The Sun.
London, England, 1862-03-24 00:00:00

ASSIZE INTELLIGEACE.

HOME CIRCUIT.—MAIDSTONE, March 22.
CIVIL COURT.

(Before Lord Chief Justice Erie and a Special Jury.)

CLOTHIER V. WEBSTER.

This was an action by a baker, at Woolwich,
against a contractor, under the Metropolitan Board
of Works, for injury caused to the plaintiff's oven,
through the negligence of the defendant in wont-
ing certain works for the Board.
Mr. Hawkins, Q.C., Mr. Prentice, and Mr. Lucius
Kelly, were for the plaintiff; Mr. M. Chambers,
Q.C., Mr. J. Brown, and Mr. Crawfurd were for
the defendant.

The defendant had, in making a sewer, made an
excavation under the oven, which had afterwards
sunk, so as to require it to be rebuilt, by reason of
which the plaintiff was put to expense, and for some
weeks disturbed his business, for which he claimed
between £3O and £4O.

The case for the plaintiff was, that this was
caused by the mode of making the excavation, which
was denied on the part of the defendant. The
evidence on that point of course was contradictory,
and witnesses were called on the part of the defen-
dant to show that everyproper precaution had been
taken. _ _ _ _

Mr. M. Chambers, on behalf of the defendant,
submitted that the works had been done in execu-
tion of the powers of the Act, and that, therefore,
the only remedy of the plaintiff was by a proceed-
ing for compensation under the Act.
The Lord Chief Justice—That is so, no doubt,
except so far as concerned any negligence in the
manner of doing the work, for which the contractor
would be responsible.
The excavation was made beneath the oven to
effect a communication with the main sewer at some
distance below. The contract provided for concrete
when required by the engineer of the Board, and
(in the usual way) specified that all works should
be well done, &c., and concrete had been put in so
far as required by him, and (as he said) so far as
necessary. There was concrete, however, only so
far as the crown of the sewer below, and the space
above it, up to the oven, was filled up with chalk
and clay, the oven being supported upon it by
wooden " struts" or beams,

There was strong evidence for the plaintiff that
the ground had not been filled in tightly and closely
under the oven, and had given way, so as to cause
it to sink and crack.

The clerk of the works was called on the part of
the defendant, and stated that, in his judgment, all
that was necessary had been done in the way of
precaution or care. When pressed as to the cause
of the sinking of the oven, he said he could not
deny that it might not have sunk by reason of the
works, but that no possible means would secure it
from sinking (except perhaps a solid stone wall),
that even concrete would not have been a perfect
security, and that chalk, well rammed in, was as
good as concrete.
The jury asked if chalk was as good as concrete.
The witness said he considered that it was if well
rammed.

The jury observed that it hardly could be under.
neath the oven, as the rammer could not be worked.
The engineer of the Board, who had charge of
the works, said he gave instructions from time to
time*to the clerk:of the works as to what should
be done, and he considered that the precautions
taken were sufficient, and that all his orders were
carried out. He admitted, however, that it was
necessary, in order to prevent subsidence of the
soil, that the chalk should be very carefully rammed
down. When asked on cross-examination how the
oven could have sunk, supposing the chalk had been
well rammed down, he said it was difficult to
account for; it might have occurred from defect of
construction, or foundation, or partly from one cause
and partly from another ; but he stated that, with
every precaution, it was impossible to prevent such
accidents. He admitted that if there had been any-
thing wrong in the construction of the oven it would
have been the duty of the workmen to call attention
to it, and that neither he nor the clerk of the works
had heard, at the time, that it was so. His opinion,
on the whole, was that the work had been done
carefully and skilfully.
Mr. Chambers, in summing up for defendant, con-
tended that as the contract required concrete only
under the orders of the clerk of the works or engi-
neers—who were employed by the Board, and as
they were satisfied with what the defendant had
done, the maxim of law respondeat superior applied,
and that the board alone were liable.
The Lord Chief Justice said he should rule other-
wise, reserving the point.
Mr. Chambers then contended, on the evidence
for the defendant, that, even assuming that he might
in law be liable, he was not liable in fact, for that
every possible care had been taken, and the chalk
was rammed as closely as it could be.
Mr. Hawkins, in reply on the part of the plaintiff,
contended that the ramming down had been badly
done, and that for this the contractor was respon-
sible. The oven had snnk, and that was the best
proof the work had not been sufficient. Of course,
the people
who had done the work would say they
had done it well; but the result was the best test,
and as the ground gave way, it could not have been
well filled in.
The Lord Chief Justice, in summing uP
the case
to the
Jury, told them that if the contractor had
been wanting in due care and skill, he and not the
i
Board would be responsible. The great question
was whether the excavation bad been well filled in.
Aud the point was very pertinent, how, if it was

• 80, the ground came to give way ? was for the
jury to say whether, upon the whole of the evidence
there :lad been a want of reasonabl,) care or skill
in the filling up of the excavation if so, the
plaint ff 4118 entitled to a verdict; if otherwise, he
was not.

The jury consulted for a few minutes, and re-
turned a verdict for the plaintiff—damages, £35•
Upon hearing this verdict the plaintiff exclaimed
aloud, " Righteousness shall reign !"—an exclama-
tion which caused much laughter.

(Before Mr. Justice Wightman.)
LEWIS 7. COLE AND ANOTHER.

This was an action against the:,bailiff of the
County Court of Tunbridge Wells and his officer,
for entering the premises of the plaintiff, a riding-
master at that place, and taking &horse, under an
execution from that court against a third party.
The plaintiff had taken the premises of the execu-
tion debtor, and his name was put upon the livery
stables; but the change was not known. When
the horse was taken the plaintiff claimed it, and
there had been an interpleader summons ; but as
plaintiff refused to pay the appraised value into
court (as he might have done under the County
Court Act) in order to liberate the horse, the bailiff
sold it under the execution, and paid the proceeds,
£l2, into court, to abide the event of the inter-
pleader summons, which was in favour of the
plaintiff, and the money remained in court, and
could be taken out by the plaintiff; but had not
been taken out. The value of the horse, however,
was £29, and the bailiff had been in possession six
days ; and the plaintiff claimed to recover the value,
and also compensation for the injury caused by the
entry of the bailiff.
Mr. M. Chambers, Q.C., and Mr. Butler Rigby
were for the plaintiff; Mr. Sergeant Shoe and Mr.
Honyman for the deLndants.
Mr. Justice Wightman ruled that the plaintiff
could not recover in respect to the horse, since,under
the County Court Act (passed in protection of the
bailiffs), he could have liberated the horse by pay-
ing the value into court to abide.the event of the
interpleader summons, and could now take the
amount of the proceeds out of court.
Mr. Chambers—That is, take out £l2 out in
satisfaction of a horse worth £29.

Mr. Justice Wightman said the law was so.
Mr. Chambers, in reply, contended that, at all
events, his client was entitled to recover compensa-
tion for the injury which must have been done to
him in his business by the presence of two bailiffs
on his premises for six days.
Mr. Sergeant Shee, on the part of the bailiffs,
urged that they had merely made a mistake.
The learned Judge, in summing up the case to the
Jury, said the bailiff was placed in a position of dif-
ficulty ; for he was bound to execute the warrant,
and could not know whose the horses were ; and,
whether the premises were the plaintiff's or not, he
would be bound to take any property on the pre-
mises which belonged to the execution debtor. As,
however, the horse was not the debtor's the entry
into the stables could not strictly be justified ; and
the question was what damages the plaintiff had
sustained by reason of that entry.
The jury found a verdict for the plaintiff—da-
mages, £lO.
The learned Judge gave the plaintiff leave to
move to increase the damages by the value of the
goods, less the sum paid into the court (the county
court) which the plaintiff was at liberty to take out
of court.

NORTHERN CIRCUIT.—Yorac, March 21.
(Before Mr. Justice Willes.)
GARRETT V. CRONE.

Mr. S. Temple, Q.C., and Mr. L P. E. Thompson
were for the plaintiff; Mr. Overend, Q.C., and Mr.
C. Newton for the defendant.

This action, for the seduction of the plaintiff's
daughter, was commenced yesterday, when
Harriet Garrett stated that she was the daughter
of a farmer lately residing at Middleton-on-the-
Welds, in the East Riding, was 24 years of age, and
the eldest of seven children,of whom two were sisters,
whose ages were 17 and 7 respectively, and that she
had known the defendant all her life. During the
last 10 or 12 years letters and newspapers had
come for the defendant to her father's house, which
had brought him there three or four times a-week.
In 1855 the defendant promised her marriage, and
thereupon his visits became more frequent, though
their purpose Was not communicated either to her
father or her mother until three years later, at
which time he was looked upon by them and re-
ceived as a suitor. In October, 1860, an inter-
course took place, which resulted in the witness
being delivered of a child on the 4th of July, 1861.
On her informing the defendant ?f her condition,
so soon as she knew it, she was told he
could not before 18 months marry her in
consequence of not being in '"possession of his
property. In May the witness sent fbr him, he
having lately discontinued his visits, and she asked
him what she should do, and on his telling her they
could not be married, she threatened to affiliate her
child upon him. At his next visit an offer of £lO
a-year was made by him, and by witness and her
mother rejected. Subsequently the defendant and
his sister called and saw witness and her mother,
when the defendant denied the child was his.
The witness admitted on cross-examination that
she had never walked out with the defendant or
spoken to his brother or sister, or even in his pre-
sence to any one, in reference to their intended
marriage, and that at the interview, when the de-
fendant and his sister came, she " had not thought
to tell" of his having promised her marriage. She
further denied all familiarity with a number of
young men about whom she was questioned.
On re-examination, the witness stated it was the
defendant's wish to keep their engagement a secret
from his sister.
The father of the girl was called and stated, the
letters of the defendant received at his house related
to betting transactions, and the newspapers to
sporting matters, which the defendant was anxious
shoald not be known to his sister. It further ap-
peared in the evidence adduced in support of the
plaintiff's case that neither the father nor the
mother had ever spoken to the defendant on the
subject of the defendant's marriage with their
daughter.
Augusta Witty, the girl's coisin, stated she had
once seen the defendant with Harriett on his knee,
and regarded him as her cousin's suitor.
The defendant was this morning examined in
support of his case, when he stated that the letters
which he went to see at the plaintiff's house had re-
lation to transactions in which he and the plaintiff
went halves, and that hehad never kept those trans-
actions a secret from his sister, that ho had been an
overseer and was now churchwarden, and for the
last 14 years had been a parish officer. Had not
gone to the plaintiff's to see Harriet. Had never
courted the young woman, nor promised her mar-
riage. She had never sat on his knee, nor had he
had intimacy with her, or taken indecent liberties
with her ; that the subject of marriage had never
been discussed ; that his first intimation of the girl's
condition came from his sister on the 19th of June,
when ho went to confront the girl and question her
respecting the report. The defendant's sister was
also examined as to her knowledge of the betting
transactions, and as to what took place at the inter-
view between her brother, herself, and the plaintiff's
wife and daughter, when the daughter declared
that if she should drop down dead the child
child was the defendant's, and Mrs. Garrett had
observed that Mr. Crowe had never acted as if he
were going to marry, and that she (Harriet) was a
fool. Some other witnesses were called, who de-
posed that the girl had represented that she had not
given way to Mr. Crowe before December last.
After addresses from the counsel, and a careful
summing-up by the learned judge, the jury, after
an absence of about an hour, found a verdict for the
plaintiff—Damages £4OO.

MIDLAND CIRCUIT.—DERBY, March 22.
CROWN COURT.
(Before Mr. Justice Williams,)
George Flint, a surgeon, pleaded flat guilty to an
indictment charging him with shooting at Jane
Flint, his wife, on the 19th of September last, with
intent to kill and murder her, There were also
other counts, varying the charge.
Mr. Huish conducted the prosecution, and Mr.
F. Stephen the defence.
The prisoner had carried on a respectable practice
as a surgeon in Buxton for some years, but lived
very unhappily with his wife, and addicted himself
to drinking. On Sept. 19 he went to his brother's
house and borrowed a gun, which at first the brother
refused to let him have, as the prisoner seemed to
be in a state of very great excitement, whether from
drinking or not the witness could not say. The
prisoner said that he wanted it to shoot a cat, and
that he must have it. He loaded the gun with a
small charge of small shot, and took it with him.
On his way to borrow it he met a man named
Wheldon, whom he told he was going to ashoot
Jane." He was afterwards seen standing opposite
his own door with the gun in his hand, and his wife
was running away from him. When she was turn-
ing the street corner, about 20 yards from him, he
pointed the gun at her and fired, wounding her very
slightly with some of the shots.
The only question raised by the learned counsel
for the defence was as to the prisoner's state of mind
at the time, which, it was contended, was such as
rendered him irresponsible for his acts, and incap-
able of the criminal intent charged against him.
The cross-examination elicited that his wife's mis-
conduct had caused him great unhappiness, that she
had used great violence towards him, and that ever
since the act he had been shut up in a madhouse.
The facts that he had loaded only one barrel of the
gun, which was double-barrelled • that he had put
so B=ll a charge into it; and had fired it, not is

the house, but in the public street, when his wife
had turned the corner, were urged as showing that
the prisoner did not elitcrtain the intent ehargel,
His Lordship having s'm'ut( up,
The jutyl.eturned a verliet of guilty of unlawful
wounding, and the prisoner was sentenced to one
month's imprisonment.

POLICE' IN.T_BLLIGENCE.-11.1arch 22.

MANSION-HOUSE.—On Saturday the public
subscription at this court towards the relief of the
widows and families of the men who perished in
the Hartley Colliery was brought to a close. It had
then amounted to £20,435 13s. 11d. in the whole,
including a small amount of interest on part of the
money which had been placed at a banker's at call.
Of that sum £2,000 was some time ago sent to the
local committee at Newcastle-upon-Tyne, and by the
post of Saturday evening the Lord Mayor forwarded
to the Mayor of that town £17,967 8s 9d, the re-
maining balance, after deducting £468 5s 2d paid
for advertisements, less a small sum for office work.
There is no example, in the recollection of any one
connected with the Mansion-house, of so large a
sum having been sent there for any purpose of
charity, or to mitigate the deplorable effects of a
calamity, except in the cases of the Indian mutiny
and the Indian famine, which were of Imperial
rather than of local concern. For duration also, and
for its spontaneous and universal character, the fund
is equally without a parallel. On the 25th January,
just after the fate of the 200 men and boys had been
revealed to the public in all its horror, the subscrip-
tion began here by a working man sending a shil-
ling to the Lord Mayor. In less than three days
afterwards it amounted to nearly £2,000, and it
went on accumulating day after day, as much as
£1,600 and upwards having often been received in
a single day—until it rose in round numbers to
£20,400, in less than two months—a remarkable in-
stance of public sympathy and generosity spontane-
ously evinced on the occasion of a heartrending cala-
mity. In that feeling every class of the metropolitan
community, including in some cases the poorest per-
sons, appears to have participated. The great mass
of the donors and sympathisers, however, were of
the middle and labouring classes. Merchants' and
bankers' clerks, shopmen of all classes, people living
by all kinds of manual and skilled labour, private
families, public and private schools, and domestic
servants made up the great bulk of the subscribers,
and the result stands out as a memorable exemplifi-
cation of public benevolence. For full two months
the Mansion-house has resembled nothing so much
as a banking establishment ; a room had to be set
apart for this special business, and a vast amount of
labour and responsibility devolved upon two of the
officers of the court, Mr. Pickering, the cashier, in
particular, and Mr. Sewell, the swordbearcr.

GUILDHALL.—Anthony Dutlein, who recently
absconded from the service of Alderman Wilson,
taking with him a valuable set of scientific instru-
ments, a new suit of clothes, and £l2 10s in money
received on his master's account, was brought up for
final examination relative to two charges of em-
bezzling £l2 lOs and £5, and a third charge of
forging Alderman Wilson's name to a receipt for £5.
The prisoner pleaded guilty to all the charges,
and was then committed for trial.

Louisa 'Wood, aged 49, was charged with annoy-
ing and assaulting Mr. -Robert Summers, a solicitor,
of 5, New Bridge-street.
Mr. Summers said, about 18 months ago the
prisoner met with an accident on the premises
of the Commercial Dock Company, and instructed
him to bring an action against them for negli-
gence. The jury ultimately awarded the pri-
soner £2BO damages, subject to the decision of the
full Court upon a point of law which was reserved.
The full Court gave their decision against the pri-
soner, but they thought, as she had been put to great
expense in the actions, and the company had not
given her earlier information of their non-liability,
the directors ought to allow her something towards
her costs. The company accordingly granted her
£lOO, which was paid over to him (Mr. Summers) ;
after deducting a sum of £B2, that being much
below what the taxing-master would have allowed,
he offered the prisoner the balance of £lB, but she
said she would have all or none, and instructed a
solicitor to recover the whole of the £lOO for her.
He made out his bill of costs, and sent it to the
solicitor, and heard no more from him ; but in the
meantime the doctor who attended the prisoner for
the injuries she received through the accident, not
having been paid, sued out an attachment in the
Lord Mayor's Court, and the balance, £lB, was in
consequence paid over, so that he had nothing now
belonging to the prisoner. She however, persisted
in annoying him by frequent demands for the £lOO,
sometimes remaining in the office for four or five
hours at a time, and telling every client who came
in that he would be swindled, as she had been, and
at other times yelling and screaming at the clerk in
such a manner as to obstruct the whole business of
the office. On Saturday morning she came to the
office, and on being removed assaulted Mr. Sum-
mers and broke his spectacles.
The prisoner produced the newspaper report to
show that £lOO was to be paid to the plaintiffs by
the defendants, and that Mr. Summers had never
offered her a farthing.

Sir F. G. Moon required the prisoner to find two
sureties in £lO each to keep the peace for six
months, and in default committed her to prison.

BOW-STREET.---Mr. Benjamin Hotine, a fish-
monger in Lime-street, Leadenhall-market, was
brought up in custody of Sergeant Wallis, of the
detective force, upon a warrant charging him, under
the Act 6th and 7th William IV., for the registra-
tion of births, deaths, and marriages, with having
made false statements of the particulars required
by that statute to be stated to the registrar with
reference to the registration of the birth of a child.
The prosecution had been instituted by the soli-
citors to the Treasury, on the advice of the Attorney-
General. Mr. Clerk appeared as counsel for the
Crown, and the prisoner was defended by his soli-
citor, Mr. Skegg.
In July last the prisoner sued as a petitioner in
the Divorce Court for a dissolution of his marriage,
in November, 1838, with Mary Anne Sanders. In
that petition he alleged that his wife had left him
in 1839, and had since been living in adultery with
a pers3n named Foxhall, the co-respondent. The
Queen's proctor intervened in that suit, alleging
that the petitioner had himself been living in adul-
tery for 20 years. Hotine then applied for and
obtained permission to withdraw his petition.
From the evidence in support of the intervention of
the Queen's proctor it appeared that the defendant
(then petitioner) had kept as his wife a woman
named Robins, by whom he had six children, born
respectively in the years 1844, 1848, 1851, 1853,
1855, and 1857, all of whom he had registered as
legitimate children. In each instance the entry in
the registration-book contained the following par-
ticulars, the information being given by the priso-
ner, and the entry signed by him—that the father's
name was Benjamin Hotine, and the mother's name
Sophia Hotine, formerly Robins. These
were the
particulars required by the Act, and any misstate-
ment of those particulars was, under the same Act,
visited with the pains and penalties of perjury.
Mr. Clerk urged that at the time when the prisoner
made these statements to the registrars he must
have been well aware that the mother of the chil-
dren could not properly be described as Sophia
Hotine.

sions of this Act (the Marriages Act) shall be ap
plied to that Act (the Registration Act.)"
Mr. Corrie thought that it Lord Campbell had
considered the point to be so clear as Mr. Skegg
contended he would have stopped the case. But
J Lord Campbell reserved the point and took the
opinion of the jury on the facts. If Lord Campbell
would not undertake to decide the point, neither
should he (Mr. Corrie).' lie should commit the pri-
soner for trial, and this question would be disposed
of by the judges. He should commit the prisoner
for trial, but would take bail iu two sureties of £lOO
each, and his own recognisances of £2OO.
Two sureties satisfactory to the prosecution were
provided, and the prisoner was liberated.

MARLBOROUGH-STREET.—One guinea has
been received for Camilla Rose from H. R., a Bus'
sian," which will be given to her with the other
subscriptions when arrangements are completed for
sending her hack to Brazil.

MARYLEBONE.—Edward Villiers Crotty, re-
siding at 3, Oakley-terrace, Chelsea, appeared on a
summons to answer the charge of having threatened
to publish a scandalous and defamatory libel upon
a widow lady.
Mr. Mansfield committed him for trial on both
charges, allowing bail, himself in £l,OOO, and tvio
sureties in £5OO each.

WORSHIP-STREET.--John Lyons and Wm'
Tremlett, the first a well known thief, were charged
on suspicion of having been concerned in a robbery.
Mr. Thos. Shapcott, the prosecutor, stated that
he is a professor of music, residing in Pakington-
street, Islington. Wishing to see a little East-end
life he, accompanied by a friend, at about half-past
one in the morning of Saturday, entered a public'
house called the Holy Well, in Shorediteh. There
he found the two prisoners standing at the bar.
Lyons said to him, without being spoken to, "
know a man who will fight you," and witness re-
plied," Well, I am perfectly willing to accommodate
him or any other man." A third man then remarked
that there were blacklegs present, and as this w 5
evidently intended for witness and his friend, he
knocked that man down. As soon as he had done so
the prisoner Lyons rushed forward, pulled him off
his antagonist, got his arm round his neck, and tried
to gouge out one of his eyes. The witness, how-
ever, got out of the house with his friend. On
reaching the street he found that he had lost his
scarf-pin from his neck, which he had seen
from the looking-glass safe a few minutes before,
and which he attached much value to, as it was
the gift of a friend whom he should never see agaio.
He lost no other property; Going out with the ob-
ject he had in view, he had put his gold watch,
chain, and money carefully into his boot for safety,
as, in fact, he always did when at all doubtful of
the company he was likely to meet, and he would
placed the pin there too if it had struck him as
likely to be stolen, for he would have much sooner
lost his watch and chain. In the street he saw
Tremlett, whom he warned not to follow him. As
he felt heated and excited, he and his friend then
went to another house to procure some lemonade,
On going into the secondhe found the two prisoners
in conversation, and, feeling satisfied then that there
was complicity between them, he gave them both
into custody.

A constable of the N division proved a former
conviction of Lyons for felony, when he was sell'
tented to six months hard labour.

Mr. Mapleson, the landlord of the house, described
Tremlett, as a quiet, inoffensive man. The prc,sect;
tor was boastful of his prowess, and said that he had
come from the country, and wanted to see life as It
was at the East End. The witnew:i advised him to
take care of his property, and in particular of 10
gold spectacles, or he would be likely to lose then
but he would not take his advice.

Mr. Knox said as Tremlett was unknown to the
police, he would accept his recoguisances for hi,,
future appearance, but the ease was different with
Lyons, whom he should order to be remanded with'
out bail.

COUNTRY MARKETS.

.....

LEICESTER—Mmtcu 22.
The supply of wheat to-day at marlcet was micldlin,f;
and fresh-thrashed parcels were merally in poor coo
6V _
tion; trade dull, and late prices ls down. White 63s to :
red, 53s to 63s per 36 stone. Barley was in fair SIIP.
ply—grinding, 30s to 32s ; malting, 34s to 38s per qeh
oats, 25s to 30s per 24 stone. Beans at former ro'
new, 35s to 405.; old, 43s to 48s per 38 stone.
Fine flour, 45a I Seconds, 43s I Thirds, 41s per aack'

NORWICH—MARCH 22.
slid Wheat to-day was in comparatively limited supplh.io,
for the best samples the prices of last week were fully 07v
tained ; inferior parcels were at a slight decline. 'ro
quantity of barley was very small, and late prices W"
supported. Oats scarce. Beans and peas slow.
White wheat..... •59s to 63s I Red wheat ........ 56° to 60;
s
oe
Malting barley....36s to 38s I Chevalier barley...3ss to ,-)..,.
New d 0........ —silo —s I Oats..
Flour, 40s Od to 41s Od per sack from the miller.

NOTTINGHAM—MAucx 22.
There was again a scarce show of wheat to-day, and
the trade ruled quiet—good samples at former rates; other
sorts is cheaper—white, from 63s to 67s ; red, 42s to 630.
Malting barley in good demand-34s to 39s ; grinding, 294
to 31s. Oats were slow, at 26s to 355. Beans were Gold
at 38s to 50s per qr. Flour, 38s to 445.

YORK—MAncti 22.
We had a very small supply of wheat to-day from Or
glowers. Trade dull, and previous rates declined ls. 4c;
moderate business was doing in barley, and, with a scar
supply, prices were a shade over last week's rates, Oats a
limited sale, and former prices barely supported. 13019 a
,
dull trade, at about former currencies.
Wheat, red 56s to 608 Oats...
949
°lig
White do .GOs to 648 Beans 42s to
Barley .32s to 37s Peas
...--s to --4/
433
Malt, 66s to 68s per qr..; rye, 348 per qr.;. flora',
to 45s per sack.