The Express.
London, England, 1848-08-30 00:00:00

ASSIZE INTELLIGENCE.

WESTERN ClRCUlT.—Saistoc, Auci. 29.
mul pacts.-13efore Mr. Justice Coleridge.
FOTHERGILL V. Pates.—At the conclusion of the evi-
&ace Mr. Serjeant Kinglake replied in an address which or.
copied upwards of two hours—His lordship then awarded
up the evidence, but after some time was stopped by the jury,
who intimated that they were agreed and would not trouble
him further. They then, at half-past 12 o'clock at night,
returned a verdict for the defendant—This concluded the
boo ness of the anises.

NORTHERN CIRCUIT.—LIVERPOOL, Acct. 28.
The whole of the criminal business having been disposed
of, Mr. Justice Cresswell assisted Mr. Justice Erie in the
disposal of civil causes.
NutLlLS.—Before Mr. Judos Tele.
FIALLIVAI AND Orli Elas V. littoWsKtUO AND OTHERS.
—This was an action to recover the balance due upon a pro-
miieory nnte, inlorsed by the defendants to plaintiff. The
plaintiffs were Messrs. Glyn, Helldal. Mills, and Co., and
the defendants Messrs. Cockerell and C., formerly East
India merchants, the firm consisting of Mr. Cockercll, Sir
G. Larpent, and Mr, J. S. Brownrigg. The defendants,
Mr. Cockerell and Sir 0. Larpent, had allowed
judgment to go by default, and the question
for the consideration of the jury was, whet
Brownrigg was discharged from his liability upon a
promissory note for 50,000/., a balance upon which was still
due. It appeared that Mr. Brownrigg was under some mis-
apprehension respecting the case, which was afterwards ex-
plained by the learned counsel. In 1843, the house of
Cockerell and Co., one of the largest in the country, bor-
rowed from the plaintiffs 100,0001., which was reduced in
July, 1846, to 50,0001., when an arrangemeat was snide to
pay off the debt by three instalments. Somewhere about
that time, Mr. Wilson, who was a partner in Price's Patent
Candle ompany. owed to the firm of Cockerell and Co.,
the sum of 19,5001., and he gave them two promissory notes
for 10,0001. each. The Patent Candle Company hair then
been transferred to a joint-stock company, and Mr. Wilson
had 1,300 shares allotted to him as bin share of the con-
cern. There were also a number of other shares allotted
to the defehdant. On the 10th of July the 1 300 shares
in the company were deposited as collateral security
with Cockerell and Co. These shares were trans-
ferred to Mr. Welling,on, a clerk to Messrs. Glyn and
Co. in trust for the benefit of plairniffi. On the 20th of
July the promissory note for 50,0001. being two or three
months overdue, a settlement was required, when it was
arranged to place certain securities in the bands of the
hankers, and, amongst others, 1,823 shares in the Candle
Company belonging to Mr. Brownrigg.. The questio
was whether the shares belonging to Mr. Wilson should
be applied to the payment of the debt due by Mr. Brownrigg
or to the payment of Mr. Wilson's own. The agreement
between the plaintiffs was then put in and reed.—liis lord-
ship ruled that, as the 1,300 shares belonging to Wilson had
not been applied by him to the payment of the particular
debt of 50,0001., it was in the option of the plaintiff• to appro-
priate the proceeds of the shares as they thought proper.—
Mr. Watson declined to address the jury upon it, as he
thought it was a case for Vie consideration of his lordship.—
A verdict was entered for the plaintiffs for 6,2701. Some
discussion here ensued, and it was ultimately agreed that
speedy judgment 'tumid issue, but that excretion should not
issue without an order from the judge.
FORSYTH AND (ARENS V. ()ROTES.— BROKERS' COM-
MISSION.—An action brought to recover 1,4031., being the
amount due to plaintiffe, as their commission on business
transacted by the plaintiffs for tie defendant. The plaintiffs
were stiarebrokers in Livapool, and defendant a merchant.
The claim of the plaintiffs was for a per ventage on shares in
the Liverpool, Ormakirk, and Preston Railway, which had
keen applied or through the plaintiffs, who were brokers to
the company, and one third per share upon the other shares
upon which the plaintiffs hid been required to report as to
the eligibility ot the applicant.—The jury found for the
plaintiffs, damages 1,1301., being the amount claimed less the
to- sam paid into court.
will be