at the bottom. Asked her where she had been, and she said to the dung-heap. Witness went and examined the dung-heap, and thought it impossible that she could have got the dirt there which was on the shoes. Went back to the kiln and compared the shoes. They filled the marks. At the further side of the kiln, where the fire was very hot, found a deeper indention. Returned from the kiln to Chappel's house. Saw footmarks in the road near the Griffin. Compared those with the shoes. They corresponded. When he received the shoes from Chappel's daughter, he observed that her dress was soiled and wet. Took the mother into custody. Took the mother into custody before he tried the marks, because she seemed so very much confused. The magistrate discharged her. The daughter was taken up on the 12th October, and was confined in the lock-up. Heard her conversing through the grating of the cell. There was a person kneeling at the grid. That person said "Bess, don't answer any questions that Irlam may ask you." The person said "if you keep your own coun cil they can do you no harm, as he, Irlam, was no lawyer." Witness went to him, and said, if he wished to say anything to her, he must come in a proper manner. He would not allow him, or anybody else, to speak through the grating. Chappel kept a beer-shop, and had been, at his instance, brought before the magistrates, and had been committed for want of bail. Cross-examined by Dr. BROWN.—Was constable at Heaton- Norris, and attended upon the Coroner. There was an action brought against him about three weeks afterwards, for having taken the mother into custody. The daughter was taken into custody after that, on the 12th of October. When he saw Chappel, and heard him talking to his daughter, he had gone down for the purpose of listening. He took off his shoes for the purpose. Saw Saddler, the constable of Stockport, and showed him the place where they had been, but they were all obliterated. Chappel's daughter said to Saddler that she had been at Coops's house, which lay between Chappel's house and the Griffin. Ite-examined.—Did not examine the shoes of the mother be cause they were sadly too large. The action against him had "stood for trial at the present assizes. Mr. Samuel Stocks, of Heaton-Norris, heard of the fire, and went to the stack about four o'clock. This witness had seen Irlam try the shoes with the prints, and he said they fitted. He also stated, that he had ascertained that the stack had not taken fire from spontaneous combustion. John Wainwright, a shoemaker, stated that Chappel came and asked him if it was possible to make two pair of shoes from one last, and if his daughter's shoes fitted the marks. He asked if it was not possible for another pair of shoes to make the same impression. Witness said it was. The shoes of Chappel's daughter were made by Mr. Clark. Samuel Chappel gave his orders to measure his daughter for a pair of shoes, and after wards countermanded it. Heard Samuel Chappel say, a few days before the fire, "If 1 had a pistol in my hand I would shoot Jack Thornely." Ashton Holland stated, that in July last, he lived in the cellar of Chapple's house. There were several persons living under that root. On the night preceding the fire went to bed at nine o'clock. Got up between twelve and one o'clock. Heard a door open immediately over his head. It was shut again and opened again. Than he heard a sound as of two persons going out. In about twenty minutes or a-quarter of an hour heard them come back. They seemed to ascend the steps in a great hurry. Martha Cottrell said, that she heard Chappel say to his daughter, on the Wednesday after he came out of prison, some time after the fire, that from one word which she (the daugh ter) had said, all the devils in hell would not keep her from being transported. Cross-examined by Dr. BROWN.—Her husband had been out of the way three years and a half for poaching, and her (witness) house had recently been searching for stolen potatoes, but none were found. Michael Redmano remembered the prisoner Chappel being in custody of Irlain. The latter ordered him to take him into custody to the New Bailey. Chappel's wife and daughter came up. and witness said to Chappel that he was very foolish not to pay the costs at once, instead of going to the New Bailey. He said he had nothing to pay with, and if he had he would not pay. He was talking to his wife. Just as he was putting him away, he said—" Fire the haystack—fire it to night." Eliza beth Chappel was standing near. Witness took her to the New Bailey, and saw her out the next day, and at the Vernon Arms. Witness said, " Well, I see you've got our" She said, " Yes, it's very well I was not out before. I should have been put in again for firing the hay-stack." Cross-examined by Dr. BitowN.—Had been frequently be fore the magistrates as an informer. It was not because the magistrates had refused to hear him, though one of them had said he was to beware what sort of cases he brought before the court. Charlotte Coops lived near Chappel, .but did not know the prisoner, Elizabeth, very well. She saw her on the night of the fire and observed that her father was in prison. Elizabeth Chappel replied that it was for 12s. Witness asked if !Ham had put him in? She replied "No. If Irlam had come near her father, he would have smacked his face." She stood for a moment and said, when Jacky Thornly's tulips were cut, they said it was my father; but now, that they have put my father in prison, I'll have my revenge of Jacky Thornly, near as it is." Cross-examined by Dr. BROWN.—Witness stated that she was not married. She had had three children and was about to be confined again. There was a reward of £lOO for the dis covery of the person who set the stack on fire. Her master asked her what conversation she bad with Elizabeth Chappel, vet she (witness) did not tell him this. He took what she told him down in wiiting. . . _ Anne Coops, sister to the last witness, corroborated the testi mony brought out on the examination in chief of the last witness. On Cross-examination by Dr. BaowN,,witnessstated that she was not married and had one child She also had been ex amined by Mr. Stock immediately after the fire, but she did not mention these words, William Coops stated, that saw Chappel on the day after he came out of prison, and Chappel said to him, " They said I took Thoruly's tulips, they can't say that I fired the hay stack." Dr. Bilows addressed the jury in defence of the prisoners. He said the only evidence against the prisoners was the evi dence of the constable respecting the shoe marks. He re marked on all the circumstances attending their examinations and comparisons of the shoe marks, and on the testimony of the witness who said the shoes worn by her brother were so like those of the female prisoner, that he could not see any dif ference. He dwelt upon the bad character of many of the witnesses, and upon the circumstance of the renewal ot proceed ings atter the action for false imprisonment had been com menced. Ile also prayed the jury to remember, that after the very evidence on which they must depend, namely, that of the shoe marks, a reward of £lOO was offered for the conviction of the offenders, when they actually had her, according to what 17: they wished now to show, ill their power. The jury wouhi nut trouble his Lordship to sum up. They immediately retitined a verdict of not guilty. This closed the criminal business ot the assizes. NISI PRIUS COURT—TUESDAY. (Before Mr. Justice Coleridge.) ORRELI. V. GREENOUGH. At the opening of the court this morning, his Lordship, ad dressing the counsel in the cause Orrell v. Greenough, (which was adjourned lust night at nine o'clock,) said, he could not but think that it was a cause in which there were so many facts and so many deeds that ought to be looked into, and which he could not look into, that he thought it would be for the interest of the parties if they would let it go before some person who would have the opportunity which they could not have there. He had thought the matter over, and this was his opinion, but he had no feeling about it, and did not wish to press it. Au arrangement was then endeavoured to be made between the counsel; but Mr. Alexander, on the part of the defendant, objected to refer the cause, on the ground of the enormous ex pense, unless his Lordship's notes should be received as evi dence to do away wi!..h the necessity of several witnesses. Mr. CRESSWELL wonid refer the cause on these terms, taking his Lordship's notes, making the notes of the reference biding :he event of the award, being at liberty to add other witnesses; or he should be at liberty to call witnesses again, and leave the costs of the reference in the discretio❑ of the arbitration. Mr. ALEXANDER said this was not the usual terms. Mr. CRESSWELL would then only ask to take the witnesses in the ordinary way, Without his Lordship's note. Mr. ALEXANDER was sorry they could not agree to that, on the ground of the expense. The cause then proceeded, and a number of deeds were read on behalf of the defendant, showing the possession of various closes and pieces of land adjoining the slip of laud in dispute. Witnesses were also called, who gave evidence to the same effect. Mr. CRESS WELL then rose to reply, and concluded at three o'clock. His Lordship, in summing up, said, the defendant's land ad joining to the slip of land in dispute, was clearly made out. Under some of the deeds by which the defendant proved his right, he took a right of common which seemed to settle the defendant's case, because it was clear that the soil of the land did not belong to him. No man took a right of common on his own land. But he would advise the jury to draw this strict con clusion, for the plaintiff would be liable to the same difficulty if they drew the same strict conclusion with regard to his deeds. There was no doubt that the judges laid it down for juries to draw the presumption, that he who owned the land had the middle thread of land between his land and the road adjoining, and if he owned the land on both sides he owned the soil of the road and the intermediate strips at both hedges. That-was the ordinary presumption if the case stopped at that to which they would arrive. Standing on that presumption, and the defend ant having proved his right to the soil of the land adjoining the road, there was legal presumption that the defendant was en titled to the half of the road. 'The plaintiff endeavoured to re but that statement by direct evidence and overthrow the ordin ary presumption. There was no doubt that it was competent for a party to do so. The plaintiff set out with saying, " I am entitled to the soil of all the wastes of this township, and therein to the soil of all the roads of this neighbourhood. This was an extraordinary claim to set up, and one that required cogent evidence in order to satisfy a jury, because it went against the ordinary presumption of law. The way in which he went to prove'this was by showing acts of ownership in all these different roads. The jury would say whether the plaintiff had satisfied them that he was lord of the manor, or freeholder of all the soil, and had a right to all the wastes. His Lordship concluded summing up at half-past five o'clock. The jury expressed a wish to retire, and, after an absence of an hour, delivered in a verdict for the defendant on the first count, and for the plaintiff on the second. BATTERSBY V. 1101. T. Mr. Harden appeared for the plaintiff, Mr. Crompton for the defence. Mr. HARDEN said, in this case Mr. Alexander Battersby was the plaintiff, and Mr. Edward Holt the defendant. The decla ration stated that the defendant owed certain sums of money to the plaintiff. To this the former pleaded, first, non assumpsit, and second, payment. The sum of money claimed by the plaintiff was £26 - 4s. 6'd. Several witnesses were called, who proved that since 1834 work had, at different periods, been performed to the value of £23 lOs. 3d., which, with potatoes supplied to the amount of £2 14s. 3d., made the amount claimed £26 4s. 6d. Mr. CnoNirToN, in defence, said he should prove that the defendant did not owe the plaintiff one farthing, payments having regularly been made, and a receipt having recently been given which cleared off everything. Witnesses were called, who swore to the following facts : That several receipts had from time to time been given by . the plaintiff for money paid as it became due. A receipt was given on a sixpenny stamp, and it was heard that Mr. Battersby had stated, that he was drunk at the time when he signed it. Upon this Mr. Holt, the solicitor, brother to the defendant, advised that a receipt on a ten shilling stamp should be prepared and signed by the plaintiff, to free the defendant from all demands. This was done in the presence of Mr. Hall, Mr. Holt, Mr. Smith, the plaintiff and defendant being present. This receipt, dated 25th October, 1834, was for the sum of £5 lie. 4d., and the witness swore positively that it was distinctly stated to the plaintiff; as appeared also on the face of the receipt, that the instrument was in full of all demands. . _ Mr. HARDEN said, with such evidence he could not hope for a verdict. The jury returned a verdict for the defendant. His Lon n- SHIP remarking that it was one of the most impudent actions that ever was brought into a court of law, in which opinion the jury expressed their concurrence. There was a similar case, Battersby v W. Holt, in which Mr. Harden refused to proceed, and withdrew the record. BOND AND ANOTHER U. B.ARDSLEY. This was an undefended action, in which Mr. Crompton ap peared for the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs, Nathaniel Calvert Bond and another, are wine anti brandy merchants, in this town. The defendant is an inn keeper, at Manchester. The action was for goods sold and delivered, and the defendant pleaded that he was never indebt ed. There had been other transactions, but the only amount now claimed was a sum of £32 15s. 6d due for a hogshead of whiskey seat on the 2.5 th November, 1836. It was proved that the whiskey was sent by the railroad to Manchester and delivered to Mr. Bardsley. The value of the whiskey was proved.to be £32 15s. Gd., fur which amount the jury returned a verdict. MORETON v. CA RNES. This action was also undefended, and Mr. Crompton appeared for the plaintiff. The action was brought to recover the amount of an attorney's bill, for having brought au action, Carnes v. Rigmaiden, in the Common Fleas, at Lancaster, and another for breach of con tract, in the Court of Exchequer, Carnes v. Tiplin and others. Samuel Holland Moreton, the plaintiff. was stated to be an attorney of the Court of Queen's Bench. The account was proved, and amounted to £57, for which the jury returned a verdict. SMITH r. nowI.ANDSoN. This was an action brought to recover the amount of a bill of exchange. The defendant, Frederick nowiandson, formerly a solicitor in this town, had accepted a bill of exchange for the sum of £74 lls. 3d., which had come into the hands of the plaintiff. The defendant pleaded that he had accepted the bill for the accommodation of the drawer, without any consi deration or value having been received. The defendant failed to make out his plea, and the jury re turned a verdict for the plaintiff for £Bl Ils., being the amount of the debt and interest. NISI PRIUS COURT.—WEDNESDAY. (Before Mr. Justice Patteson.) TREASURES OF WAR.—CON Y Y. SHERLOCK. Mr. CROMPTON stated this to be an action brought by Jobn Conway against George Sherlock, for money had and received, and the balance of an account stated, to which the plaintiff had pleaded that he was not liable. The plaintiff was a pensioner, who in his earlier days had served his country in the peninsular war; the defendant was formerly a clerk in the office of an emi gration broker, and he became indebted to the plaintiff in the amount claimed under singular circumstances. In the year 1811, there was some marching and counter-marching, and in the fortunes of war the plaintiff was lucky enough to get a booty from some French soldiers that he had slain, which he buried for better safety, and was himself afterwards invalided. The money was buried on the confines of Spain, where Portu ga l nearly touches, and there it lay until the year 1835, wh en th e plaintiff prevailed upon the defendant to accompany him to Spain, to recover the hidden treasure. They accordingly sailed to Oporto at the latter end of that year, and returned with the same shin in the following January. On that voyage the de fendant managed to get possession of the treasure, pretending that he could key it better than the plaintiff, and for the 120 doubloons, which was its amount, he gave the plaintiff a written acknowledgment, signed Geo. Sherlock. But now the defend ant denied that he ever received the coins, and he took upon himself to charge the plaintiff with having forged the document. But he (Mr. C.) should call witnesses to prove the handwriting, and also to prove that on their return frohi Oporto the defend ant emptied a bag of gold, foreign coins, into his %fe's apron. If he proved those facts he apprehended he should - be entitled to a verdict. He then called Catherine Jones, a charwoman, who was employed at the house of the defendant at the time in question, who deposed that she saw the defendant empty a bag of gold coins into his wife's apron, two of which were shown to her. Captain Ferguson, master of the ship Henry Hoyle, in which the plaintiff and defendant sailed out to Oporto, and returned to this country, proved that on their return he heard the plaintiff speak of a treasure; but in Cross-examination by Mr. MURPHY, for the defendant, he stated that on their arrival at Oporto the pat ties left the ship, to which the plaintiff returned ten days before the defendant, and they were then on such bad terms that they would not oc cupy the same cabin on their homeward voyage. Witnesses were called to prove the handwriting of the ac knowledgment to be that of the defendant, but at the utmost, some of them could only venture to state that the signature alone was in some respects like the defendant's writing. Mr. MURPHY, for the defendant, made a humourous speech to the jury, in which he said, that never since the days of Aladdin and Sinbad bad they heard of such a monstrous story of hidden treasure. He then commented on the improbabilities of the case, and called witnesses who positively swore that the document produced was cot in the handwriting of the defendant. Mr.CRoMPToN, ou behalf of the plaintiff, thought he had not gone far, enough i❑ his proof, and would therefore consent to have the plaintiff called. Plaintiff nonsuited accordingly. CORLETT V. JONES AND ANOTHER. This was an action brought by Mr. Corlett, public officer of the North and South Wales Bank, to recover the sum of £2OO from the defendants, who reside at Newtown, in Montgomery. shire, on a bill of exchange. The defendants had paid £BO into court, and pleaded they were not liable for the balance, other bills of exchange having been given for that amount. The jury found for the defendants. MILLER. AND ANOTHER V. NEWLAND. This was an undefended action, brought by Messrs Miller and Peel of this town, solicitors, to recover £365, the amount of their bill against the 4elendant for business dune by them as attorneys. Verdict for the plaintiff. KIRK V. WRIGHT AND ANOTHER. This was an action of trespass brought by Joseph Kirk, for merly a hatter, but lately the keeper of a spirit vault and tap, in Tarleton-street, in this town, against John Wright, the keeper of the York Hotel, whose premises the tap adjoined, and Jo seph Amos, clerk to Mr. Buller, wine merchant, for entering the plaintiff's vault, and assaulting and expelling him from the premises in September last. These were the facts of the case as stated by Mr. Murphy for the plaintiff. Witnesses were called to prove the expulsion of the plaintiff, and Mr. ARMSTRONG, then for the defendants, stated that the vault in question was known as the " Yolk Shades," and was held by Mr. Bullen as under servant to the defendant Wright, the plaintiff being placed there as Bullen's servant, and that therefore Mr. Bullen had a right to turn him out on his miscon ducting himself. As the "Shades" were attached to the York Hotel, Mr. Wright was answerable for the manner in which they were conducted, and complaints were accordigly made to him by the police of the disorderly state in which the Shades were kept. Mr. Wright communicated these complaints to , APRIL 6,183 P. Mr. Bullen, who thereon determined to change nis servant, of ►►Lich notice was given to the plaintiff. The plainuff, however, ultimately refused to leave, and persons were sent to expel him, hut no more violence ►vas used than was necessary for that pur pose. Evidence was given that the plaintiff was Bullen's servant; Bullen supplied the premises with spirits, and that the license was taken out in Mr. W right's name. A paper was also put in and read, which the plaintiff haft signed on being appointed to the situation, in which be acknow ledged himself to be the servant of Mr. Bullet], and that the tix tures, &c. therein were Mr. Bullen's property. The jury found for the defendants. TONGE V. lOYNSON. This was an action of trover brought to recover a purse and its contents, £2155., from the defendant, who is a constable, and who took the property in question from the person of an accused party, who was tried and acquitted, and therefore the money ought to have been given up. The p erson i n ques ti on was t r ied for obtaining money under false pretences in the town of War rington, where the defendant resides, and though acquitted, the defendant delivered up the money sought to be recovered to the party who was said to have been cheated. Mr. Wit.xiNS, who appeared fur the defendant, said he would not unnecessarily occupy the time of the court, and as his client could not justify the course he had taken, he would submit to a verdict against him. Verdict for the plaintiff accordingly. (Before Mr. Justice Coleridge.) ottEErtouGu V. ORREI.I.. (Special July Case.) This was a cross action, brought by the plaintiff, against the defendant, the L or d o f th e Manor of Parr. The case of the defendant versus the present plaintiff, for an iufringrnent of his manorial rights, occupied the two previous days, and this action by agreement was to depend on that verdict. Verdict taken for the plaintiff by consent, conditionally. HASLEDEN V. DANIEL AND ANOTHER. The plaintiff in this action was a merchant of Liverpool, and the defendants, Messrs. Daniel and Dickenson, were mer chants, in Loudon. Being anxious to extend their business to the Bombay and China trade, in the year 1834, and for that purpose, Mr. Dickenson came down to Liverpool to get an in troduction with some person with a good connexion, and was introduced to Mr. Hasleden, and with him it was arranged that he should receive one per cent. on all orders procured for theni..: From that time to 1836, matte r s wen t on , a t w hi c h t i me h e h a d obtained orders which would procure him commission to the amount of £SUO. Mr. Hasleden. still kept getting very large orders, when Messrs. Daniel and Dickenson thought they could do without Mr. Hasleden's agency, that they knew enough of the business, and would establish a branch house themselves, and then came the settlement with Mr. Hasleden, when they refused to pay him, saying, he ought to get his one per cent. from the parties abroad to whom he sent his orders. This was the point in dispute. It was agreed to refer the matter, and a verdict was taken by consent for the plaintiff, subject to a reference. LAWRENCE AND ANOTHER V. KNOWLES. (Special Jury Case.) Mr. James Lawrence, and Mr. Charles ©kill, assignees of William Okill, were plaintiffs, and Mr. Knowles, shale-broker, of Liverpool, defendant. . . The declaration in this case contained eleven counts. That the defendant sold to William Okill, before his bankruptcy, 60 shares in the Grand Juncti o n R a il way , a t t h e pr i ce of £l4ss. to be paid for on Saturday, the 9th of June, in part, and the remainder on the Saturday fortnight. The declaration went ors to state, that the plaintiff paid £155 as part payment, and after wards paid other sums, amounting to £558 as purchase money for these shares, and that, the defendant accepted, and received the same for the remainder of the shares, and waived the pay ment of the residue on the 29th of June. The defendant in part performance, delivered 35 shares, but, although the assig nees had tendered the residue of the payment, the defendant now refused to deliver the remainder of the shares. The second count stated, that the defendant sold the plaintiff 50 other shares, at £lO premium, which the bankrupt agreed to accept the same on the first of July, 1835, and the defendant promised to deliver them. Okill became bankrupt on the third of February, 1835, and the plaintiff's assignees were always ready to pay fur the shares, but the defendant would nut deliver them. To this the defendant pleaded that he was not liable. To the second count, that he did not waive payment. That with respect to the shares the tender was made at an unreasonable times He also pleaded, that as to the 60 shares the defendant agreed to put an end to the contract, and to discharge each other. He also pleaded, that atter the bankruptcy the assignees did not take to the bargain, and agreed to put an end to it. As to the sixth count, the defendant denied that the assignees were ready and willing to fulfil the contract. They further pleaded to the second count, that the tender of the price was made at an un reasonable time after the shares were sold. They pleaded far- , ther, that the assignees did not take on themselves the second count, and that the plaintiff and defendant discharged each other for the first performance. They pleaded further to the first count, which related to the 60 shares, that the plaintiff and defendant, after the delivery of the 35 shares agreed, that the defendant should give further time in payment of tha price of the shares, and it was agreed, that the defendant should give an acceptance for them, and should continue to hold the shales. and if the acceptance should nut be duly paid, the defendant should have power to sell the shares. It went on to state, that the acceptance was dishonoured, and the defendant went on to sell the shares. On all these pleas issue was joined. Mr. CRESS WELL and Mr. WiouTmaN appeared for the plain tiff ; and Mr. ALExaN Milt and Mr. CRoMPTON forthe defence. Mr. CRESSWELL, ill opening the case, said, at the time when these transactions were going on, the shares were not quite so flourishing as they are now. Mr. Knowles, at that time con tracted to sell to Mr. Okill 60 shares at the price of £l4. ss. on on the 12th of June, 1831, a portion of it to be paid then, and the residue on the 29th o f J une . I t appeared that the suns of £155. was paid at the time contracted for, but the residue was not paid ; but at different times sums were paid in the transac tion amounting to £740. Therefore it was clear that at that time Mr. Knowles did not choose to be off his bargain on ac count of the non-payment of the money at the time stipulated in the contract. On the 9th of August, a call became due on those shares, and Mr. Okill paid to Mr. Knowles £275. Not long after this an arrangement was entered into by which the defendant was only to deliver 55 shares instead of the 60. To wards the close of the year the remainder of the purchase money not having been paid, which was only £ll5. Mr. Knowles ad vanced these monies for Mr. Mill, and desired to have an ac ceptance for the amount, and accordinglv an account was stated between them by which it appeared that Mr. Okill owed Mr- Knowles £4OO. for which an acceptance was given by Mr- Okill. When that acceptance became due Mr. Okill was not in a condition to take it up, and finally became bankrupt, an d ceased to have power over his estate. The bankrupt remained in Lancaster Castle for some time, and came out on obtaining his certificate. The assigness then called on Mr. Knowles to complete his contract for the shares, and Mr. Knowles referred them to Mr. Thompson, his solicitor, since dead. A tender was made to Mr. Thompaon of the rest of the money, but Mr- Knowles,.th rough his solicitor, refused the tender. Mr. Knowles bad received £740. and was entitled to receive £ll5. more, he had never offered to return the £740. or any part of it, but would now keep it because he had not received the £ll5. according to the contract, and his reason for not giving the shares up was because he pleaded the tender was not Made in a reasonable time. He (Mr. Cresswell) believed a legal reasonable time was six years. He contended that it was unreasonable to suppose that the bankrupt would agree to discharge to contract after paying so large a sum for the delivery of the shares, having 30 of them d e li % ere d , an d on l y £ ll5. to pay to entitle him to the remaining 25 shares. The defendant pleaded that Okill was not a bankrupt, that they should prove. With respect to the second contract by which the defendant agreed to deliver to the plaintiff, 12 months after on the Ist of July, 1835, at £lO. premium. The .defendant pleaded that the assignees were not ready to pay. ' They would find they were ready ; but pleaded that the lender was not made in reasonable time. The amount of damages sought was the difference in the amount of price which the plaintiffs would have to pay now for the goods, and the time at which the payment was tendered. As to the second contract, the damages must be estimated at th e p r i ce o f the shares at the time th tender was made, over the contract price. The tender was made in the month of January this year, when the shares were at £153 premiums. The amount, therefore, to which the plaintiffs would be entitled would be £7839. on both contracts. The debt of the petitioning creditors was proved, and also the act of bankruptcy and the appointment of the assignees on the 23d of February, 1835. Mr. Wm. Okill was then examined at great length. He was formerly . a share broker in Liverpool, and contracted in June, 1833, with the defendant for 60 railway shares in the Grand Junction Railway. The contract was dated 12th of June. 1833. "Sold Mr. Okell - 60 Grand Junction Railway shares at 1.34.40- per share. Net payment £155. on Saturday, and the remainder on Saturday fortnight." "Signed L. P. Knowles." He made the first payment at the time specified, but did not pay the remaining £7OO on the Satuiday fortnight. He after wards made payments on account at different times. The re ceipt following was given to him by Mr. Knowles. " Liverpool, 29th August, 1833. " Received of Mr. W. Okill £275, being the deposit of £5 per share, on 55 Grand Junction Railway shares, and paid to the rail company this day. J. P. KNOWLES." He gave Mr. Knowles an acceptance for the balance due on the shares £ll5, £2OO lent money, and other sums he owed him. When he bought the second lot of shares he paid £2 per share in addition to the £lO to be paid on the transfer. He paid this by a bill dated the Ist of August at two months, drawn by W- Knowles on himself, and accepted by him, and payable at Mr. Knowles's bankers in London. He had paid the money to Mr. Knowles to meet this bill. He after his certificate bad been obtained, told Mr. Knowles that the assignees would re quire the completion of the contracts for the shares. Mr- Knowles came in a tantarum to his office, and called him a fool for interfering in the thing, Cross-examined by Mr. ALEXANDER.—His actual debts when be failed were about £2OOO, with liabilities to the amount of £5,000, for which he had received no assets. About £ll.OO of the liabilities were for advocating the Leigh peerage. About £BOO was for the law expenses in advocating the Ananndale peerage, and £405 for advocating the Rutherford peerage. He said when in Lancaster Castle that he was in debt to the de fendant for these shares £lBl ss. The witness was then examined at great length as to the bill,_ which he persisted was given in payment for the £2 per share on the 50 shares. It appeared that the bill was dated a month later than the time the payment was alleged to have been made. He had no receipt for the money he had advanced to take ell` the bill, and had not possession of the bill itself. There were nine calls on the shares, none of which had been met by him or the assignees. He believed shares were forfeited if the calls were not paid. His only assets were £l3O for his furniture which was not paid for, and £350 in a mine, about which there was a Chancery suit. He had done business up to within about twelve mouths of the present action with Mr. Knowles- Robert George Gregson, clerk to Messrs. Brabner and At kinson, the plaintiff's attornies, deposed to having tendered to. Mr. Thompson, the defendant's attorney £5,748 4s. Bd. on the Ist of July 35 for the shares, which was refused. John Rutter Chorley, treasurer to the G ran d J un ction Ra il ' way, deposed to the different calls being made. Cross-examined.—Calls if not paid within a reasonable tim e were liable to be forfeited. The whole price for the 75 shar es now would be £17,650 and a fraction. Mr. Richard Dawson was called to prove the value of th e shares in the market. In July 1835 they were at £l2 ss. pr e mium. At September 1835, at £3O to £3l p rem i um . On the Ist of January, 1837, they were at £B6 premium, and January, the present year, they were at £133 premium. ten._ de o di Mr. ALEXANDER then rose for th e d e f ence . H e con that the present action was brought much aga i ns t the two of the assignees. That the tender was not made of tw o years and a half after the cont rac t h a d expired when the sh ar es _ d had greatly risen. That th e bankrupt, not having holm!. his acceptances given in p a y ment f or t h e s h ares , n or 11 1 .1%13 . paid any of the calls up on t h e shares, nor claimed the fulfil ment of the contract wh en t h e t i me arr i ve d t h at t he contrac t was at an end, and that it was most urgent now, a ft er the shares had greatly risen, two years and a half after the c ontrac7. make a tender, an d en d eavour to make the de f en d an t liabie . an enormous amount for shares which he had long s ince . s ; o u• He contend e d th at another action, on s i m il ar ground, £22,000, was pending against Mr. Yates, and that if theys , ceeded, the money was to go, after paying 20s. in the poinriel the his creditors, into the bankrupt's pocket, and s that therefo V \ ~~. 1 1 .2 N