The Sun.
London, England, 1865-08-11 00:00:00

and finish in six weeks ; each delivery not to be less
' than 250 pieces of each description of cloth. The first de-
livery was duly made, and on the 22d of Febrile,' y the
plaintiffs received a letter from the defendant, who sale—
" Having examined three bundles of each weight of the de-
livery you made on the 17th, against my order of 1,000 pieces
of 51b. and 1,000 pieces of 511 b., I find the quality and colour
very inferior to what you delivered before, and therefore I
decline to accept them." The plaintiffs at once took steps to
ascertain whether the complaint was well founded. Mr.
Brotherton wont to the defendant's warehouse,but only saw
three bundles of one order which had been opened, and 'he
was perfectly satisfied that the colour and quality were ac-
cording to sample. They subsequently made another de-
livery, and on the 27th of February received the following
letter from the defendant :—" I beg to inform you that the
500 pieces delivered on the 17th inst., as well as the 500
pieces delivered to-day, for the reasons stated in my letter
to you dated the 23d inst., and also for being wet and un-
merchantable, and not safe for shipping, lie in my ware-
house under your risk, and take notice of the same." It
was agreed between the parties that tho plaintiffs should
re-sell the goods ; but, in consequence of their not being of
an ordinary description, and as there was a drooping market,
the sale could not be effected for some time, and then at
less than the contract price.—The defence was that the
goods were delivered wet and not fit for shipping.—The
jury, in reply to a question submitted to them by the Judge,
said they were of opinion that the six days which elapsed
between the first delivery and the writing of the first letter
was an unreasonable time for objecting to their condition.
This prevented the possibility of raising any question as to
the Statute of Frauds in this case. Several witnesses were
called on each side to prove the condition of the goods.—
The Jury eventually returned a verdict for the plaintiffs
for the difference between the sum realised by the sale of
the goods and the amount of the contract.

DETENTION OF HORSES ON ARATLWAY.
ROBINSON V. THE GREAT WESTERN RAILWAY COMPANY.
—This was an action for the detention of horses on the de-
fendants' railway. The defendants pleaded a denial of their
liability. Mr. Attorney-General James and Mr. Williams
were for the plaintiff; and Mr. Pickering, Q. 0., Mr. T.
Jones, and Mr. Crompton for defendants. The plaintiff is
a horse dealer in Bury New-road, Manchester, and he
brought this action for damages which his horses sustained
by reason of the neglect of the defendants in not fulfilling
their contract to carry his horses from Swindon, in Wilt-
shire, and Shipton, in Oxfordshire, at which places they
were put into the company's possession for conveyance to
Manchester. This was alleged to have occurred in three in-
stances. On Friday, Aug. 26, 16 horses were sent from
Swindon. The plaintiff's agent was told that his horses
would arrive in Manchester on the following morning at 6
o'clock, but they did not arrive until midnight._ On Satur-
day, Aug. 27, 12 horses w ere delivered at Shipton, the ar-
rangement being that they should be sent to the station be-
fore 8 o'clock in the morning, to be conveyed to Bushbury
Junction, near Wolverhampton, and there delivered to
the London and North-Western Railway Company for
conveyance to Manchester, where they should have arrived
at one o'clock in the morning ; they did not, however,
arrive until 24 hours after their time. On Tuesday, Aug.
30, six horses were sent, but they did not arrive at Man-
chester until long after their proper time. The horses suf-
fered from cold, confinement, and want of food and water.
One was suffering badly from chest disease ; the others
were coughing, low, and off their food. The damage was
estimated at .Eno. Mr. Pickering said the plaintiff's agent
had chosen to have the horses forwarded by luggage train,
at half the charge which would have been made by send-
ing them by a passenger train, and he had signed a paper
undertaking all risk himself. The Judge said he should
rule that the contract was not unreasonable, but was bind-
ing. He held, however, that it did not protect the defend-
ants from liability for injuries sustained in consequence of
unnecessary delay. For the defence several witnesses were
called to prove that the horses had been forwarded by the
proper and only available trains. The Jury found that
there was an undue detention of 18 of the horses, and
awarded £9O damages. Leave ,vas given to Mr. Picker-
ing to move the court above on the legal construction of a
special contract in the way bill.

SPIRIT OF THE PUBLIC JOURNALS.

TIMES.—In the opinion of most of its members,
the late House of Commons had enough of Lieut.-
Colonel Dawkins and his grievances, but it is not
impossible that one of the first duties of the new
house will be to give its attention to another
Dawkins debate. The gallant gentleman, having
been grievously injured by his military superiors,
is now treated with equal indignity and injustice
by his political opponents, and these he defies with
the same courage, and rebukes with the same temper
and courtesy. Mr. Alfred Seymour and
Mr. Pender were candidates for the borough
of Totnes. Colonel Dawkins, desirous, no
doubt, to crush Lord Hartingtou and his other per-
secutors, aspired also to the honour of representing
that pleasant little borough. But to effect this it
was necessary to defeat either Mr. Seymour or Mr.
Pender. Colonel Dawkins was not the man to quail
before such work. The 'two Liberal candidates
found in him a man burning with ardour to expose
their misdeeds. A correspondence which we publish
tells the whole story. The genius and temper of
Colonel Dawkins shine conspicuous. The first thing
we learn is that Colonel Dawkins had on the hust-
ings made an "observation" on Mr. Pender's
" bribery." Now, though small boroughs may not
always be immaculate, nor rich candidates always
solicitous to mark what their agents do with the
sums which they confide to them for " necessary
expenses," yet bribery is a serious thing, and a gen-
tleman does not like to be charged with it on the
hustings. We cannot wonder, then, that Mr. Ben-
der should use the decided expression " It is false."
But Colonel Dawkins is indignant that any one
should give him a flat denial even to a charge im-
puting a legal offence, and at once he published a
letter in a local paper demanding that Mr. Pender
should publicly state that he is prepared to affirm
on oath that " none of those electors who signed the
requisition to me either have or will receive Mr.
Fender's money, or money from any one else, to
elect Mr. Pender." Otherwise Colonel Dawkins will
consider Mr. Fender's " intemperate words" as ap-
plicable to his own contradiction of the Colonel's
statement. The notion of accusing a man publicly
of bribery, and then stigmatising his necessary
denial as "intemperate," would enter only into
the mind of one so confident of his own virtue as
Colonel Dawkins. But a personal dispute with one
candidate was not enough. Having challenged Mr.
Pender to the ordeal of oath, he calls forth Mr.
Seymour to that of battle. Mr. Seymour, alluding
to Colonel Dawkins's recent retirement from active
service, said that though the Colonel's trade had
been fighting, it was so no longer. Some good-
natured friend probably wrested this harmless ex-
pression from its 'original meaning, and when it
reached the Colonel he 'at once thought it necessary
to prove that his fighting capacity remained. Mr.
Seymour, as he thinks, having declared that he is
" not a fighting man," he is " prepared to relieve
him of his error as soon as he likes at Wormwood
Scrubbs or elsewhere, and thus, probably, relieve
Totnes at once of a representative not of her choice."
It will be seen by the correspondence that this double
challenge is contained in a letter which Colonel
Dawkins sends to his adversaries jointly through the
medium of the Western Morning News. The two
successful candidates probably never attached much
importance to the letter, in spite of its importance
to Totnes and the world. They may have looked
upon it as a bit of election effervescence, which
would soon subside and be forgotten. But Colonel
Dawkins is not a man whom any one must neglect
to take seriously. His challenges were not meant
to be evaded. He still awaits one opponent on the
platform, the other at Wormwood Scrubbs. Al-
though defeated at the hustings, he is not to be got
rid of by silence. Hence a whole fortnight after
penning his original challenge, he repeats it by
calling the attention of the two returned members
to it. He sends them a copy of the newspaper con-
taining it, "in case it should have escaped their
observation." Mr. Seymour simply replies by stating
what his expression really was, and declines to give
the Colonel an opportunity of creating an imme-
diate vacancy for Totnes. We must say that, in
our opinion, Colonel Dawkins had better send no
more letters to the Totnes members or the local
newspaper. Although a fortnight after the writing
of his first letter was not long enough to convince
him that he had been acting absurdly, about a
month has now passed, and it is to be hoped he has
found at length a better judgment. As to the words
used by Mr. Pender, they were justifiable under the
circumstances ; and as regards the expression attri-
buted to Mr. Seymour, a little reflection might have
convinced Colonel Dawkins that it could not have
been intended to cast a doubt on his courage. The
cause of Col. Dawkins's retirement is well known,
and had not nothing whatever to do with so dishon-
ourable a charge. The explanation of Mr. Seymour
is perfectly satisfactory, and, indeed,. supplies the
only intelligible meaning to his words.
ena.!
theP rumoursOSt respecting escarcely
h ebeependingc ess
anreyg ot;li tsiaoyn stli;
tween Austria and Prussia should be received with

reserve. There is no reason to suppose that war is
imminent. The Prussian military may sketch the
plan of an imaginary campaign, and the Austrian
eou.
journal:, may boast of the courage and loyalty of
their army, but the Governments of both countries
of
precaution
are under heavy recognisances to ki;leapmitt measurespeace.hoeus
That the fire which is being banked up will at some
futuretimeabreurosmt
omitted, p
o a flame, and, c
d,
flagration, is more than probable ; but al telr present
live
it is incumbent on the two Powers to control
nt a ot this
trl the
rivalry they cannot conceal, They can
together in Germany on friendly terms, b
moment they cannot afford to bring theirn differences
before Europe. An appeal to arms would be equi-
valent to applying for a divorce. The Germanic i
the otorm..
Confederation migt be blown away ll