Northern Times.
Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1859-04-08 00:00:00

(Prow the Cork Const:tiition:)

CORE Cirr Arr... Bancroft Carroll' has addressed
.tbe-.
electors as candfd6te for the representation of the 0.4 of
Cork, and it is, considered that Colonel -Wood will also 'come •
'forward. Mr_ IVamish and Mr. Fagran: shoilld the licalth
of the latter permit, we presume, also he'up.
Cons CouNgrr.--11V.. Scully will again:try his fortune is'
the county, where he will have to contend with Itiessrs.
Deasy and APC6rthy.
KINSALE ANEr ligLtow--..—ln these bar ciafri Mr. Heard
and Sir Denhani NOrreys will likely go' in without apply-
sition.

YOUGHAL.-31-t: Thitt will again appeal to Yourl, where'
he will have to try-oonchisiOns with Col. cache..
13Axporr.—Mr. Shaw opposes Col. Berna.rd.
DUNGARVA.N.-Yil. Ifigatre is said to he. safe in Dun--
garvan.

ENGLAND' AND SCOTLAND'.-
Mr. T. S. Duneeralit azain offers himselrflii-Finsbarv.

The address of Sir.S. Peto is out.

The four members. Air-the City of London rastand again-
The Times publishes the address of Mr. W. Eivart, to the
electors of Dumfries,, offering a renewal of his services.
A severe contest is expected for Hertfordsliiic: The Hon.
Mr. Grosvenor, son &Lord Ebury, is likely to-be the new
Liberal candidate, and'Sir Minto Farquhar, whn-now repre-
sents the borough of Hertford, will, it is reported; be invited
for the county on Conservative principles.
Mr. M. T. Baines retires-at present from parliamentary
life, on account of hif health. Mr. Edward 'Baines has
been formally stated to,stand by the moderate Liberals.
LErrn. —We understand that the Liberals of Leith have
invited Mr. Robertson Gladstone, of Liverpool,,tht brother
of Mr. W. Gladstone; to become a candidlite " for that
borough.
It is probable that Mr: W. Lawson, nephewr,of Sir Jas.
Graham, will he brought forward to oppose Mr:. W. N.
Hodgson, the Conservative M.P. for Carlisle, at'the•forth-
coming election. Mr. Hodgson is a ballot man--;

LORD JOHN RUSSELL'S ADDRESR TO THE
ELECTORS OF THE CITY OF LONDON-
Lord J. Russell offers himself for re-election. He ex-
plains that he could be no party to a Reform Bill Nirtich
would have undermined ' the resident constititency in
boroughs. He further says, speaking of the defunct bill,
the absence or-any provision to reduce the franchise in
boroughs, and the bard' line of separation thus left between -
the middle orders and' those who earn their-livelihood bar
manual labour, would have tended to foster discontent and
make a war of classes. The noble lord next•rindieates the-
course he pursued in moving his resolution. He says," It seemed
to me that to move• an amendment pointing nut, on the
second reading, the chief faults of the bill, would be a most
clear, manly, and direct course. It was, approved by a
majority of the whole House of Commons:: Two-thirds of
that House were agreed as to the requisites of a good bill
of Reform. Some- points of detail, rather than of prin-
ciple, remain to be adjusted between the most eminent of
the independent men who spoke in the. debate.. It wag
ovidont that thh, wgrooment faeilitsted, and the public
interest required, a- settlement of this question in the present
session. The state of affairs on the Continent makes it
desirable that the voice of the British Parliatnent should be
heard in defence- at once of peace and of freedom. A
minister who advises a premature dissolution, generally
does so in pursuit of some policy which he thinks beneficial
to the country ; but we are left in doubt as to the policy
of the present Ministry. Whether they propose to revive
their bill, to propose a new bill, or to leave the whole
question in suspense, favouring agitation and postponing
settlement, is matter of pure conjecture. For my own
part, if again entrusted with the duty of representing you,
it will be my endeavour to procure the. immediate enactment
of a sound, moderate, and constitutional measure. I will
not recur to my votes on public and.' secret voting; that is
a question which must be decidtd by the growth and •
maturity of public opinion. lam in favour of publicity, as
in the end most conducive to freedom of thought and action;
but I honour- the aim and object of those who support the
ballot, and I' wish, like them, to- check intimidation and'
corruption."' Lord John concludes his address by a rebuke.
to those who impute unworthy motives to mens whether irr..
or out of power.

SIR TAMES GRAHAM'S ADDRESS , TO THR
ELECTORS OF CARLISLE.,
Sir James Graham has issaed: the following address to
the electors

"Grosvenor-place, April 5.

"Gentlemen,—The ministers of the Quecu have announced
that her Majesty has been.advised by them to dissolve the
present parliament without. delay. Th4y had proposed a.
measure purporting to be am amendment,of the lava:which.
regulate, the representation of the people. In thistbill it
was,provided that voters- for cities, having freeholds for
counties within cities,, should no longer, exercise the
double franchise, but should be discmilified from. voting
in. counties. In this. bill, also, no provision was made
for lowering the £lf.e occupation franchise, on, which the
right of voting in cities now rests. Whereupon, a resolution
was proposed and carried, as an amendment to, the second
.reading of this bik, 'That it is neither just nor politic
In interfere in the manner propoeand in this„ bill• with the
:freehold franchise as hitherto exevcised in the counties of
Er gland and 'Wales ; and that no re-adjustment of the
franchise will satisfy this house-or the country; which does
not provide for a, greater extension ,of the suffrage in cities
and 'boroughs than is contemplated in thepresent measure.'
"The ministers of the crown regard this resolution as
offensive; they complain also, of adverse- majorities, which
have carried the abolition of ehurch-rates:an-ainst their will.
They seek to•brand the offenders, and to .rid themselves of
their presence in a new parliament, by appealing to the
country afp,aiinst these decistons of themajority of th present
House of Qemmons. lam one of theoffenders. r voted:
for the offensive resolution. I supported the abolition of-
charch-rates. It is for you to say whether, by so doing, y
have fogeited your confidence, and have misrepresented
your wishes and opinions.
s
" I leave the case in your hands, The Queen's advisers
have appealed from the parliament to thepeople. It A for
you now to tender your advice: It i open to you to,decide
whether I have faithfully represented you ; or Whetter you
will,aid her Majesty's ministers, in; reversing, in a newpar—
par—
liament, the decisions of which they
commencement of the session, complain. At the
a. reform of the representation‘th ministers recommended
as, necessary and expedient ;
now these very men wil:
introduction of athemselves to the
really submanteciv Reform Bill.
a liberal policy Bill. The question, there—
fore,pledge theinsel
e to you is this---Reform, or no reform ;
or tame submission to Lord Derby.
plighted supporters
year decision with confidence. If you prefer
eu pporters of these Ministers, I am unfit to serve
you. it_
you . .
! wish to trust an old and tried servant, I shall
not flinch from. the, duty. lam ready once more to be your
representative, fortified by the renewal of your approbation,
but determined to exercise an independent judgment, I
have the honour to be, gentlemen, your faithful and
okedient servant "J. It. G. Gits.uAm."

Why is love like a canal boat? Because it is an internal
transport.
The Independence Beige states that the Ding
is rapidly sinking. of Naples
An untarnished character is of vastly more importance
than glossy boots,
ole intends appealing
it is said. that the Lev. Alfred Po Council
to
the Judicial Committee of the Privy,
Council , againstthet
Archbishop of Canterbury's recent decision.
Tun BALLot.—Mr. Berkeley has given notice that her
will bring this question before the House of Commons prior
to the dissolution. At present the motion stands for
Tuesday next. Some of the =ruin papers publish
as
address from the Ballot Saeiety to the electors of the United

THE SPRING ASSIZES.
CROWN COIT RT ---YPATERDAY.
BEFORE M. JUSTICE \max.&
A DISPUTE ABOUT BONES.—WERR V. THE LA'NCASHIRE
MANURE CeneA.Ny.—Mr. Pickerington, Q.C., with Mr.
Henderson, appeared on the part of the plaintiff, a general
dealer in bones and bone manure, in Dublin, who seals the
sum of £33 17s, the alleged difference by weight of a
quantity of bones purchased by the defendants, who are
bone manure manufacturers at Mossbank,' Wiriness, near
Warrington. From the evidence it .?"'"ould 'appear that tb.e
defendants purchased forty-two toes of bones, at £6 p.,er
ton, delivered at Mossbank, the bones to be weighed by 'the
standard weight in beam and scale, on the deck, at .Moss-
bank. When the bones were delivered, their weight was
found to be 36 tons 7 cwt. Albs. The bones had 'oxen
Weighed in Dublin, before king put dn board the sch(3oner
'which conveyed them to Widness, the weights of the sacks
'and the carts being all taken in the gross,' and the tare
deducted afterwards. At Mossbank they were weighed
without sacks, and declared to be only the weight named,
instead of the 42 tons bought, and the defendants paid some:
£2lB, beity, the price of the 36 tons 7 cwt. 18lbs. The::
plaintiff therefore brings an action for the value of the:
alleged difference. For the defendant it was contended that
the bones were shipped when they " green," aud that
the difference was caused by their drying on the passage ;
but the plaintiffs demurred to this, coutending that the
bones were not properly weighed at Mossbank. The jury,
.after considering for a few minutes, 'found a verdict for the
plaintiff, damages £22 Tis 4d.
ACTION ON A PROMISSORY NOTt---L-Gr..EEN M4CLELLAN.
---The plaintiff is a person of the name of Green, a bill
discounter in this town, and the defendant an. auctioneer.
Mr. ranee appeareillor the defei?ilant, and, he opened the
pleadings. From his statement pit appeared that Mr.
M'Clellau signed a promissory note for three months, on
the 23rd of March, 1858, but that he only signed. it as
surety of one Mr. Titherington. Titherington, at that
time, was in partnership with a person named Neal, and
as they were about to dissolve, Titherington was in want
of £l5O. and he applied to isia friend, Mr. M'Clellan,
the defendant in this case, -who introduced him to
Green, the plaintiff. The latter advanced the
the mormy on condition that Mr. M'Clellan would become
surety. This he did, and the money was obtained. Now
the defence mainly rested ou this. The promissory note
was only Signed as a surety, and the defendant averred that,
from-flue conduct e the plaintiff, he was not now liable.
Plaintiff had renewed the bill three several times, without
the consent of 'the defendant, and consequently this dis-
charged him from the liability. Mr. M'Clellan was never
applied to for the amount of the promisory note until
December last, although it was due on the 23rd of June.
Q.C., and Mr.Teitple appeared for the plaintiff.
Ilis Lordship,' in summing up, said that the question forthe
jury was as as to whether- the defendant signed the note
•merely as a surety or as a principal. The jury found a
verdict for the plaintiff, .andthis verdict was taken subject
'to-a special case.
DISPUTE REGARDING THE PRICE OF COTTON..—BLESSIG,
MRAUN AND CO. v. Iliveceg. —ln this case Mr. Quain and
lir. Hutton appeared for the plaintiffs, and Mr. Monck, Q.C.,
and Mr. Wheeler for the defendant. The claim was for
some £sll 6s, the price of 37 bales Mobile cotton.. The
plaintiffs, Messrs. Blessig, 'Braun and Co., are cotton mer-
chants in Liverpool, and they employed Messrs. Marriott
and Co. to sell'-heir cotton for them. On the Bth Decem-
ber the plaintiffs' brokers, Messrs. Marriott, sold, through
-their clerk, the 17 bales to Messrs. Bateson, for Mr. Hilton,
of Manchester, at the rate of 6?-ad per lb. On the invoice
being sent to the Messrs. Bateson, they stated that the
cotton had been sold to their clerk at 51d per It) ; the clerk
of Messrs. Marriott maintained that he had sold the
-cotton at qd per lb, and issue was accordingly
joined for the difference viz., Id per lb in 37
bales. A number - of. witnesses were examined on
both sides. Mr. Waterhouse, President of the Cotton
Broker's Association, in the course of his evidence said, that
be had examined a sample of the cotton sold to the plaintiff,
and he was of opinion that it was, on-the Bth of December •
last, worth 61d to 61-d per lb. The- vice-president of the
association gave similar evidence, as did also several cotton
brokers. Other witnesses were called for the defence, who
stated that the cotton sold on the day. in question was not
valued at more than 51d per lb. The learned judge in
summing up said, that the.,jury would have to consider three
things, first, was the bargam made at.6;ld per lb., if so they
would give a verdict for the plaintiff for the full amount.
Second, was the cotton sold at s=l-4d, if so it should be for
the plaintiff at that rate, and thirdly, whether there was a
misunderstanding between the two parties, and therefore no
bargain at all. If they .believed the third, they would
give a verdict for the plaintiff at the current rate of cotton,
of that description on the day of sale. The jury returned
a verdict for the plaintiff, at the rate of 61d per lb.
This being the last case on the record, his Lordship briefly
thanked the jury for the service they had. rendered their
country, and then retired.