The Sun.
London, England, 1848-07-31 00:00:00

MIDLAND CIRCUIT, Derby.—July 29.

CIVIL SlDE.—(Before Lord Chief Justice✓ DENmAN
and a Special Jury.)

ARNGELEY V. THE LONDON AND NORTH-WESTERN RAIL-

WAY COMPANY.

This was an action on promises.
Mr. Whitehurst, Q.C., Mr. Huinfrey, Q.C., and Mr.
Mellor, appeared as counsel for the plaintiff ; Mr. Ma-
caulay and Mr. Denizen conducted the case on behalf of
the company.
The plaintiff was the owner of the Hunston Colliery,
which had previously belonged to Mr. Newbold, who had
supplied the company with coke of a superior quality,
which was necessary for railway use, as the presence of
sulphur was productive of great injury to the machi-
nery. The company had, originally, only a small sup-
ply from the colliery, but had gradually increased
the quantity they ordered, at last becoming desirous
of securing a supply by entering into a contract
for a year ; and eventually, in December, 1846,
they entered into a contract for a year with the plaintiff
for the supply of 150 tons a week, at 21s. per ton, for
the year 1847, to be transported to Rugby at the plain-
tiff's expense, the company supplying the waggons. It
was stipulated that if the company should not take the
150 tons they were to pay by way of forfeit, at and
after the rate of 2s. 6d. for every one of such number of
150 tons a week as they should not take, and there was
a corresponding provision for forfeiture by the plaintiff
for every to'e that should be deficient in the supply, viz.,
2s. 6d. This agreement was entered into on the last
day of December, 1846, and was for the year 1847. It
appeared that complaints had been made of the coke
being small; but on the plaintiff's part it was alleged
that this arose from the waggons not being supplied by
the company, and its being in consequence rendered
necessary that there should be additional trans .ship-
ments of the coke, which was liable to crack when shifted
in a damp state. On this subject the plaintiff, in 1847,
wrote to the company, remonstrating respecting the in-
sufficiency of the supply of waggons, on the ground of the
waste, loss, &c., caused by the trans-shipment so ren-
dered necessary by such deficiency. This letter was im-
portant, as calling attention to the want of waggons very
soon after the contract was made. To it there was an
answer from Mr. Bury the next day. The plaintiff never
would shoot it on the ground if he could help it, but had
frequently waited with his carts for half a day together
for waggons. The shooting broke it, and in the absence
of waggons it had to be shot twice, once on the ground,
and then again into the waggons; and the shooting on
to the ground injured it mush more than would the
shooting it into the waggons direct from the plaintiffs
carts. On the 29th of January the plaintiff wrote again
to Mr. Bury respecting the deficiency of waggons and
the consequent detention of the coke, reiterating his
former remonstrances, and at the same time stating that
if by the default of the company he should be compelled
hree respect ofd
into saucepoprldyaancleesswqittLantthietyatghraenemcoennttr,accitleadrgfeori,n
the quantity deficient.
Various witnesses were then called for the plaintiff.
Mr. MacsuLAY, for the defendants, contended that
there had been in June, 1847, a rescission of the ori-
ginal contract entered into in Dee., 1846, and declared
upon in the first count of the declaration. There was
an annihilation of the old contract by an agreement,
but not a creation of a new one, so as to support the
second count of the declaration, because it was ;not in
writing as required by the Statute of Frauds.
Ibis LoaDssm' having summed up,
The jury, after some little deliberation, returned a
verdict for the plaintiff—damages, 1,2461., giving 2s. 6d.
per ton from the date of the termination of the contract
in May, to the end of the year, arid 5001. for unliqui-
dated damages, irrespective of and beyond the sum of
95/. paid into court.

This terminated the business of the assizes for this
county, and the Court rose at half-past nine, Mr. Jus-
tice Patteson having disposed of the Crown cases at
about seven.

There was nothing in the Crown Court calling for
mention in the present crowded state of the journal 3.

NORTHERN CIRCUIT—York, July 29.
CROWN COURT.—(Before Mr. Justice ERLE.)
SENTENCES ON THE CHARTIST RIOTERS.

The prisoners first placed at the bar to receive sen-
tence were John Johnson, Francis Vicory, Henry
Whibcornbe, William Sagar, William Smith, James
Downs, Isaiah Heaton, William Connor, and William
Winterburn, who were charged with rioting at Horton
and Bradford; Sagar and Johnson to be imprisoned for
two years with hard labour, and the remainder for
eighteen months.
Ambrose Tomlinson, for sedition at North Bierley,
to be imprisoned for eighteen months, but without hard
labour.

Andrew Beanleand, for a riot at Bradford, to be im-
prisoned for eighteen months, with hard labour.
James Ramsden, for drilling at Drighlington, to be im-
prisoned for two , ears, with hard labour.
Benjamin Plant, Daniel Holroyd, and Thomas Fell,
for drilling at Bradford, Horton, and Manningham, to
he imprisoned for 15 months with hard labour.
William Gill, John Cockerham, Henry Butterfield,
Ambrose Power, and Roger Bradley, for drilling at
Bradford, Clayton, and Horton, to be imprisoned for 12
months, with hard labour.

Joseph Leeming, for drilling at Skircoat, to be im-
prisoned for 12 months, with hard labour.
John Kilvington, Isaac Ickeringill, James Crabtree,
and James Bland, for a riot, &c., were next sentenced:
Ickeringill to be imprisoned for six months, with hard
labour ; Crabtree for two months, but without hard
labour ; Kilvington, one month, and without hard
labour ; and Bland, who had been convicted of neglect
of duty as a special constable, fined 101., and to be im-
prisoned till that fine be paid.