The Liverpool Standard and General Commercial Advertiser. — Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1842-04-12 00:00:00

LANCASHIRE MIMS COURT—FaiD fore M r Baron PARKE.) The COURT mor I) a 3 preve Tete it!, Pb At wilsbt have boon ex. Mr, Knowlug) wielled to . on the same pro- Mr. Duncan, who lorant of the first mortgage, assigned the attendant and though second, that mortgage was entitled to .rst, and as the property would barely cover the second ,gage, his clients, as Mr. Statham said, were entirely at out." Another charge of negligence be founded on As. Even though Mr. Duncan bad not executed the convey .ace, it was a common mode of doing business in Liverpool, to give what was equivalent to a notice of the first to the se _.gagee; so that, if the first did not get a legal es tate, he got one in equity. He would show them that -was the invariable practice of solicitors in Liverpool, and he would call before them some of the most eminent of the pro fession. In the usual course of business the purchasers and the mortgagee got the title deeds, and then there was no difficulty at all, for that made it impossible to execute a se cond mortgage. But this was often impossible, for land being sold in small parcels, only one person could retain the original title, which, in his conveyances of the parcels, he covenanted to produce, and have notices of incumbrances, if any, endorsed on the principal deed. The effect of this was, that in this case had the attorney for the second mortgage looked to Gladstone's conveyance to Lowe, and found the incumbrance endorsed, he would have known the fact; and even had defendants done nothing else, it was their duty to have made a note on the deed of Gladstone to Lowe, and thus prevented the second mortgage. Neither of these were done by the defendants. They suffered plaintiffs to lend money without a title, and they had no mode of getting the money back but through the verdict of the jury —that, then, merely hoped went and raised mone y a second mort was negligence on the part of the defendants. Could any one, looking at the circumstances, say that they were not guilty of negligence? It was of great importance, when neg ligence was clearly proved against attorneys, that juries should give ample damages. No profession was of more importance to society—none exercised a'wider influence. Every man's property was at their mercy, and on their skill and integrity every one relied. He had made no imputation on the defendants beyond that of carelessness. Messrs. Currie and Statham were doubtless highly respectable men, and he was certain that the jury would not, because they were respectable men, be less inclined to do justice to his (Mr. K.'s) clients. Mr. 'William Parr was called.—ls a proprietor in the so ciety. Mr. WORTLEY objected. Mr. KNOWLES read the act relating to building societies, making members competent witnesses in any trial relating to the " property" of the society. Mr. WORTLEY contended this did not relate to the " pro perty" of the society. It was an action arising out of a con tract and personal relation. Mr. CowLING followed on the same side. The witness was a partner, not in form but in fact, and was incompetent if this clause did not make him competent. The learned gentleman contended that the object of the clause was quite different. It did not say " every action," but it said all ac tions relating to property. If the intention had been what Mr. Knowles contended for, the language would have been quite different. The intention clearly was to apply to crimi nal proceedings and actions of tort. Mr. WATSON followed on the same side. The witness was clearly a plaintiff, and it never could be the intention of the legislature to couch so strong a provision in such ambi guous words, when the full meaning might have been so much more briefly and fully expressed. The COURT thought the form of action was quite immate rial, the real object being to recover money for the society. Mr. WORTLEY requested a note to be taken of the objec tion. Mr. Parr was president of the society in May 1839. Mr. Lowe applied for money on mortgage ; he was a member of the society ; he was an attorney, of the firm of Radcliff, Duncan, and Lowe, solicitors, of great respectability ; they were. our ordinary solicitors. [Witness produced a written application from Mr. Lowe.] There was a discussion upon it. It was agreed that Currie and Statham should be applied to. They are a well-known respectable firm, and it was agreed they should prepare the mortgage. Cross-examined by Mr. WORTLEY. — The society is carried on under rules. Every member has a copy. There are some copies in court. 1 have heard the mortgage deed was pre pared by Lowe, but I cannot say positively. I heard some thing of the sort. lam president yet. Ido not know when the second £BOO was paid. The secretary is here. Duncan and Lowe had been our solicitors from the first. The soci ety was established in 1837. Cannot say what fee was given to Messrs. Currie and Statham. Never heard it was one guinea. 'The mortgagee always pays the expenses. It would not appear in the accounts of the society. By a rule, I sup pose. _ —lt is always a rule for the mortgagee to pay expenses. Cannot say that it was usual to take mortgages by demise , that was the business of the trustees. My duty as president is to state the amount of cash received, and to sell shares. The general body does not know to whom money is lent ; only the committee, until the annual report. By Mr. CROMPTON. —I am not a conveyancer. Ido not understand legal points. 1 think I heard that Lowe pre pared the draft. Mr. Capes Ashlin (the same objection was made to this witness as the last, but was overruled) was a member and a trustee in 1839. Was present when Mr. Lowe's proposal was made, and heard the discussion. It was agreed to lend him the shares. After that met Mr. Lowe at the office of Currie and Statham. Mr. Evans, another trustee, was with me. We met by appointment with Lowe. Saw Mr. Sta tham. It was on Friday, May 24, 1839. Mr. Lowe was there. On walking into the office I said Mr. Lowe requested them to act on behalf of the society, as the mortgage was, to himself. Mr. Statham said that he was aware of it. My co-trustee inquired of Mr. S. if the deeds were all right. He said they were, and had prepared a certificate accordingly. I cannot say that the word security was used. The deed was lying on the desk, with a book of the rules of the so ciety. It was executed whilst we were there after the con versation. I handed a check for £B lO to Mr.i Lowe. Did not take away the conveyance. Mr. Statham said he should have to prepare a certificate in reference to the conveyance. I then went away. On the following day went with Mr. Evans, by appointment,-to the office. Then received the mortgage-deed and certificate, and copy of conveyance and abstract of title. Went away. Mr. Evans took the docu ments. 'Mr. Statham gave no further directions about them, nor gave any further advice. I recollect Mr. Lowe's bank. ruptcy. I think it was about May, 1841. Up to that time the interest on the mortgage had been paid. In consequence of information I and Mr. Neilson, another trustee, went to Currie-and statham's office. Found Mr. Currie there, and subsequently Mr. Statham came in. Mr. Currie is the se --tner. Mr. Neilson inquired of Mr. Currie why Lowe had placed the society amongst the list of general cre ditors ? He replied, that he had acted as solicitor on the part of Mr. Low -, and that Lowe informed him that a se cond mortgage had been effected on the same property, but he would send for Mr. Pritt, of the firm of Avison and Pritt, as they held the second mortgage, as he was anxious that an arrangement should be come to between them and us, other wise he should advise Lowe to quit the country. Mr. Pritt came. An explanation was entered into with reference to their claim having the priority to ours. He contended be had the priority to the property, and explained that they were solicitors for Hind's executors, and had taken the mort gage from Ralph Peter's executors. I said ours must have been the first, as we had made an advance during the build ing of the premises, and we held the certificate of Currie and Statham that the conveyance was good. Mr. Currie asked how was that ? He appeared angry, and asked Mr. Statham if that were so. Mr. Statham said it was, but it was a good conveyance at the time. Mr. 'Currie replied, he should not have done so without consulting him. I asked, who acted as solicitors for Ralph Peter's executors ? Mr. Statham re plied they had. Then, I said, you are actually taking a se cond mortgage on the same property for which we hold your certificate. He said, " There must be something wrong somewhere, otherwise there would be no difficulty in transac tions of this kind." When he said it was a good one of the kind, he went on to say how, in consequence of Hind's exe cutors having taken a mortgage from Peter's executors, the society was cut out. Mr. Currie said he wished an arrange ment could be come to with Avison and Pritt on the part of Hind's executors and the society, and suggested that, the society being a wealthy body, should pay off Hind's mort gages, and b possessed of the property. The amount was asked by Mr. Neilson, and the reply was somewhere about £7OOO. I said, we had no authority to make any arrange ment, but we would refer the matter to the committee. We have never been able to get any thing back. By Mr. WORTLET.—This is a wealthy society. I heard of the second advance when the buildings were completed. 1 have seen the property. It is at Seaforth, six miles out of Liverpool. There was one house, and the ground attached to one house. There were other houses, one of which he occupied. I found Lowe at Statham's, and the deed ready prepared. The certificate was ready prepared. It was not said that the certificate had been dictated by Lowe. In our society the trustees remain in office as long as the society think fit. I was removed last December. 1 was not aware they had any reason to complain of me. I was removed for the purpose of being a witness. Mr. Evans was also removed for the same reason. I did not peruse the mortgage deed. I do not know that it is different from the usual form. I am not aware that the mortgages were always taken by demise of the term, and not of freehold. Mr. Priest is secretary : he is not a lawyer. I never saw the draft of the deed : these were never sent to the society ;it is not usual to do so. On the second day we took away the deeds and the certificate. Mr. Evans took them to his office, and we afterwards depo sited them in the society's box at the bank. We were bound to deposit them by the rules of the society. I dO not know that any fee was paid by Mr. Lowe. The name of Rector Brookes is mentioned as connected with Ralph Peters's exe cutors, the person who had the second mortgage. It was proposed we should purchase up all the mortgages and get good title to the estate, as we were " cut out." The COURT.—The proper legal expression is more ex pressive than " cut uut." In the books it is called "squeesed Cross-examination resumed.—l have ascertained' since that the mortgage deed bears the signature of Radcliffe, Duncan and Lowe: By Mr. KNOWLES.—It is usual for the attorney who pre pares a deed to indorse his name upon it. It was usual for the mortgagor to send his draft to the solicitor of the society.' On this occasion Mr. Lowe sent his to Curry and Statham. John Evans was the acting trustee with Mr. Ashlin in M a y, 1838. Went with him to Curry and Statham's.— Witness confirmed the testimony of the last witness in its leading particulars.—He had inquired of Statham if all was right, if they were justified in paying the money, and being answered in the affirmative, handed over the money. Wit ness produced the different deeds and other documents, and identified them. Mr. Statham gave no further advice about anything to be done in the matter. The difference between the sum actually paid in money and £2,400 was made up in account on the shares—there might be arrears. By Mr. WORTLEY.—I am quite sure the question was put to Statham after the deed was signed. It don't recollect Mr. Ashlin putting it before. I am quite certain I asked before I paid the money over. I did not see Lowe afterwards that day. A further sum was advanced to Lowe. Do not know of any other solicitor being consulted in that transac tion. There are four trustees. I do not know the actual balance due from Lowe at his bankruptcy. I did not hear that the fee paid to Mr. Statham was one guinea. By Mr. KNOW LES .—AII was l os t. Mr. William Pritt.—ls an attorney in Liverpool. Was solicitor to Mr. Hind's executors. The security was taken was advised by counsel by Mr. Hind in his life time, and we were his attorneys. — title, as his client n He appeared with the deeds under his subpoena, but said he suggestion of o n t s t e o ry p e T w lu i c th e t n h n em tic , e an b d y e t x h p e o b s u e i l l i d i - s ing society that the hadelbene be obtained under a bill second le mortgage would be disputed, but, on the Court, that they could at any time them.—He produced an in equity,. he consented to produce a trustee for Mr. Hind assignment of an attendant term to I. ; e also the i original The amount i conveyance x7ooo, f from other mortgages on the same Gladstone to Lowe. it is property, doubtful and thatare in possession. wi 1 realise Had a conversation with s s h o t o ffi n c et in m fo for . to N C e u d r s r n i e n and and S t m at t r i . ani A : their presence. Did not pay much attention to the conversation, except as f ar as re lated to my own business. When l asserted Neil son and Ashton said they had a certificatenr priority, nla mortgage, Currie an d or St a tham, stating that the mortgage was a g some thing to that effect. Mr. Currie wa s not aware n a nd asked Mr. Statham if it were so. Mr. Stathamsai f d lie had given one, but did not recollect the terms. Did not hear any thing said who was the solicitor to the second mortgage —ours is the transfer of that mortgage. It was assigned to Hind from Brooks and Statham. The attendant terms were assigned also. I told them I had got the terms as a reason why I bad the better title. The terms are vested in Mr. Statham, as trustee for Brooks and Statham. By Mr. WoRTLEY.--"Was about six weeks after, at a A a few minutes aft r WM% ma pct.,. - -- intention to leave town in the even) would take 'all the until five o'clock in the evening , s which mi ght be I term take OF A CHARTER PARTY-BROKERS .lion broug om the del counsel fo of the sum of X 67 defendant. 3. by Mr. NOGGINS for the plaintiff ker, and the defendant a ship-' month of April, 1841, a ship Stormont, came to plaintiff then put himself alled t 1 Captain Ibchester, the owner of the person named Smith, the its principal, to take a cargo . per ton, and 20s. per ton rest on the same terms as meward voyage to be at the The captain, however, said pon * matter in the ab 1. A charter party was afterwards drawn n received, and said he would commu cipal. Soon after this a meeting of the ti terms of the charter-party discus owe said he had not made up his Tlontreal or take the voyage , afterwards understood by the plaintiff had accepted the terms of the charter ing was considered perfect, Weaver having hat was necessary on his part. The defen without making any further communication, to Belize, and on returning, the defendant ley for the cargo, but refuses to pay Weaver his comission, and the present action was ecoverv. Mr. Hoggins then called the fol- clerk to Mr. Weaver in April, communication with the captain of the Stor _g to freight his vessel at the rate of £3 17s. 6d. vered to the captain a charter-party, and saw 'ter at his house, with.-W ad bad d asked him if he had got any s owner about the charter-party ; and he said tsv him afterwards on 'Change, and some con place between the plaintiff and defendant. Russell what be thought of the Honduras he thought it the best he could ree or four days. He said that namunicate with any other party without see- Had Carmichael's authority for proposing Ind stated that the commission was five DUNDAS.—Was clerk to Mr. months, and had latterly been doing busi- Had been with a person named .n discharged. Weaver had never before .e Stormont. Applied to Capt. Ibchester, ar the first time, in March. Told the cap ye £lO for himself if he would accept the Believes Honduras to be an island in the Defendant said, if he thought of taking that Id call on Mr. Weaver. Saw Mr. Carmichael, 1 to accept the charter-party. , on the part of the defendant, contended that had not been conducted in a business-like o llt the jury would see that the verdict the defendant, as it would have the effect of adventurous spirit manifested by the plaintiff, out the whole transaction, had not acted with 1 account tie thot , • tion. WY He called several witnesses to show that the contract had not been entered into by the Ns addressed the jury on the part of the plain he principal question was whether or not Rus up his mind when on 'Change with the plaintiff. atr went carefully over the evidence, and no rly those parts of it which lye considered wor ntion of the jury. . . . les consideration, the jury returned a fendant ler case re ly, his lordship adjourned the ISI PRIUS COURT.—FRIDAY (Before Mr. Baron ROLFE.) NiTANT TO BUILDING SOCIETIES AND OTHERS V. CURRY AND ANOTHER. 's in this case were trustees for the Crown tv, in this town ; and the defendants, P. F. Statham, were solicitors. es and Mr. Crompton were counsel for the . Wortley, Mr. Cowling, and Mr. Watson were d the case. He said, it would be his a case unquestionably of considerable .. important to the gentlemen who had a coney at stake, and to the defendants, who, in, it interest in the case, were otherwise con :essarily imputed to them want of professional on, although no gentleman could impute to professional skill. The plaintiffs were the Crown Savings' Fund and Building Society, was brought by the plaintiffs, as trustees, to Lsation in damages for the loss that society had gh the negligence of the defendants in a trans h they were retained by the society. The ished under the act of parliament which s kind. Jt was a sort of savings' als who wished for a place of safe and it bad also a further object, that s of tl tubers loans of money from time to society accumulated. He was not would turn on the rules. The funds of led into shares of a certain amount, and -5e for any amount of shares, or for ares from time to time were suld ighest bidder, he paying interest . At the origin of the . member of the name of Charles Lowe (a d become familiar to the jury) in the society. anal shareholder to a considerable extent ; an An of high respectability at the time he spoke of, :ared to all the world. He was a member of the Liverpool, a firm which must be well known to he firm of Radcliffe, Duncan, and Lowe, and pro `- "-e circumstance of Mr. Lowe being firm that Messrs. Radcliffe, Duncan, and ed as attorneys for the society. In the year em Mr. Lowe embarked in some building He purchased land from Mr. Gladstone, at began to erect buildings thereon, and it was carrying that purpose into effect that he was ive a loan of money from the society. It hap time that the society had considerable funds in •old be no objection to lending a man of Mr. the only thing that was necessary be lent was that some solicitor should be if of the society, in order to look into the e, and to take any further precaution which in order to insure that the security which te the society was an ample, indefeasible se repayment of the money. Mr. Lowe offered part of the property at Seaforth, and in Radcliffe, Duncan, and Lowe were the 'Pty, it would have been their duty to do for the society in this transaction ; but was the part borrowing, it would .consistent in Mr. Lowe to have acted on both ordingly, the two defendents, Messrs. Curry and ere selected. Mr. Lowe, as was usual in these ared a draft of the mortgage, and it was laid be efendants, as the solicitors of the society. In a to mortgage deed prepared, and two of the trustees defendants' office to advance the money and to , ed of security. When the trustees got to the Lowe was there, and the deed was lying on the are the money was paid over, Mr. Ashlin (one of ) asked Mr. Satham if the deed was a good se- Statham said it was, and it would be his duty ificate to that effect. Accordingly, a check for 3nded over to Mr. Lowe, who executeed the Ited by Mr. Statham. Afterwards the as given to the trustees : " Liverpool, 24th May, 1839. ..a,—We do hereby certify that we have perused Charles Lowe to a piece of land, messuages and its, situated at Seaforth, in the county of Lan we do approve of the same ; and we have also conveyance of the said Charles Lowe to you of ssuage and premises; and that the same is a good , by way of mortgage, to you for the security of money advanced by you to him, and find that it lnformity with and contains the several covenants the rules of the society; and we further certify Lowe has discharged our claim for the perusal tle, and the conveyance of the said deed. (Signed) " CURRY and STATHAM." es took the deeds home, and further paid ano al 0, taking no trouble, relying on the skill of For some time the interest was regularly paid, Name a bankrupt, and the plaintiffs were i their claim put down not as a secured, but as . The trustees went to the solicitor who had nto advance the money. [The learned gentle epeated the narrative of the interview which will )elow in the evidence of Mr. Ashlin.] All that s could do was to go home and make inquiry, and was to find that, as Mr. Statham had so happily society was " cut out," that the money was irre 'one, or could only be recovered by the verdict of eo into the particulars on which he 3 Mr. Gladstone purchased , from the Earl of Sefton. ai ...18 his lordship's. They no title a universally well known in No attorney ever inquired 4 %irther for a safe he Tipp inn in iecnrity to the society in; to t iectablity Ir. Low( was atte tificate to of neiligenct. s was a part -Rale title _cnold interest by two attendant terms, the one rs 01,71 . the whole estate, and the other of 1,000 on hat were endeavour to explain to the jury the t r ra t _ . e r s e called " attendant terms." They were nx Et for various purposes —marriage trusts, the fee— And And it happened often that the freehold and t oo man could have two titles, the aim at once, witheo other to the leasehold interest, :ing desirous to k u e t the lesser being merged in the some other person , under up the term, would have it in fee, the term would trust, and, while owner • he inheritance. - For l t fl h. go down in parallel lines He would explain tolatcontrivance there were jury one very obvi ppose that one of th , ed l ujilYepurchased a freehold in that he found his title , d the money for it ..here was some flaw the If that title was Aendant terms, though to the fee rfect, the purchaser would stillitlehave his title a nt term, and an estate almost as good as th a t i n In every conveyance of an esta e it was the first duty of the protected by was properly conveyed. When N r r al man Glad- his estate of the Earl of Sefton, this i n trust to Mr. Ed e n. Wh en Lo: term Lowe p Gladstone. i t was conveyed to his partneri: d there could be no doubt that it was t he Currie and Statham to have that term n some one to protect theilients. They v—every attorney must know, that such a •essary ; and if not, in the conveyance to have found the term assigned. [Tbe I the deed of conveyance to Lowe, de- Mr. Duncan of all unexpired terms.] -egular assignment of the term, the made a party to the deed, and the 9netit of the society. His lord- of wortg-a'g€ mode of doing i-or even if Mr. Duncan ..;u he did nut do, there was —Aping the term over to somebody ..ey might have their remedy by tiling a id Mr. Duncan was a very unlikely person f the kind ; but, at all events, the title was tad would need the assistance of a court of and he believed the highest names in -1 their disapprobation of the substitution rust for an assignment of it. He was aat, if ,executed properly, a declaration a party fxom injury, or that he could not Jr a remedy. 13ut what was the ;.;,ct ? Mr. er executed the deed at all, and the first charge lerfect it 1 exprf e brought against defendants was, Of seeing.eWiYtLingdoniwbic,h ought fo have been they saw his clients paying away .XBOO without seeing ingdone beyond taking a conveyance fro All f.ore aintiff, and I cond more tabeting prrOrceo ore4ttor Mrs Neilson was there. _Mr; eiat - 6 - d — titat Mr tionne nail vameu itit pruprity, auu LULU, IL was suuau''.•" , pay all the mortgages. He was chairman. He mentioned the sum, and it was very considerably above the mortgages, 1 think it was above £lO,OOO. When put up for sale, there was great depression in Liverpool, and difficulty in making sales. Mr. Hohne advised the property to be kept. Mr. Gladstone!s solicitors were Messrs. Eden and Stanistreet. I do not recollect whether Mr. Eden delivered the conveyance from Gladstone to Lowe. Mr. Eden had it, and I saw it at By Mr. KNOWLES.—I was told that there was a lien upon it. 1 have heard that Holme was the builder who built the houses, and said he was a large creditor for the buildings. I have a doubt whether this Mr. Holme valued the property, or the other firm of Holmes, architects. We would wil lingly part with the property to get the money—we want nothing more. Mr. Statham is trustee of the terms taken after our mortgage. Kirkpatrick proved the attesting signature to the deed from Gladstone to Lowe. Francis Horner.—ls clerk in the office of defendant, and brother-in-law of Mr. Statham. Was attesting witness to two deeds, and proved the execution by Lowe and Duncan, by Lowe conveying the fee to Brooks and Statham (not the defendant) and by Duncan conveying the term to Statham (the defendant) as assignee in trust. Witness also proved the transfer from Brooks and Statham to Hind, with an as signment of the terms in trust to attend the freehold to Mr Pritt —, Mr. WORTLEY.—Neither the mortgage nor the draft of the conveyance to the building society was prepared in Currie and Statham's office. One guinea was all the fee they ever got. Wr. J. C. Duncan was the trustee of the term for Lowe of all the property. I had not any knowledge of the mortgage to the Crown Building Society when I executed the transfer of the term. The clerk of Messrs. Currie and Statham brought me the deed to execute. The deeds were prepared in their office. There is little, I fear, to be got out of Lowe's estate. I should be glad to get sixpence in the pound. By Mr. WORTLkY.-1 refer to the general estate. The mortgage to the building society was prepared in our office. I believe that mortgage was in the usual form, in order to save expense ; that was agreed to, and the terms were ex plained to adopt the least expensive mode. M 3 is that it was so settled with my concurrence Ipression By Mr. KNOWLES.—It was invariably the case that the party borrowing the money paid the expense. The mort gagor had the liberty to employ his own solicitor, but the mortgage must be perused and approved by the solicitor of the society. By the COURT.—IS not that general? No; it is general for the mortgagee to prepare the deed, but it is a privilege given to members. Mr. Lowe might have employed any one; but it was his duty to lay the deed before the solicitor of the society. . Samuel Rowlands.—ls a surveyor. Has valued the property at Seaforth. The entire value is £7310; that of lot 5 (the ground mortgaged to the society) is £1350. I valued it with reference to what, if sold, it ought to fetch. lam not aware that this kind of property is depressed. At sales in Liver pool, by the corporation, things have sold very well indeed. I knew nothing about the circumstances; but I was directed to value it. Mr. M. D. Lowndes, of the firm of Lowndes and Robinson; was called as to the practice of solicitors in Liverpool when the title is not given up, and said it is usual to have an en dorsement of the mortgage on the conveyance from the ori ginal grantor. I would endorse in this case a notice on the conveyance from Gladstone to Lowe. By Mr. WORTLEY.—It is not the invariable practice to do so. It depends on the consent of the party in whose hands the deed is. If Mr. Gladstone refused to allow it, Lowe's deed in that case could not be done. Mr. Ambrose Lace, of the firm of Laces, Myers, and Co., is also a solicitor in Liverpool in extensive practice, and en tirely agreed with the last witness, as to to the custom and the propriety of it. By Mr. WORTLEY.—One guinea is not more than the ordinary fee for perusing a draft. Mr. WORTLEY, on behalf of the defendants, said that, in addressing the jury on the case for their consideration, he felt greater anxiety than in any case with which be had been connected. His learned friend had not said too much when he remarked that important matters were at stake in this inquiry, for it was important to all classes of society, and es pecially so to those who are obliged to place property in the hands of others to manage for them. His learned friend had accused the parties of want of skill, which was nothing less than imputing to them that they had not done their duty ; but he was prepared to show that they were free from re proach ; and he therefore felt anxious, lest by any fault of his, he should fail to place the case for the consideration of the jury in that simple form in which it ought to be placed. The facts of the case would, however, be brought under review by his lordship. He contended that the form of the deed was that in which every deed had been executed for the benefit of the society, and that they were responsible for it. The society allowed Mr. Lowe to transact the business, and he would put it to the jury whether they were not the parties in this case who ought to bear the loss. His LORDSHIP occupied a considerable time in summing up the evidence, observing that the question before the jury was, whether the defendants were guilty of culpable negligence in the discharge of the business connected with the society : one little oversight had been the cause of the whole embar rassment. If they had obtained the execution of the deed by Duncan, all would have been right. The jury retired for about half an hour, and returned with a verdict for the plaintiffs for £1350. BALMER V. LITTLEDALE AND ANOTHER—RESPONSIBILITY OF BROKERS. Mr. HENDERSON opened the pleadings. Mr. KNOWLES addressed the jury for the plaintiff case, though brief, was important, involving a large sum of money. The action was brought against the defendants, brokers in Liverpool, for the sum of £2,000, by the plaintiff, a merchant in Liverpool. The defendants, well known to the jury, were in the way of confiding their cotton business to a confidential and highly salaried clerk, named Comer. The action arose on a contract signed by him. In October, 1838, plaintiff employed defendants to buy 300 bales of Or leans cotton. A note was read of the purchase from T. and H. Littledale and Co., per W. Corner, stating that the pur chase was made at 6d. the pound, and they thought it " would yield a fair profit in a few months." On the tenth day plain tiff paid the sum of £2,000 to defendants, by a cheque on a Liverpool bank, and a note was received, signed " T. and H. Littledale and Co., per W. Comer," saying that it was put to their credit. In December an account was rendered, and a balance struck, the cotton being sold December 27th, at a profit of a Id. a pound, and, after charges deducted, left a profit of £383 4s. 4d. This, with the £2,000, was what he claimed the verdict for. The learned gentleman then pro ceeded to argue that Corner was their recognised agent, and that no other party was known. It might be alleged that the transaction was wholly fictitious, and that the whole of the documents were a juggle of Corner's to cover some roguery of his own. This, the learned gentleman contended, could make no difference. If he did not buy, the action would lie for the difference on the count for not having bought. If he bought and did not sell, the action would be for the profit that ought to have been realised. Mr. Thomas Buddicombe Blackburn proved a number of purchases for the defendant in the course of the year 1838, under the direction of Corner. Cross-examined.—lt is well known they have a cashier, whose duties are quite distinct from those of the cotton-sales man, whose duty is not usually to render accounts current, or to receive or pay cash. Never received or paid any money with Comer. Have had very extensive transactions with him. In that house the tea and cotton departments are dis tinct. By Mr. KNOWLES.—It would strike me as a little extra ordinary if I paid money to Messrs. Littledalc and got Co mer's acknowledgment. _ Mr. Joseph Robinson, a cotton broker, also spoke to transactions with Corner. Mr. James Howell gave evidence to the same effect. It was not customary for a brlker to make his own accounts out and get the signature of leis cotton salesman. The exclu sive duty of a salesman, in a large establishment, is merely to buy and sell. Mr. Timothy Bourne, a cut ' .1-broker, had dealt with the defendants through William omer. Had generally paid to the cash-keeper. It was not at all necessary to pay the cot ton-salesman. - Mr. John Willis proved the value of Orleans cotton at the dates in question. Mr. Thomas Dodd, clerk in the Bank of Liverpool, proved the payment. Thos. Sleddale, a clerk with Messrs. Littledale, was called and asked if Comer was not in the habit of signing documents relating to the receipt of money. Witness said he had not authority to do so, beyond acknowledging the receipt of money by letter. Witness identified the signature of Corner to two documents produced, and said that Corner accasionally signed such documents as those with the knowledge of his employers. It was not the regular course of his duty. Wit ness was in the cash office. All the purchases of cotton passed under his view, and, so far as he was aware, no such purchase had been made as that of the 300 bales of Orleans cotton. Never knew Comer give a receipt for the money with the knowledge of his employers. Witness first said that none ever signed accounts current but the parties in the firm, but on being shown an account current he admitted it was signed by himself. Witness being pressed said, though he did not recollect the transaction of the 300 bales he would refer to the book, and was sent back to do so. John Smith, also a clerk in the defendant's employ. Was two years in Comer's office. Never recollects writing any letters which he signed. Have seen a young man named Goodwin, in the cotton department, do so. Comer was in the habit of signing the account sales. This is my writing, signed by Corner in the usual way. Those (referring to the bills of sale given to Smith) are in Goodwin's writing, signed by Corner. It was not usual to put receipts for money to them. Mr. Corner and the plaintff were friends. Corner acknowledged sometimes receipts of money ; thinks it must be with the knowledge of his masters. _ Goodwin, a clerk with defendants, proved the hand writing of the letters signed by Comer and written by himself. Comer was sometimes in the way of signing such letters. Does not remember Mr. Tiltson paying £l2OO that day. I suppose Corner directed me to write it. Once in three months, perhaps, I wrote such a letter. The witness Sleddale being recalled, said he saw the trans actions relative to the cotton in the books, but as he could not, with his memory refreshed, swear that he recollected them specifically, Mr. Wortley contended that this was no evidence, without putting the whole books in evidence. Wit ness said this was only a copy from the cash book. Does ' not recollect receiving £l2OO from Mr. Tiltson. Plaintiff and Comer was very intimate. He never asked for the principals. He once called and asked for Corner, and finding him not at home, went away. Mr. KNOWLES inquired of Sleddale, as he had of other of the clerks, whether he " believed " that the correspondence between Corner and the plaintiff had been acted on, or re cognised by the firm, but the question was objected to by Mr. Wortley, and overruled by the court. The COURT then ruled that the bills - of account sent in by Corner for his principals were proved to be sent in by him in the ordinary course of business, and were evidence. Letters were also put in to show it was customary in the office for Corner, when he wrote to customers, to acknow ledge the receipt of any sums remitted. The letters were ad dressed to Mr. Tilston, of Chester, acknowledging two sums of X3OO and £llOO. After a very long argument, the COURT ruled ruled that the plaintiffs had failed to show that Com a e un ri hol v: nri r st i t t n in r g sosm a , bout mo neyal hisd that there w w as as do n r n ie ev in ide t n he ee o n rd f i h n i a s ry h c a o v i i i n rr box, and ex amined em ployers‘vi William a t l o n give c e nn a e n r acknowledgement l n e d p g n e t m intoent for ile money.w itness y by Mr. KNOWLES.—Was formerly in the employ ment of Messrs. Littledale. Was in a confidential situation. [Letter handed up to him.] Recollects writ m in e gt falls ha due in that Balmer. I received a verbal order fro m himt obu m y e e n ot d t r o i a : or tea, or any thing I thou g ht fit, and b ought him 300 bales of s coonttothne. 6t l n n o c f o N tto o n ve s m al b e e s r , theptaiyff paidnt to for £2OOO. It was given me in a small office below Messrs. Littledale's. I received the money.—lt was paid on account of the cotton ? I paid it for tea.—Yes, you did ; but was it not paid for the cotton? It was paid for both tea and cotton a general speculation. I gave him this note for it. 1 gave the money to Messrs. Littledale's cashier; I think to Mr. rh nl a s s treet. The account I sent was a true one. I met Mr. Balmer coming in at the foot of the stairs. By Mr. WORTLFY —I had a general permission from him S t ol o t tu a s a h n s d re C , om an e d r. jointbe speculate eanc co w u h n e tn accountedte o j ve t h . r e I fort ea ha in thou ua the hh h ei t e general e, could ner do so to advantage. I joined him in the tea s ulations, and paid in the £2OOO to pec . . speculation onnot to the cotton cashier. al account of Balmer i ff ehl 2W ha 2 d .l: I received £BB7 from the tea speculation as my the wnthi tea paid the . hatu a_ c s 2 t o h o o e 1 . • e s u I l received e c o e f i the v ed n 6 otbe 6uhi Oil tictount of the 300 bales ; but I received the ent. The ) the cotton isi 1 prorni market rose on me, and I was disappointed in the price. This is a mere pro forma account, to show what the profit would have been if the transaction had been effected. By Mr. KNOWLES.—Those (the papers being handed up) are the accounts of the tea speculations. They are merely the account of the profit.—Show me where the £2,000 paid by Mr. Balmer is credited. It does not appear in the settle ment there. If it had been a true transaction I had authority to t. an account as this cotton account. I had no cnaer suu.... -- authority to receive cash. When I did receive money I bad no authority to give receipts. I should have paid it to the cash-keeper.—His object was to conceal from Balmer that he had not made the purchase of cotton and to pay him what was due to him. If the £2,000 were paid on account of tea transactions, why was it not in them? It is in the account rendered by Mr. Balmer to the house. By Mr. WORTLEY.—His share of £1,300 is in the account. By Mr. KNOWLES.—I received from Mr. Balmer £1,300 on account of the adventure. That was in August, 1838. On August 16, I wrote to say his share would be £1,300. On August 28, I received from him the £1,300. He has credit for it in my private account, hut not with Messrs. Littledale. The house knew nothing of the transaction. They never knew Mr. Balmer from beginning to end. The £1,300 I paid to his account with me, the £2,000 to Messrs. Littledale to our joint account, who account for it in that account. We had very considerable transactions. We bought afterwards £6,000 worth of tea, which Mr. Balmer never paid for, but it was sold and realised. Mr. WORTHING contended that this evidence nonsuited the plaintiff. There was no evidence on the special counts relating to buying and selling, and the last witness proved that the transaction was an entire fiction: The count for the £2,000 alleged to have been paid in on account of the cotton, is disposed by Comer ' s admission that he was Balmer's agent, not Littledale s, and paid the £2,000 in joint account. After several efforts to finish the case, his lordship, being unwilling to nonsuit Mr. Knowles, without fully hearing him on all the points, adjourned the case. SATURDAY BALMER V. LITTLEDALE This case was resumed this morning, at nine o'clock, when Mr. Baron ROLFE intim ated, th at th evidence on the part of the plaintiff was extremely slight, but he should not take upon himself the responsibility of stooping the case. He would leave it to the 'determination of the jury. Mr. KNOWLES recalled Mr. Corner, to explain some mat ters in his evidence yesterday ; but, after some discussion, the learned Judge said he could not receive additional evi dence. Mr. Woumuy then proceeded to address the jury on the part of the delendants. He should not attempt to go through the details of the ease, and he had only risen to lay before them the grounds upon which Messrs. Littledale resisted this action. If Mess. Littledale thought they were at all to blame in the transaction„they would rather have sacrificed a thousand pounds than heite put any party who dealt with them to the trouble and expense of litigation. They resisted this demand, because the plaintiff, whatever loss he had sus tained, had brought it upon himself by the manner in which he had chosen to carry on his dealings. He had not dealt with Messrs. Littledale upon the same terms as other mer chants dealt with them; and now he wanted to recover da mages for the consequences of his own fault. • Everybody who knew Messrs. Littledale knew that their business was conducted with extreme regularity, precision, and propriety. Whether Mr. Balmer was a regular merchant at Runcorn or not, or whether he was a private gentleman making occasional speculations for his own benefit, he did not know ; but he ought to have understood, that if he dealt with Messrs. Lit tledale, he must deal with them upon precisely the same terms as other merchants. Instead of that, it appeared, from first to last, he had never dealt with Messrs. Littledale: he had made the person who was employed by Messrs. Little dale his own agent and partner in all his transactions. Mr. Corner, therefore, was the person he dealt with, and not Messrs. Littledale. Under these circumstances, he con tended that the plaintiff had not, as the learned Judge had intimated, established his case. Mr. Baron ROLFE then summed up the case, and the jury retired to consider their verdict. After an absence of some time, they returned into court with a verdict for the plaintiff, damages £383. SLANDER AGAINST A CLERGYMAN OF THE CHURCH Oh ENGLAND.-PALEY, CLERK, V. FARRIMOND. This was an action brought by the Rev. Joshua Paley, in cumbent of Pemberton, near Wigan, to recover compensa tion in damages for certain slanderous expressions uttered by the defendant, William Farrimond, a farmer, residing in the same township. The following gentlemen were sworn a Spe cial Jury to try the case :- Mr. Hugh Hornby, Mr. Thomas Fannin, Mr Charles Alexander, Mr. Thomas Barber, Mr. Wm. Chas. Fosberry, Mr. Isaiah Ashlin, Mr. Mayer Frank, I Mr. C. S. Middleton, Mr. John Bentle, Mr. James Hargreave, Mr. Henry Wilson, Mr. George Grace. Mr. Dundas, Mr. Cowling, and Mr. Ramshay appeared for the plaintiff; Mi. Wortley and Mr. Watson for the de fendant. Mr. RAMSHAY stated the nature of the declaration. It contained three counts, alleging various slanderous imputa tions upon the plaintiff. The defendant pleaded, first, not guilty, and, second, by a justification. Mr. DUN.DAS then proceeded to state the case, observing to the Jury, that they had heard from his learned friend the nature of the inquiry they were about to be engaged in. It was one of the most solemn and anxious investigations that could occupy the attention of a court of justice. Before he detailed the circumstances of the case, he must confess, that, often as he had been engaged for clients where life had been intrusted to him to defend, or liberty to maintain, or the rights of property to assert for his fellow-countrymen, he never, in the course of his life, felt upon him the responsibi lity which now rested upon him in doing his duty to his client; for there was something dearer than liberty, there was something that he valued higher than property, nay, there was somethingin issue to-day which was dearer to him than life itself, because the charge made upon his client was of a nature so revolting to every feeling which God had im planted in our bosoms, so hateful to every thing decent and honourable, and of good report in Christian society, that, un less he could, by the verdict of the Jury to-day, clear his character from this false and malicious slander, a wanderer upon the face of the ea rth must he be from this day forth. His family, his friends, the sacred calling in which he had hitherto been occupied must all be flung to the winds, and he must go far beyond the ye of all people. It was, therefore, God knew, that be (Mr e . Dundas) felt the re sponsibility that lay upon him. After some further general observations, the learned counsel stated, that the crime of which the plaintiff was accused, namely, sodomy, was, from the very nature of it, calculated to subdue the most firm ; the most virtuous could scarely stand up against it, such was the nature of its poison, such the nature of the wound it was cal culated to inflict. If he satisfied the jury, to whom he ap pealed, that his client was entirely innocent of such imputa tion, that it was made upon him by a false and calumnious tongue, there could be no damages he was not entitled to re cover. The plaintiff was the Rev. Joshua Paley, ,incumbent of Pemberton, in the neighbourhood of Wigan. He was a gentleman about thirty-six years of age ; a man of education ; who, after leaving Cambridge, entered into holy orders, and since 1832, had resided with his cureat Pemberton ; and if his instructions were right, he was one of the most painstaking and worthy ministers of the church in whose service he was engaged. It was a district about three miles long by as many miles broad. It contained a population of between 5000 and 6000 persons, consisting, principally, of weavers and colli ers ; and the plaintiff, from his earliest connexion with that people, had devoted himself to them in a way, as far as lay in his power, which all of us must applaud. He had, by edu cating the poor, through the day schools and Sunday schools, through lectures in the week, through regular services in the church, (where none had been before) done his best, and done it most successfully, to improve the condition of the people there, and to place them in greater light in the land wherein they lived. He lived there in great harmony among his people. Some time ago from over-exertion in his duty as pastor, he fell into ill health, and was obliged to go abroad, and in some part of 1841 he was absent from Pemberton. The defendant, Mr. Farrimond, was a proprietor in that part of the country : and he (the learned counsel) knew not whe ther, in the course of the case, it would transpire why he pursued such studied revenge against Mr. Paley. He could not tel why the defendant, time after time, seemed to have felt it a sort of duty to hang on his ciient's skirts and stab him in his reputation in the manner that he had ; but the jury would find, that, on the 25th May, last year, when Mr. Paley was not at home, there was a town's meeting at Pem berton. It was attended by a considerable number of per sons, the defendant among the rest. Thera was there a gen tleman named Stephen, one of the churchwardens; and, when the people were all there, Farrimond, addressing Ste phen and some persons within his hearing, uttered this slan der, and the jury would judge whether it had not a tendency to destroy a clergyman's reputation :—" Mr. Paley ! he ought to be brought up, for there is no keeping him" * * an insinuation perfectly intelligible to every man who heard it, implying that Mr. Paley was addicted to some unnatural propensity, or to some indecent and disgusting passion, Mr. Stephen, when he heard it, said, " If you have anything to say against Mr. Paley, speak out, and I will speak to Mr. Paley about it." The defendant said no more : having ut tered this peison he left it to circulate. In the month of July this same Mr. Farrimond was at Wigan, in a public house called the Dog and Partridge, at which was Mr. Mars den, the sidesman, or some other ecclesiastical officer of Pem berton, with several other persons. Some question arose as to who Ms. Marsden was, and some one said lie was one of Mr. Paley's churchwardens : upon that Farrimond did not miss that opportunity of smiting the clergyman, for he said, addressing Mr. Marsden, " Thou art no great things, or else thou would not be churchwarden for such a devil as him :'.' * * * 1 told Mr. Stephen, at_ a town's meeting, about Mr. Paley carrying on so, and Mr. Stephen promised to have him up." The filth and abomina tions of such a man no man could doubt, nor the imputation it was meant to convey. Here were words spoken, to per sons who knew the plaintiff, of the plaintiff, the revolting and disgusting nature'of whiel he was not going to enlarge upon. It was quite enough for him, if, in the course of his painful duty, he had to mention them. He laid them before the jury, and lie left them to judge what, when they were communicated to Mr. Paley, his feelings must have been. He left them to judge, if these words were proved to have been uttered by Mr. Ferrimond, and they were as false as he was sure the jury would believe them to be, when they had heard the case out, what a calumny that was ; what measure of damages the defendant ought to pay ; to say whether they should not inflict, with a ready hand, such measure of damages as, iu their judgment and conscience, Mr. Ferrimond ought to pay. But what sort of a man is Mr. Ferrimond? What sort of a man must he be, if he really believes this to be true? What would the jury think of Mr. Farrimond, a man witha family of grown up children, permitting some of his growing up family to attend Mr. Paley's lectures, as if Mr. Paley was not the man he made him to be, and as if lie was still so good a man that his children must attend upon him for instruction? Having circulated this poison of Mr. Paley ; having done him this wrong and cruel injustice, he still allowed his family to go in the face of the public, as if Mr. Paley was as good a man as ever, and as if it was proper for them to attend his lectures. The plaintiff felt himself called upon to try this question with Mr. Farrimond : he said, " I will bring my action against you, and leave you to justify your words, if you dare." He brought his action, and Mr. Farrimond justified his words. His client, strong in the integrity of his innocence, cared not for such justification ; but Mr. Farrimond still said, " You are guilty of these indecent practices ; there are eight per sons whose names are upon the record upon whom you have taken some liberty, or made some attack or other, and I shall prove it." Said his client , "D o what y ou ca n ; any man in England may be subject to this charge ; the best, the most honourable, the most innocent man among us may be thus tried." And so said he. (the learned counsel,) and. God help him unless he were innocent. The defendant then put upon the record, " You have been guilty of some dis. gusting and loathsome practices with the eight persons whose names I give ;" but he did not stop there, for he went on to say, " Not only have you been guilty of them with these eight persons, but I will show that you were guilty of them with divers other persons." The plaintiff was determined to know the meaning of this al legation, that other persons beside the eight could prove he had committed some .indecent and disgusting practice upon them; and he did what an innocent man ought to do. He went before Lord Denman, and applied for a summons to that learned and noble person to know who were those.divers other persons whom Mr. Farrimond chose to charge him with some indecency or other. He said, " Tell me what their names are, that I may know who they are, and that if they come into court I may confront them and establish my innocence." Lord lienman felt that he had no power to grant any such order • so that to this day the plaintiff did not know what Mr . F arrimond : moot by saying elle were other ould prove this dant was not at libert . , ersorie • Wades t hose he tied named barge. He submitted that the defen- ,rove anythi by- those witr justification set up were craved by credible witnt.. nis client must suffer; but let him see those men, and knos who they were. This, however, was the issue the jury would have to try. That the words spoken were spoken in the sense that he (the learned counsel) imputed to them, no man could doubt ; nay, the defendant himself had admitted that, by putting his justification upon the record. Upon the verdict of the jury, therefore, bung all that Mr. Paley cared for in this world. If they were constrained by the force of truth to say, that the justification was made out, he knew they would have done their duty by their conscience and their oath ; but he knew, too, if that were not made out beyond the question of the shadow of a doubt, why then he would ask them to do their duty by their countryman who appealed to them on be half of his character, and give him that sort of compensation which might not only stop the mouth of Mr. Farrimond, but redeem, as far as a verdict at their hands could redeem it, Mr. Paley's character, and restore him to that place among his friends, among his family, and his sacred calling, which he held before, and give him peace of mind and respectability among his people. Mr. John Stephens, one of the churchwardens of the plaintiff's church, at Pemberton, was the first witness. He narrated the words uttered by the defendant at the public meeting ; and he described the improved morals of the popu lation of the district, in consequence of Mr. Paley's exer tions. In his cross-examination he admitted, that in-conse quence of certain rumours affecting his character, he had forbidden Mr. Paley to enter his house ; but that he after wards satisfied himself, by private inquiry, that these rumours were false. James Marsden described the expressions used by the de fendant at the Dog and Partridge, in Wigan. The Rev. Henry Gunning, rector of Wigan, spoke to the gentlemanly conduct.of the plaintiff, whom he described as a man of uncommon assiduity in his sacred calling. A number of other witnesses were then called, some of whom had been pupils in the plaintiff's schools, and all of whom stated, that he moved in the most respectable circles, and that they had never seen him behave otherwise than in the most becoming manner. Mr. WORTLEY then addressed the jury for the defendant, telling them that if they should not be able to believe the testimony which he adduced, they would have the agreeable duty of returning a verdict for the plaintiff, but in any event that this was not a case that called for heavy damages. A great number of witnesses, and among them two females, were then examined, but their evidence is totally unfit for publication. Their general testimony went to the effect that the defendant had taken most gross liberties with them. The dates of the alleged crimes ranged between four and six years. One witness, named Bagster, it appeared, had been at Mr. Stevenson's office, where he signed a paper, apologi sing to the plaintiff for having, in Mr. Leigh's office, charged him with this offence. Two witnesses were called by Mr. Dundas to contradict this witness, in consequence of which Mr. WORTLEY obtained the right to reply on the evidence. In doing so he protested energetically against the tampering which had taken place with the witnesses by the plaintiffs friends, and said, if this instance were permitted to pass by without reprehension, it would furnish a precedent most dangerous to the administration of justice. Mr. DUNDAS rose to reply, which he did at great length and with uncommon animation. He had read and felt, upon many an occasion, that the darkest hour was next to the dawn ; and he had been looking forward, as those witnesses of darkness assailed his client, for that hour which now he thanked God, had arrived, when again, for his client, he might address his countrymen the jury. If this case had been taken on the other side of the court, no jury in the world could convict the plaintiff on the testimony brought forward to-day. It was impossible to believe, that several offences had been committed, seeing that some were- stated to have taken place five, six, seven, and eight years ago. The charges, too, were made by parties who were unknown, against one who was perfectly well known, and who had borne an irreproachable character as a minister of the Gos pel ; and there was a manifest want of corroboration to all of them. The learned JUDGE summed up. He confessed it appeared most exraordinary to him, that this felonious offence should have gone on for four, five, six, or even seven years, as a system, without a single witness being called on whom it had been perpetrated without his knocking the offender down. The only question for the jury, however, was, whether the defendant had established his plea of justification to their satisfaction. The jury retired at a quarter to eight o'clock to consider thei? verdict. They returned a few minutes before nine, and found for the plaintiff. Damages, £5O. The court adjourned at nine o'clock. YESTERDAY CLAIM AGAINST THE TRUSTEES OF A COAL MINING COMPANY. GIBSON V. FRITH AND ANOTWEII —.— This case was tried before a special jury. The action was brought to recover compensation in damages for the non•fulfilment of an agreement entered into between the plaintiff and the defendants. The declaration contained five counts, varying the allegations. Mr. DuNDAs, Mr. KNrowcxs, and Mr. FROST appeared for the plaintiff; and Mr. WORTLEY, and Mr. WATSON, for the defendants. Mr. FROST having opened the case, Mr. DUNDAS stated the par ticulars. The plaintiff, Mr. Thomas Cummings Gibson. was for merly a merchant and shipping broker in Newcastle. and in a large way of business, which he relinquished on entering to an agree ment with the defendants ; and he brought the action for a breach of that agreement, which appointed him as " fitter" to the Northern Coal Mining Company, of which the defendants, George Frith and Hunter Gordon, of London, were trustees. The office of " fitter" was one of great trust and considerable emolument, and the plaintiff, was engaged by the defendants to undertake it in 1839 for a term of 14 years ; he receiving certain commissions for his services. He was, however, discharged unjustifiably (as it was alledged) about the end of the third year, and the damages sought were for compensation for his being so discharged before the ex piry of the agreement. As fitter he had to take all the coals pro duced from the mines of the company, to find ships to convey them, and to keep up several officeg, with clerks, &c. for the disposal of them, in consideration of which he was to receive so much per chaldron. During the time he was in the service of the company the transactions between them and himself amounted to from £•280,000 to £300,080. His commissions, in some instances, were to be 2i per cent, and on coals that were shipped for abroad 5 per cent, or Is per chaldron. The defendants in reply put in the several pleas that the plaintiff was never duly appointed ; that he had been paid ; that they had not discharged him ; that he had mismanaged the company's affairs ; and that he acted wrongly in giving bills which he had no right to do. Several admissions were made on both sides of documentry evidence, and a copy of the deed or agreement appointing Mr. Gibson was also admitted att,l read. —...—.. Evidence was then given of the nature of the plaintiffs duties, and the extent of business transacted by the company. Mr. Wo RT LEV said in behalf of the defendants, that the plaintiff was a holder of 400 shares in the company, and the action was therefore brought by one portion against the co-partners. Mr. DUNDAS contended on the contrary, that the plaintiff sued the defendants in their individual character as trustees; and that the funds taken out of their pockets, would not be divided from any partnership fund, and would go clearly into the pocket of the plaintiff. He quoted aas e decided by Chief Justice Tindall, which he considered analogous. - Some further arguments were on this point, and the plaintiffs counsel admitted that he was a shareholder. The learned .Ivnom stated that if that were admitted, he thought the action could not be maintained ; and advised a settlement out of court. finally the plaintiff was declared, with usual form, to be nonsuited There are three or four other cases yet to be tried, which it is expected will be disposed of by 12 o'clock this day. THE THEATRE - ROYAL AGAINST THE " ROYAL " LIVER THEATRE. KIRKDALE PETTY SESSIONS-APRIL BTH (Before Sir THOS. BRANCKER, and W. RATHBONE, PETER BOURNE, TURNER, J. B. YATES, and T. RODICK, Esqrs.) THE QUEEN versus RAYMOND This case, which has excited considerable attention in the theatrical world, was heard on Friday at Kirkdale Sessions house. There were many gentlemen connected with the dramatic profession present. Amongst them we noticed Messrs. Clarke, Hammond, Baker, Aldridge, sen., Ray mond, Lloyds, Lee, Aldridge, jun., Egerton, Barton, Pelham, Slaiter, Eaton, Jonas, Beuwell, &c. Dr. BROWN and Mr. JAMES appeared in support of the information ; attorney, Mr. Lloyd, of the firm of Foster and Lloyd. Mr. HENDERSON and Mr. WARREN for Mr. Ray mond ; attorney, Mr. James Norris. Mr. MYERS read the information, which, after the formal part. proceeded as follows :—" That, within six calendar months now last past, (that is to say) on the fourteenth day of March, in the year of our Lord one thousand eight hun dred and forty-two, at the parish of Liverpool aforesaid, the defendant, in a certain place there, to wit a certain place in the parish and county aforesaid, then and still called and known by the name of the Liver Theatre, otherwise the Royal Liver Theatre, without lawful authority by virtue of letters patent from her present Majesty, or any of her Ma jesty's predecessors, and without license from the present or any other Lord Chamberlain of her Majesty's Household, and without any license from the Justices of the Peace in General Quarter Sessions assembled, and having jurisdiction in, or over, or at the said place called and known by the name of the Liver Theatre, otherwise the Royal Liver Thea tre, did cause to be acted, represented, and performed for gain and reward, a certain part of, and in a certain entertain ment of the stage called the " Maid of Croissey, contrary to the statute in such case made and provided, whereby and by force of the statute in such case made and provided the said defendant has forfeited for his said offence the sum of Fifty Pounds of lawful money of Great Britain, to be distributed as the law directs." _ (Signed,) ROBERT SANDFORD ROBINSON. The informations against Mr. Strickland, Mr. Webster, and Madame Celeste were similar. Dr. BROWN said he had the honour to appear, with his learned friend Mr. James, on behalf of the lessees of the Theatre-royal, in support of the information against Mr. Raymond. Mr. Anderson and Mr. Hammond were those lesses ; and he appeared for them in support of a right given to them by law,—a right valuable to them for the protection of their own property in a theatre for which they paid a very large rent, under the authority of certain acts of parlia ment which the legislature had thought proper to pass with reference to the direction and management of theatrical exhibitions. With the policy of those acts neither he nor the court had anything whatever to do ; and he apprehended that his learned friends would not attempt to raise a question of that kind. The learned counsel then proceeded to state that the information was founded on the 10th George 11, ch. 28, sec. 2, which provided that no person should perform or cause to be performed theatrical exhibitions without the license of the lord chamberlain or the license of the justices of the peace in quarter sessions; and that every such person so performing or causing to he performed in such unlicensed theatre should for every such offence forfeit and pay the sum of £5O. This had been supported by subsequent decisions, which he quoted. Messrs. Anderson and Ham m o n d h a d refrained from asserting their tights till they were in danger of losing them altogeth7 unless they did so; and they now only took these proceedings to vindicate them. The learned counsel concluded by some general remarks on the case, after which he proceeded to call the first witness, who was JOHN FRANCIS ROGERSON, who said he was an actor and prompter, and had been in Mr. Raymond's employ. He was not now, but was so employed on the 19th of March. Was an actor as well as prompter. Knows the place called the Liver—was prompter there. Went there on the 26th December. Was engaged by Mr. Raymond. Remained in Mr. Raymond's employ till 19th March. Mr. Raymond engaged with witness's wife. It was a double engagement. Mr. Raymond paid him. Believes Mr. Raymond is the manager of the theatre. Has always received his directions from Mr. Ray mond himself. Has always received his money from Mr. Raymond. Does not know who pays the other performers. Has generally received his orders from Mr. Raymond. Has sometimes received directions from the stage-manager. Mr. HENDERSON objected to a question put by Mr. James, to show Mr. Raymond's general mangement of the theatre. The objection was that the questions should have reference to the act committed on tne specific day laid in the information. After some argument, the court overruled the objection. and the evidence proceeded :—He had received general direc tions from Mr. Raymond, and had heard him give directions to the stage manager. Witness used some times to give a book ourto the performers, by directions of Mr. Raymond, from which they themselves wrote their respective parts. Mr. Raymond generally corrected the bills of the per formances in one or two instances witness had done so himself by Mr. Raymond's directions. Mr. Raymond was in the habit of correcting the bill from the 26th December to the 19th March. Witness always received his salary for acting as prompter from Mr. Raymond. Witness was pre sent at a rehearsal of the "Maid of Croissey," previously and preparatory to its performance ; this was on the 12th March, Saturday. Does not recollect whether Mr. Raymond was present at that rehearsal. None of the London performers, Mr., Webster, Mr. Strickland, or Madame Celeste, were • present at the' first rehearsal. A idiearsal was appointed for Monday, the 14th of March, by witness's direction, Witness put up " a call" for a rehearsal on that day, at ten o'clock, and he was in the theatre at that time. Mr. Raymond was there between ten and eleven o'clock. Does not think that the London per formers were there at the time, and there was a delay in bringing on the rehearsal, in consequence, as witness be lieved, of some notices to the London performers. Remem bered the London actors coming into the theatre that morn ing. Saw Mr. Raymond, whilst they were there, with them before the rehearsal took place. Mr. Raymond has a private room in the theatre, into which he and the three London actors retired before the rehearsal. They remained there a quarter of an hour. The rehearsal took place, and Mr. Raymond was occasionally on the stage during the re hearsal. The " Maid of Croissey" was rehearsed. It is a drama or entertainment of the stage—such as is usually exhibited at licensed theatres. The " Maid ot" Croissey" was performed at night, and the London actors took part in that performance. Mr. Raymond was on the stage that night ; and he believed he appeared before the curtain to the audience as the manager of the theatre, but could not say positively unless he saw a bill, which appeared on the following morning, Tuesday. The witness was cross-examined at considerable length by Mr. HENDERSON, but without his testimony being affected. Re-examined.—When there was no treasurer, the manager generally paid the performers himself. Witness was engaged and paid by Mr. Raymond. Mr.Raymond,l,vhen he appeared before the audience, read something from a paper, the whole or part of which appeared in print the next morning. The bill was here produced, and the witness said be could now undertake to say, it was on the night of the 14th of March Mr. Raynard appeared on the stage. The bill contained a portion of what Mr. Raynard read : , This bill was then put in and read, but we do not repeat it here, as it has already appeared in the STANDARD. Mr. Raymond gave directions to the stage manager. Peter Godfrey Lloyds, prompter at the Theatre Royal, proved the performance of the " Maid of Croissey," at the " Royal Liver Theatre, on the evening of the 14th of March. Witness went into the gallery, and paid sixpence for his ad mission. Mademoiselle Celeste, Mr. Webster and Mr. Strickland performed in the drama. Cross-examined.—The " Maid of Croissey" is not a five act play ; it is a two act drama. John Connor, a printer at the Mail office, was called, but objected to by Mr. Henderson. As it appeared that he was a rate-payer, and that the act of parliament says that no rate payer should give evidence in such a case where the penalty exceeded £2O; his evidence was rejected. _ _ Mr. Thomas Carter said he was 'a proprietor in the Liver pool Mail Company; but it appearing that the same objec tion applied to him as to the last witness, his testimony was rejected. Thomas Carter, bill deliverer to the Liver Theatre, said he was employed and paid by Mr. Raymond. Philip Frederick Garnett, a clerk to Mr. Lloyd, was next called, and he proved the performance of the " Maid of Croissey," on the evening of the 14th of March. This wit ness proved the service of the notice of the intention to com mence these proceedings on Mr. Raymond, if the perform ances were continued. John Fogg, box-keeper at the Liver, was called ; but being a ratepayer his evidence was rejected on the same ground as Mr. Connor and Mr. Carter. John Reynolds and Mrs. Whiteman were rejected on the like grounds. Mr. WARREN. — (Laughter.) Henry Stewart, an artist, said he was in the pit of the Liver on the night in question. The " Maid of Croissey" was performed, and he was very much delighted. Mr. Ray mond came forward on the stage, and read a paper to the auditory. Dr. BROWN said this was the case. Mr. HENDERSON said he had two objections to take, which he apprehended would be fatal; but he would con dense them into one. He submitted that, in a case like this, where the information alleged that this play had been acted without the authority of letters patent, the onus of proving that allegation lay not upon the defendant, but upon the person who preferred the charge. The learned counsel con tended at some length that the current of legal authority was in favour of his objections. Mr. W ARREN followed upon the same side, and quoted several cases. " They come like shadows, so depart." Dr. BROWNE and Mr. JAMES replied, and after a few minutes' consideration, the bench overruled the objection. Mr. HENDERSON then addressed the court on the general question, and contended the case had not been established, and that these proceedings had been instituted for the pur pose of crushing a rival establishm'ent. The magistrates retired to consider their decision ; and after an absence of ten minutes they returned into court, and fined Mr. Raymond £5O. The other parties, by agreement are to pay £25 to the charities. &Dtpptlict iiitteltiqearr. FRIDAY., APRIL S.—Wind S ARRIVED.—BengaI, Gorham, from New Orleans—Winsor, from Ceara—and Eve, Airth, from Monte Video. Sat LED.—Ursula, Martin, for Calcutta—Brunette, Thompson, and Benjamin Hart, Douglas, for Montreal—Dit on, Ballaine, for Bay Chaleur—Confederacion, Oyangeiren, for Valparaiso—Sharon, Purinton : Rochester, Woodhouse ; and England, Bartlett, for New York—Leveret, Brown, and Samuel, Press, for Rotterdam—Leader, Phillips, for Messina—Ann, Neile, and Sirocco, for Stettin—Rusco Castle, Symons, for Constantinople—Paragon, Wilkinson, for Windau—Leipsig, Ritchie, for St. Petersburgh. Minstrel, from Glasson Dock at this port, to take passengers to Quebec It blew a hurricane at Algiers and other places along the coast of Africa 23d ult., and it is reported that 14 vessels went on shore at Oran, 16 at Arzew, and 2 at Algiers Essex, Rice, hence at St. Michael Lady Bassett, Carthew, hence at Genoa Kate & Jane, Broom, hence at Harlingen Cigar, Harvey, trom Pernambuco, at the Texel Australian, —, from New South Wales, off St. David's Head Joseph Albina, for Malta, off Cape Trafalgar WELLS, March 6.—The Severn and Sovereign, steamer, from Liverpool, was on shore on the Woolpack Sands, yesterday, but got off the following tide and proceeded SATURDAY, APRIL 9.—Wind South, light SArtim.—Querida, Jimeney, for Manilla—Airey, Nicholson ; Mary Muir, Payne; James Reddin, Beck, and Thoburn, Watson, for Montreal—Pero, Coleuso, for Newfoundland—Lady Constable. Lawson, for Richibncto—Glenlyon, Muirhead, for Quebec—Lena. Ford, for Halifnx—Kate, James, for Ostend—Laurel, M`Bricle, for New York—Blackaller, Watson,for Jamaica—H. Sophia, Erflund, for Liebau—Medora, Turner, for Charleston—Active, Leslie, for Sidney, C.B.—Mary Ann, Dring, and Superior, Loutitt, for St. Petersburg—Plumstead, Symonds, for Constantinople—and Black eyed-Susan, Roose, for Ancona. • Lady Raffles, Osborne, from Auckland, (New Zealand) at Sydney 24th November Spencer, Birkett. hence at Batavia Watkins, Whiteside, from the Mauritius, at Scilly Horsford, Byers, sailed from Buenos Ayres for Cork sth Jan. SUNDAY, APRIL 10.—Wind W. light SAILED.—Vine, Brown, for Dordt—Apparition, Hulson, and Elizabeth, Robinson, for Lazuira—Peter Senn. Tod, for Leghorn— Venns, Macdonald, for Lima—Splendid, Crocker; Science, Adams, and Themis, Brown, for New York—Winifred, Hardy, for Calcutta —Hand of Providence, Brown, for Odessa—Alpha, Scorra, for Montreal—Conquest, Hawkins, and Beccles ' Brown, for Smyrna — James, Ramsey, for Berbice—Fame, Banks, for Narva—John, Heselton, for Quebec—Gem, Menzies, for Riga—Sophia, Haaglund, and Norden, Simulin, for Trieste—and Borussia, Hamann, for Swinemunde. City of Derry, Roberts, from Canton, at London Actaeon, Payne, sailed from the Downs for London Bth instant MONDAY, Arai', 11.—Wind S.E. ARRIVED.—Rapid, Brown, and Active, Morgan, from Swansea — and Friends, Jones, from Cardiff. Off the Port.—James Gibson, Stewart, from Mauritius—Lady Colebrook, M'Tear, from Savannah—and Hinds, Louthean, from Buenos Ayres. SAlLED.—Sprightly, Newton, for St. Michael's—Aldebaran, Hurr, for Richibucto—Robert, Bilafer, for Pernambuco—Gazelle, Buff, for Newfoundland—Pursuit, Burnet, for Narva—Dickey Sam, Coaker, for Monte Video—Crescent, Thomason, for St. Petersburg —L'lmmaculate San Guiseppe, Maresco, for Naples. Lydia, Petrie, from Bahia, oft' Kinsale Llama, Clayton, from Gonaives, at Cove Mersey, hence for New York, off Tuskar 6th instant [MONTHLY REPORT.] EYE AND EAR INFIRMARY, CORNER OF HARFORD-STREET, MOUNT-PLEASANT Surgeons... Dr. Edwards and Mr. Neill Treasurer.... John Crossfield, Esq. EYE DEPARTMENT. New Patients admitted in the month of March Patients prescribed for, and who have received Surgical as sistance during the month of March Total since the commencement EAR DEPARTMENT. Patients prescribed for, and who have received Surgical as sistance during the Month of March Total since the commencement -qtarkrts. LIVERPOOL COTTON MARKET, APRIL 8. A fair attendance of buyers to-day. Fully 4,000 baies sold at full market prices. The sales of the week are 25,760 bales, 3,000 American on speculation, and 1,800 for export. COTTON MARKET, ArRIL 11 A very general arid good demand has been experienced to-day. about 6000 bales sold with a better feeling in the market ; viz. 13110 Surats 3d to aid, a few Brazils from 54d to 7d, remainder Americans from 44d to 64d. 300 taken for export, LIVERPOOL PROVISION -MARKET, APRIL 11 We notice some slight improvement in the demand for all de scriptions of Butter, with certainly no inclination on the part of holders to take lower prices. Fine fresh lots of Belfast, Carlow, &c. are very saleable at sRs ; ordinary and fair Newrys, Waterford, &c. 74s to sos per cwt. There is a better feeling also developed in the Provision trade, and holders (of India Beef particularly) ask rathsr more money. The fitting out of a great number of ships for India, is assigned as the cause. Bacon, Hams and Lard are with out material alteration. American Lard is still finding Its way in the various manufacturing towns of Ireland; whence no doubt it will shortly return, regularly Hibernicised. LIVERPOOL CATTLE MARKET, APRIL 11. We have had a fair supply of Beasts at this day's market, which met with a good demand at previous prices. The supply of Sheep was small, and an advance of 4cl 19 , lb was obtained on our la , t week's quotations. Prime Beef 6id to 61d; middling 6d ; Bulls and Segs 3id to 4d; prime Wethers lid to lid; middling 7d, sink ing the offal. Head of Cattle at market: Beasts 976; Sheep 2140. LIVERPOOL HAY AND POTATO MARKET, April 11. During the past week the arrivals coastwise, or from the Isle of Man have been inconsiderable, so that the late heavy stocks of Potatoes are all cleared off. Both our town trade, and couutry dealers are now eager buyers, and the business transacted during the past three days has been on the most extensive scale. The market closed very firm this evening at full 4d per measure ad. vaece over the current prices of this day week. Manx, Scotch and Irish Cups 2s id to 2s 3d per golb. There is at present no Turnips in dock. Our - local markets are pretty liberally supplied with all descrip. Lions of our neighbouring farm produce, taking the season into consideration s. d. s. d. Old Hay .... 0 Sep 11 2011 2 6 2 10 New Hay.... 0 di 0 102 - 2 3 2 4 Clover Hay.. 0 7 0 10 ---_ I 9 2 0 Straw, Wheat 0 42 0 6 I” 4 ft 8 1 10 Straw, Oat.. 0 32 0 4i 28 0 34 0 Straw, Bailey 0 3 0 34 --. Manglewurzle27 0 28 0:ton Potatoes, gilb. Pink.eye Cups Short Tops Cattle Turnips, v ton Carrots s. d. s. d MEETINGS OF CREDITORS FOR LIVERPOOL APRIL. HOUR , 13, Thomas Peake Pearson 14, John Senior Ditto, 2 15, Gardiner Boggs, (2nd) .. Court of Bankruptcy, London, 11 15, Peter M'Ardle, (proof and div.) Clarendon Rooms, 1 IS, Daniel Antrobus, (2nd) Ditto, 1 15, John Critchley, (2nd) 15, William Slater, (2nd) Di tto, 2 16, John Shand, (proof) Ditto, i 16, Elizabeth Linstead, (Ist) sen., (proof and final div.) Ditto, pitto 1 18, John Molyneux, 12 18, James Bonny, (Ist) , . 19, Robertson, Garrow and Alexander, (2nd) Ditto, 1 20, John Davies, (special)... 20, John Anderson 20, Samuel Bartwright Sneade, (Ist), Ditto, I IsIDON GAZETT.B.... , FnthAY, Artnit g PARTNERSHIPS DISSOLVED F. Carrick and J. Potts, Liverpool, printers—A. Thornpson and J. F.tchells. Ashton under-Lyne, Lancashire, linendrapers—W. Sib bald and A. Robson, Liverpool, wine-merchants—J. Thomson and J. B. Naylor, Collyhurst, Lancashire, finishers. e • INSOLVENTS. Lancelot Beck, Bristol, broker. Martha Brown and Samuel Bromley. Denton, Lanca shire, hat-manufacturers. Charles Cook, George-yard, Long-acre, London, livery stable-keeper.. BANK RUPTS James Bonny, Liccipool, tailor, April IS, May 20, at one, at the Clarendon Rooms, Liverpool. Solicitors, Mr. Evans, or Messrs. Kenyon and Store, Kiverpool ; and Mr. Oliver, Old Jury, London. Samuel Cartwright Sneade, Wavertree, Lancashire, timber-mer chant, April 20, May 20, at one, at the Claredon Rooms, Liverpool. Solicitors, Mr. Owen, Newton, Montgomeryshire; Mr. Mason, Liverpool ; and Messrs. Willis, Bower, and Willis, Toltenhou6e yard, London., - - - Henry iticket, Henry-street, Pentonville, dealer in wine John Owen, Wolwich, eowkeeper. Francis Cary, Nottingham, hatter George Carring,ton, Albion-street, Hyde Park, London, horse dealer. _ _ William ' , Amer and William Smith Gooding, Osborne-street, Whitechapel, London, brewers. Fredrick Chapman, Mansell-street, London, wine-merchant. William Robertson Webb, Knightsbridge-terrace, Knightsbridge wine-merchant. Abraham Crossfield, Whitechapel-road, London, scrivener Richard Palliser, Moorgate-street, City, Loudon. saddler John Johnson. Leeds, tow-spinner. Frederick William Gough, Pencombe, Hertfordshire. James Cole, Kettering, Northamptonshire, woolstapler David Bolton, Kingston-upon-Hull, corn-merchant James Clarke and Robert P. Clarke, Leeds, musk William Hapdbury Hopkins. Worcester, currier DIVIDENDS May 2, C. H. Wcigall, Conduit street, Regent-street, London, tailor—April 29, T. Heskin, jun., Thorley, Hertfordshire, horse dealer—May 2, R. Hunt, Manchester, flour-dealer—May 3, J. Wood, Manchester, lace-dealer—May 8, J. Wilson, Salford, machine maker—April 30. J. S. Daintry, Manchester, banker—May 2, E. C. Radford, J. Radford, and J. Radford, Manchester, ironfounders— May 4, G. Dickinson and R. Glover, Liverpool, seed-merchants. CERTIFICATES To be granted, unless cause be shown to the contrary on or before April 2! G. E. Debeuham, Bayham-street, Camden-town, builder—C. Trapps, Abridge, Essex, victualler—B. Jeffries, Newport, Mon mouthshire, ironmonger—J. W. Pilcher, Crabblq, Kent, miller — W. Perkins, St. Wollos, Monmouthshire, shipbuilder—H. A. Baber, Linsfieid, Sussex, master—R. Bacon and R. Wayman, Barbican, wire-workers— R. de N. Lucas, Bridge-street, Southwark, London, money-scrivener —W. E. Ponteq, Ludgate-hill, London, chemist— E. Warne, Lisle-street, Leicester-square, London, carpenter—W. B. Winter, Bristol, builder. VESSELS ENTERED FOR LOADING (SINCE OUR LAST PUBLICATION.) EAST INDIES, CAPE OF GOOD HOPE, Bre Viscount Sandon, J H Lancaster, 540 Calcutta, W N Moore WEST INDIES AND MAMIE .1 Rapic:o, JA de Bechoechea, 120 Havana, F Manero &Co Thomas Naylor, W Hanney, 283 Havana, G Brown &Co SOUTH AMERICA. Lady Worsley, B Berrill, 581 Maranham, P. Dean, P De St. Croiz, 187 Valparaiso, UNITED STATES. 550 New Orleans, J S Holmes 506 New York, Cannon, Miller & Co -50 New York, J D Malcomson & Co 795 New Yolk and St. John, N.B. Fielding Brs & Co Moon Brothers W R. J Tyrer Oakland, C E Barry, Princess, 11 Vaughan, Yazoo, B .1 H Trask, Chieftain, J Longron, Grace, J Wilson, Dykes, Percival, BRITISH AMERICA. 193 Newfoundland and Quebec, W Tarbet 235 Newfoundland and Quebec, Graham & Taylor Rival, J I-1 Doughty, Anna Agathat de Boer, Francis, J Patton, Emanuel, C F Schmidt, Juno, I A Bryhn, EUROPE. 91 Rotterdam, H Smith & Co Rotterdam; Bahr, Behrend & Co 162 St. Petersburg, Watson & Co Stettin, Bahr, Behrend & Co 150 Hambro and Archangel, Bahr, Behrend & Co 209 Oporto, T Martin &Son 88 St. Michael's, W Dart 289 St. Petersburg, Campbell & Rudd 206 Trieste, Bahr, Behrend & Co 119 Gibraltar, Esheiby, Rowett & Co 150 Narva, Bahr, Behrend & Co 122 Narva, Strong & Reid 30; Genoa, Crozier Brothers 123 Gibraltar, Wood & Ritsou 126 Hambro', Bahr, Behrend &Co 86 Lisbon, K Macauley 129 Ancona, Vianna & Jones 141 Beirout and Alexandretta, Bahr, Behrend & Co 338 Cadiz, J Poole & Co 97 Dordt, Bahr, Behrend & Co 223 Hambro', Bahr, Behrend &Co 156 Lisbon, Coteswortlt & Wynne Douro, J Bale, Sprightly, J Newton, Czar, D Fowler, Alytti, J Norman, Trinity Yacht, T Maxwell, Hendrika, F H Pluker, Magnet, W Murdock, Negociator, Young, Centaur, W Fox, Thames, J D Bermsoht, Enterprise, D Wltitchie, Rival, W Avery, Fanny Palmer, J Cutting, Mary, D Paul, Enfield, Shaddtck, George Palmer, Hibbs, Tyro, G TELEGRAPH OFFICE, APRIL 11 Wind at Holyhead, South, very light breeze in the morning. Off Llysfaen, inward bound, No. 5337, Hinda, Bk. at 9 a.m. Off Holyhead, outward bound, No. 26,7, John, Bk.; 9027, John Senn, Bk., and 1534, Themis, B.S. . No further communication in consequence of fog. BIRTHS On the 12th ultimo, at Florence, the Princess de CANINO and MUSIGNAN 0, wife of the eldest son of the late Lucien Buonaparte, of a daughter, who has been christened by the Archbishrp, the King and Queen of Sardinia standing as sponsors by their proxy, Count de Carrega, Charge d'Affaires. The names of the infant princess are M aria Theresa Albertina. On the 19th ultimo, the wife of Mr. WM. WILLIAMS, Black Lion Inn, Talgarth, of three children, two of whom, with the mother, are doing well. On the 7th instant, the wife of Captain C. W. FINLAY, of 26, Wilton-street, of a daughter. ...------_ _ On the— -Bthinstant, at 5, Thornton-plaCe, Mrs. JOHN BOWEN, MARRIED, Lately, Mr CHARLES C. CURD to Miss JANE EDWARDS. On the 4th instant, at Christ Church, Mr. RICHARD JONES to MARY ANN, third daughter of of Mr. SAMUEL SMITH. On the sth instant, at St. Philip's Church, by the Rev. T. Townshend, Mr. R. WILSON, master-mariner, to JANE, youngest daughter of the late Mr. CHAS. CANWELL, formerly of the Isle of Man. Same day, at St. Philip's Church, Mr. JOHN HARDMAN, of the Marcury-oflice, printer, to MARGARET, daughter of Mr. RICHARDRAWSTHORNE, miller, Shaw's-brow. On the 6th instant, at Ounnersbury-park, by the Rev. Dr. Herschel, Baron CHARLES DE ROTHSCHILD, eldest son of Baron de Rothschild, of Naples, to LOUISA, youngest (laughter of the late N. M. DE ROTHSCHILD. An elegant dinner was given on the occasion, the party consisting chiefly of relatives, after which the bride and bridegroom departed on a tour in the country. On the 7th instant, at the Catholic Chapel of St. Peter's, Seel street, by the Rev. Mr. Caldwell, and afterwards at St. Anne's Church, by the Rev. Mr. Blundell, WM. TOWNLEY, Esq., jun., of Manchester, to MARY, daughter of the Lieut. RALPH LAMAS R.M., of York. Same day, at St. Saviour's Church, Bamber-bridge, by the Rev. W. Wignall, WM. STOCKLEY, Esq., solicitor, to ALICE, relict of the late GEORGE WRIGLEY, Esq., both of this town. Same day, at St. Mary's Church, Birkenhead, by the Rev. Mr. Knox, Mr. THOMAS EVANS to SUSANNAH, second daughter of Mr. ROBERT MEACOCK, both of Birkenhead. Same day, at the Catholic Chapel of St. Peter's, Seel-street, and afterwards at St. Anne's Church, GEORGE AS FITOII, Esq., to MARY LOUISA, second daughter of A. J. DE COSTA, Esq. Same day, at Trinity Church, Llanfor, Merionethshire, by the Rev. Andrew M`Conkey, M.A., JAMES MATHEWS, Esq., solicitor Liverpool, eldest son of the late John Henry Mathews, Esq., who was one of the late firm of Messrs. France, Fletcher, Yates, and Co., merchants, to ELLEN, fifth daughter of the late Mr. OWEN LLOYD WILLIAMS, of Manchester, merchant. DIED On the 6th November, at Leitrim, after a long period of the most distressing illness, his health having been declining for many years, Sir FRANCIS FORBES, late Chief Justice of New South Wales. On the 6th of January, killed in the retreat from Cabool, Lieut. LUCIUS HARDYMArI; of the sth Regiment Bengal Light Ca valry, only son of the late Rear-Admiral Hardyman, C.B. On the 17th of February, on his passage home from Macao, on board the Ann, in consequence of the hardships endured in the shipwreck of the Kite, and subsequent eruel treatment in his im prisonment by the Chinese, in his 3ist year, Mr. R. G. WITTS. o f Sudbury, deeply regretted by his family and friends. - On the 21st ultimo, at Littleton, aged 46, Mr. THOMAS BEN NETT, second son of the late Mr. Thomas Bennett, of Shotwick - park, much respected. On the 30th ultimo, after a long and painful illness, borne with Christian fortitude, MARGARET, the beloved wife of Mr. R. W. DAVIES. Same day, aged 14 months, JANE, youngest daughter of Mr. ROBERT MOORE, Rock Ferry, Cheshire. On the 31st ultimo, it the residence of his son-in-law, Strid cottage, Bolton, aged 104, Mr. JOHN HEADART. This remark able gentleman was, until the la s t f ew mont h s, i n th e possess i on o f 201 his faculties, and from his hale and pleasing appearance and the suavity of his manners, was a person of great interest to the nu merous frequenters of that neighbourhood. Ou the Ist instant, at Fair-bank, in his 72nd year, EDWARD WILSON, Esq., of the firm of Messrs. Gibson, Wilson and Greg son, of Kirkby Lonsdale, bankers. On the 2nd instant, JANE, the beloved wife of Mr. DAVID JONES, of the Rose and Crown Tavern, Bevington-bush, deeply lamented by all who had the pleasure of her acquaintance. Same day, aged 43, Mr. PETER WALKINGTON, tinman and brazier; also, a few hours afterwards, aged 45, CATHERINE, his wife. They were highly respected by a numerous circle of friends and acquaintance. On the 3rd instant, at his lodgings, 15, Mount-row, Lambeth, London, at the advanced age of 62, ELLAR, the most celebrated harlequin of his day. He has left a wife and child totally un provided for. On the sth instant, in Dublin, Sir ROSS MAHON, who was found dead in his bed. The deceased baronet, who was a captain in the both Rifles and an extra aide•de camp to the Lord-lieutenant. formed one of the viceregal dinner party at the Castle on the previous evening, and left for his own apartments, in company with Lord James Butler, at an advanced hour of the night, in excellent health and spirits. In the morning, however, on his servant entering the bed room for the purpose of calling him up, he (Its covered that his master was a corpse. Sir Ross Mahon was possessed of large estates in the counties of Galway and Roscom mon, and he was not more than 25 or 26 years of age. On the 6th instant, aged 34, MARY, eldest daughter of Mrs. DOROTHY KELLY. Same day, aged 12 months, ROBERT WILLIAMS, son of Mr JOSEPH SMITH, printer. Same day, at the house of her son, P. Serjeantson. Esq., of West Derby, aged 68, MARY, the beloved wife of the Rev. JAS. SERJEANTSON, Rector of Kirby Knowle. Same day, deeply and deservedly regretted by her relatives and friends, i❑ her 40th year. ISABELLLA, youngest daughter of the late THOMAS SOURBUT, Ormskirk. _ On the 7th instant, atilanferres Rectory. near Mold, ANNA CATEIA RI NA, the beloved wife of the Rev. JOHN DAVIES. M.A. and third daughter of the late John Johnson, Esq.,Whitteld-house , Kirkby, neailLiverpool... Sanie day, at her residence, in Clarence-street. at an advance 1 age, ANN, relict of the late Mr. THOMAS ADDISON, formerly of Lancaster. Same day, JOHN FORT, Esq., of Red-hall, In this covnty, late M.P. for the borough of Clitheroe. Same day, aged 37, Mr. W. F. ENGLAND, son of the late Ad jutant England, and late of the Manchester and:Liverxml Theatres Royal. Same day, at Greenwich, in his Both year, THOS: CAMPBELL. Esq., formerly Deputy Accountant-General to the General Post office, London. On the sth instant, aged 8 years, DAVID, eon of Mr. JOSEPH JONES, Penrith- street„Tox teth. park . On the 9th instant, afed 54, Mr. PAUL SAMPLES, the faithful and intelligent manager of Messrs. Henry and R. Preston and Co.'s brass and copper works, Suffolk-street. Sa me day, MARY, wife of Mt. JOHN HAYES, Byrom street, aged 58 years. On the 10 th instant, aged 26, HARRIET, the beloved wife of Mr . SA MUEL BOOTH, pl um b e r. &c. Yesterday, after a brief but severe illness of three days. sincerely regretted by all who had the pleasure of her acquaintance, SARAH, wife of Mr. JOHN JONES, tailor, Commutation-row, aged 41 Years, leaving a disconsolate husband and seven little children to deplore their heavy loss. L/VERPOOL: - TUESDAY, APRIL 12, 1842. PRINTED AND PUBLISHED EVERY TUESDAY AND FRIDAY MORNING JOSHUA FLETCHER LACE, Of 53, Grove-street, and LEONARD ADDISON, of 14, Great Orford-street, At No. 4, ST. GEORGE'S CRESCENT, LIVERIOOL. Orders and Adverti se ments are received by M essrs. Newton an d C R o ey ., n N e N ll 'ar , wick-seuare; Barker, Fleet-street ; D eacon W a lb roo k Chancery-lane; Lawson and Barker, 13irchin-lane ; Munden Hammond, 27, Itli Fir t i c ct e -l u a , ne 8 , , C O R rn ed hill Joseph Lombard-street Thomas, ; 1, Lion -court, Fleet-street ; Clarke and Lewis, 4, Crown -court, Threadneedle-street; at Garraway•s ,at . the London Commer c i a l C offee-house, Mincing lane; at the Jerusalem Coffee-house, Cornhill ; Chapter Coffee• house, Paternoster-row; North and South American Coffee house, Threadneedle-street; and Messrs. William Frend, L Maitre, and Co., Sise-lane, London; by Messrs. Johnston an Co., at their Newsp a p er and Advertisement Agency Office, Ede Quay, Dublin; Mr. M'Phun, Glasgow; Mr. Wheeler, Exchange street, and Mr. C. H. Lewis, Market -street, Manchester • Mr. H a ddock, and Messrs. J. and W. Booth, Booksellers, Warrington Mr. Clarke, Pilot-office, Preston ; ana Mr. Coope, 33, Union: s treet, Birmingham. Perms of Subscription for this paper ;—On credit , 6s. ; half-year. .E 1 3s. ; quarter, ls. ou.—lf paid in advance—one year £2 2s ; ilf-year, £1 le; quarter, 10s 6d one year