Northern Times.
Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1859-08-30 00:00:00

[Before Mr. JUSTICE HILL and a Special Jury.]

BARKER AND ANOTHEI

IS AND ANOTHER.

At the sitting of the court this morning, the hearing
of this case was resumed.

Mr. Baylis, in the absence of Mr. Wilde, Q.C., (who
was leading counsel in the case, but engaged in the
other court,) addressed the jury on behalf of the de-
fendants. lie said he was in a position to prove to the
jury that the plaintiffs had authority from the defen-
dants to sell the cotton ; and it was also an express
stipulation that the plaintiffs should provide a sum of
£3OO, to realise the bill of lading and to contribute
towards returning the acceptance. The plaintiffs, how-
ever, only contributed £150; and he urged that under
all the circumstances of the case—considering the
fluctuating condition of the cotton market, and the
fact that a commercial crisis was then prevailing—
the defendants were entitled to sell the cotton in
question, and they had sold it for the best price that
could be obtained for it at that time.

Mr. Rogers, one of the defendants, was then exa-
mined at considerable length. He positively deposed
that he had made a stipulation with Mr. Barren, one of
the plaintiffs, for an unreserved sale of cotton which
had been put into the hands of the defendants as
brokers. The state of the market at the time of the
sale was very heavy—especially for this low, rubbishy,
class of cotton—a cotton full of dust. Witness told one
of the plaintiffs the day after the sale that he had sold
701bs. of cotton at 51--d. The plaintiff did not object
at the time, but went into the inner office, apparently
musing about it. While he was there, Mr. Howell's
son came in and offered the same price for the
remaining thirty bales. He believed he mentioned,
in the hearing of Mr. Barron, at the time, the
terms which Mr. Howell had offered ; at any rate,
he closed with the offer, and told Mr. Barron—" That is
the remainder of your lot which I have just sold." Mr.
Barron seemed pleased that his bill was paid, and went
away without any objection. About two hours after-
wards Mr. Barron called again on witness, and said—
"We don't much like this sale ; can't you cancel it,"
Witness told him it was contrary to custom to cancel a
sale that had been made so long, and that probably the
spinners who had bought it had gone home again.
Mr. Barron wished to know whether the buyers had ap-
plied for delivery. 'Witness called in the warehouseman,
who replied that the spinners had applied, and wanted
the cotton as soon as possible. Mr. Barron then went,
is.
ea
ov
ei in
ihold ho
fe
aw
?out lt do
rt
wa
ikt
nwe
si tshhi
went
s ptaor tin he about
the plaintiffs,
it. On h
nd told
them he could not accede to their wishes to cancel the
sale—that the cotton was being spun for anything he
knew to the contrary. Witness never complained that
his partner had sold the cotton ; and he never told the
plaintiffs that he believed he had no authority to sell;
in fact, he told there quite the contrary.
Mr. Lindsay Baker' the second defendant, was next
examined, and corroborated generally the testimony of
his partner. He also stated that, when the sale of the
cotton was mentioned to Mr. Barron, and the price
which had been offered, he jumped at the offer, and ap-
peared perfectly satisfied.
Mr. Howell, sen., as to the question of custom, gave
it in evidence that, whenever a broker made cash ad-
vances upon cotton, he considered lie had entire control

over it; it was the ordinary practice and usa

cross-examim

he con

the broker to subinit the offer to

Mr. Newall, of the firm of Messrs. 'Newall and Paton,

stated that when a cash advance was made without bi

cotton without consulting his principa
test's to ask the principal ; but the ordinary practicAs to

el.l when he pleases, and f

what he pleases. In reply to a juryman, the witness
said he would consider it courtesy, before selling, to ask

his principal t.c
Mr. Nichol.