Star.
London, England, 1801-12-18 00:00:00

coma Qv COMMON PLEAS. DEC. is.

MAIMS V. NOGG.
This was an Anion to recover 3 1. 25. being
the amoent of the fum at which certain goods, be- 1
longing to the Plaintiff, were appraifed to the De- I
fendant, who had agreed to purchafe them.
It was proved, on the part of the plaintiff, that
the defendant had agreed to take the goods ac-
cording to the valuation of a Broker, employed by
both part:es, who had finally valued them at thirty
three pounds two Millings.
It alto appeared, that the defendant lodged in
the. plaintiff's linufe, and that at the time of the
agreement, the plaintiff was smelled, and in a
Lock-up-Houfe.
On the part of the defendant it appeared, that
he had paid the plaintiff 25L with which, it was
aliened by one of the witneXes, the latter declared
himfelf perfenly fatisfied, in lieu of the 331. 23.
and that tol. of this had been returned by the
plaintiff to the defendant, to pay the taxes due on
account of the bottle of the former, which was
given up to the latter. That the taxes were ac-
cordingly paid, and a trifling balance remaining
out of the la repaid to the plaintiff. No receipt
however was produced on the part of the defen-
dant, to prove that the plaintiff had acknowledged
the 251. he had received as a full fatisfa6tion f'or
the 331. 2s. at which the goods had been valued,
and on this circunitlance the plaintiff's Counfel
chiefly relied his reply.
Lord ALA? A LEY obferved, in fumming up the
evidence,that the defendant ought to have brought
the bell evidence which could be had, that is to
fay, the plaintiff's receipt, to prove that he had
accepted the fum of 251. in full fatisfanion of the
fern of 331. as. which was agreed to be paid by
the defendant to the plaintiff.
Verdi& for the Plaintiff—Damages 81. as. with
Colts:

OPPENHEIM AND ANOTHER V. RUSSELL.
The Defendant is proprietor of a Waggon go- ;
ing from London to Plymouth, in which certain
goods were fent by the Plaintiffs, configned to a
houfe at Plymouth. The Plaintiffs gaining intel-
ligence of the failure of the Confignees, hopped
the goods in tralfilii.
The defendant 'detained the-goods upon a plea
that the Confignees were indebted to him upon the
balance of an account, and that be bad a right to
detain the goods in part of payment of that debt,
ezclufive of what was due to him for the carriage
of the goods.
Thek fads appeared by the admiffion on both
fides, evidence not being gone into.
r. Serjeant LENS and Mr. Damn sa, having
admitted the fads, and the right of the Plaintiffs
to flop in traiitu, which they had in this inftance
clone, contended, that by the cufkom of England,
a Common Carrier was authorized to detain goods
fent by him, until any debt due to him by the
Confignee was difchargel Of this Cullom they
offered evidence, from which they intended to
draw an argument to meet the Cafe before the
Court.
Mr. Serieant SHEPHERD and Mr. READte, for
the PlainStFs, objeEted to this evidence as inadmif-
fible' and it was finally over-ruled by
Lord ALVAN i.sy, who obrerved, that if evidence
was admitted to prove the euflom, it could not go
to the Jury in this cafe, as it could not affea the
Plaintiffs right to flop in granite, it not being con-
tended that the goods ever were legally in the pof-
lemon of the Confignces. l le, therefore, refufed
to receive the evidence tendered by the Defendant's
Connie].
It was at length agreed,that the Plaintiffs Should
have a verdict for the amount of the goods, fubjea
to the opinion of the Court, upon a Motion for a
new Trial.

WOLF TJ. MLLilt.
This was an Action for an Affault, in which
Come contradidion of Evidence appeared, and the
decifion of which turned upon the credibility of
the Witneffes.
The Plaintiff is a female, and the Defendant a
Broker. The latter had jußified upon the Record,
by alledging that the Plaintiff had behaved in a riot-
ous manner in his dwelling-houfe, and that he bad
gently put her out.
The principalWitnefs for the Plaintiff pofitively
fwore,_ that the Defendant brought the Plaintiff
out of the houfe of the former in his arms. and
then puihed her down upon the ground with con-
-fiderable violence • whilft, on the other band, it
was as pofitively fivom by a Witnefs for the De-
fendant, who Paid, he was in the houfe of the lat-
ter at the time that the Plaintiff came into the De-
Pendant's houfe, and behaved in a very riotous
manner; and that the latter, after repeatedly de-
firing her to quit the honk, which the refuted to
do, took her up in his arms, carried her out of the
aor, and gently Pet her down upon her feet upon
the ground.
The Jury, after i'.rne confideration, found a
Verdi& for the Plaintiff—Damages ts. which car-
ries Cogs, there being a juftification upon the
Record.

MOOD V. SLATIIt..-DSCINIIIII 17.
This was an adios; brought by the Plaintiff who
is a Rove-grate maker, againfl the Defendant
who is an Apothecary, to recover the value of a
kitchen range and oven furnilhed by the former
to the latter.
It was contended on the part of the plaintiff,
that the articles were made exadly according to
the orders of the defendant, and in a workman-
like manner ; but two witneffes engaged in the
trade, who were called on behalf of the plaintiff,
hefitated to fay the articles were finilbed in a
workman-like manner ; all that could be got out
of them being, that they had feat fome articles of
the fame kind better, and Come worfe. It was
proved that the defendant had agreed to keep the
oven, but had demanded of the plaintiff to take
back the range, as being not made in a proper or
workman-like manner.
One witnefs was called on the part of the de-
fendant, who Rated that the range was badly made,
and in a Rata not fit for ale, and that it was then
in the fame Rate as when it cams out of the plain-
tiffs hands.

the Jury quitted their bor to examine it. When
ther returned, they declared their decided Opinion
that at was a very bad piece of workmanfhip.
The plaintiff's Connfel then contented to be non-
(tilted, as the remaining articles of the plaintiff's
bill, after deducing the range, did not amount to
51. and therefore if a verdia had been taken for a
lets turn than 51. the defendant would have been
entitled to double coils under the Court of Confci-
ence Mt for the City of London, both parties
living within the city.—Plaintiff nonfuited.

PATY, •SSIGNIIt OF FITCH, A BANKRUPT, V.

SAVA C E.
This aftion was brought to recover the rum of
751. which it was alledged the Bankrupt had paid
to the Defendant after committing an at of Bank-
ruptcy, who was therefore liable for that amount
to the Aftignee.
It appeared that the plaintiff was the coeditor of
the Bankrupt to the amount of about 3001. and
that the remaining debts of the latter amounted
to little more than 451. Evidence was called to
prove an adt of Bankruptcy on the sth of June
La It alfo appeared that the defendant was (er-
rant to a Mr. Harris, a wholefale linen-draper,
and that the plaintiff, accompanied by another
Jton, went to Merton, in Surrey, on the 17th of
une, where Mr. Harris has a houfe, and Pent for
the defendant to an Inn in the neighbourhood,
where, according to the teftimony of Mr. Davis,
who accompanied the plaintiff, the defendant con-
feffed he had received the 751, from the Bankrupt,
either on the sth or 6th of June, being the fum lie
had before lent to the Bankrupt. The plaintiff,
accompanied by Mr. Davis and a third perfon,
went on the a tft June to the houfe of Mr. Harris,
in whore prefence they again interrogated the de-
fendant, who acknowledged he had received the
money, but the time when he had received it was
not mentioned.
Lord Asvam sly, in his obfervations to the
Jury, laid particular firers on the cireuntaance of
the plaintiff and his friend fending for the defen-
dant to the public-houfe, where no friend of the
latter's was prefent, and their endeavouring to get
out of him an acknowledgment of what they want-
ed, inftead of going to the houfe of Mr. Harris,
the defendant's mailer, and alto on the improba-
bility of the Bankrupt's paying the defendant 751.
in fatisfaaion of a debt, at a time when he was
afraid of being arrefted by the plaintiff. It was
for the Jury, however, to confider whether they
were fatisfied that the money was paid by the
Bankrupt to the defendant after an adof Bankrupt-
cy committed? if they were, however hard the
cafe might be, they muff find their Terdia for the
plaintiff.—Verdid for Defendant.

COURT OF KING'S BENCH, DEC. 16.
GRAYSON N. CASTLING.
An Ailion upon a Bill of Exchange: the Drawe
againft the Acceptor. Defence--that the Bill wa
altered after it was accepted ; the date changed
and fo it appeared in the evidence, but who altere
it did not appear. .
The Declaration contained money counts, a
well as that upon the Bill of Exchange;, but_ th
Plaintiff was confined to the Bill of Exchange b,
his Bill of Particulars under a Judge's Order.
Lord Kee yow--44 This, I would have the part
who did it nndernand, is the high road to the gal
lows. It is a capital offence, to alter a Bill of Es
change after it is ifTued. The Public cannot 'b
too much on their guard againft bad Paper, rt
prefenting credit as it does in various fhapes.—
There is an enormous mail of it out ; I know Cher
is. I have Peen Country Bank Notes payable
three or four months date, without the capital c
a farthing upon earth to fupport it ; figned
GOD knows who, as good as John Noakes as
Thomas Stiles, but no better; no fecurity for
fhilling of. it, and poor, honeft but deluded pet
pie. feting a fine piece of paper, and a good et
graving on it, the appearance of a Bank fecurit
about it, take it molt readily. Such a fituation c
things is dreadful. ;Mete is a frightful mats c
this Paper out ; the whole fabric will fall by an
by, and tumbleabout our ears. Country Bahia
too, are in many refpeas a great evil. lam uc
(peaking at random, but that of which I am cei
nun : I fay. that if 99 out of too of our Counts
Bank Notts were &holed, it would be a beneti
to the Country: the mifchief they do in variou
ways, is incalculable lam fare of this—abfolutel
certain of it." Plaintiff uonfuited.
HILL AND ANOTNIR O. WRIONT.
The Plaintiffs are dealers in Floor, and the D
fendant is a Baker. The Aftion was brought t
recover sal. tos. the balance due fins a number
tacks of Flour, fold and delivered by the Plaintif
to the Defendant in the beginning of June !aft.-
The Defence was, that the Flour was not of
faleible quality, it being unfit to be made int
Bread. _ _ _

It was contended on the part of the Plaintiff
that as this Hour was not complained of until tl
month (of Augull, it was the fall in the price
the article thatmade the Defendant find fault wi
the quality of it, for that he had Banally ufed fo
tacks of it, but he wanted to throw the remai
der of it on the bands of the Plaintiffs, and pt
chafe other Floor, fo as to put the difference in I
pocket.
The Pale and delivery of the Flour was prove
The price was sl. tss. per rack, which was i
heft price at that time.
It appeared then in evidence eall‘d by the I
fendant—fira, by a perfon of the name of Os
ham, that he was the journeyman of the Del
dant in July LIR ; that he remembered the Fl
in queftion coating into his Maffer's houfe ; it i
kept &vett or eight days ; at the end of that ti
they began to ate it. He found it was very I
Flour—very unvrholefonte : it was not fuck as
Make could make into Bread. He did mak
into bread and fell it, but one-third mised a
better flour ; but even with that it did not m
proper Bread. They u4d it, be believed, twi
and it made very indifferent Bread indeed. 1
Bread which was made of this Flour was an
• than the other Bread he had been tiled to mai
They had various complaints &lOW th-r ci

• .

7 .

m Jae iumi

tired; stiociatit beforet his Mailer 'This is the man who comelTsefore you to fay _____
complaints about his Bread before, this article was of a deleterious quality. If he can,
lel* was in his fervice. But the cue'. by there means, get rid of his engagement, he will
cult with the Bread that was made get to himfelf an advantage of so per cent. upon
third part of this Flour, and (did 'the amount of the article he has purchafed, out of
: him if he did not give them better . the pocket of the perfon who fold it. I fubfcribe
Witnefs made a loaf of this Flow. to the .doßrine laid down by the Learned Counfel
hat was very bad indeed, and not ,for the Defendant, That if a perfon buys a cora-
-1 to fell. In confequence of this modity which torment ta baba. and uninerchant-
tut fo very bad, they did not ufe it able, the purchafer cannot be compelled to pay for
wnings. They ufed not quite five it;' but in this cafe, I by no means fee it fo
[ley generally mixed fume kale proved ; for here the Defendant tells upon his oarss
r. from a period early in the month of June, through
*the name of Wright, but who was the whole of July, and to the middle of Augidt,
he Defendant, gave an account of when he finds fault with the commodity, oiler a
gs which took place between the dcterinration•of which you have no account as to
e Defendant before the Lord Mayor the caufe, and when Corn had fallen upwards of
Flour in Auguß left, and the par- 5o per cent. I cannot, therefore, fee how Jullice
1,. ere both prefect. A loaf was can be done to the individual, or good to the pub-"
h the Plaintiff,' Mr. Hill, laid was lic, if I were not to fay to you that, iq this cafe,
lour. The Withers law the loaf, the Plaintiff is entitled to recover in this anion to
by, the defire of the Lord Mayor : the amount of his demand."
Ifhip it was made from bad Flour, Verdid for the Plaintiff—Damages :al. toe.
sund and not perfeiffly fweet. ThiS LITTLIDA LI AND OTHERS V. ?DENTON AND OTHERS.
middle or the latter end of Auguß. This was an action for damages for the nonper-
his Flour was bolht; to the time formance of a contraft. •
the Loaf, Flour acf fallen 'fey Mr. ERSRINs faid, the Jury would have very
m price.—The Lord Mayor raid, little trouble in the decifion of this cafe, becaufe,
:anon, in the hearing of both par- upon an attentive perufal of it, he was convinced it
ommended it to Mr. Hill to take was a very plain one. The Defendants had put
Flour, and fend to Mr. Wright themfelves to a good deal of unneceffary trouble
ty of good Plour,'.and the Witnefs and expence, in preparing for "a defence which
and before the Lord Mayor, that world be found to amount to nothing, for it WAS
),Itaioll to take back the Flour.— one which could not be received in a Court of Jul-
its time, good Flour in ple;ty ; but tice. The Defendant, Mr. Poynton, lived at
o bad, that it could not be made Wakefield, where he bad a large warehoufe for the
le Lord Mayor pulled the Loaf in reception of corn. Ile came to the counting.houfe
k. of the Plaintiffs, who imported wheat to a large
a Baker, laid, he law this Flour amount at Hull. He laid he was delimits of our
dant had bought off the Plaintiff, chafing wheat, and that he was willing to give fix
Defendant's houfe. He examined guineas a quarter for it ; upon which a converfa-
sas bad as bad could be: it Runk tion arofe in Which Mr. Parkinfon, one of the firm
not be ufed. Any body might be of the Plaintiffs' houfe, faid, they had an .expeeta-
id lie had brought a fample of it. tion of a vele! arriving loon with about 850 quer-
his hand : he willed the Jury to ters of wheat from Pomerania, and he read to the
as bad as had could be, and not Defendant extracts front feveral letters they had
• the purpofe of meriting Bread at from Hamburgh, of the 28th of February, and the
xeri good Flour at any time, it 28th of March, giving an account of the Ihip he-
re become as bad as this, if kept ing expefted to rail at the firft opening of the vta-
dgrnent. ter at Witinur, which could not be long. and the
(wore, that he law this flour in Plaintiffs gave the Defendant Aram information
that it was very bad then. they poßeffed upon the fubjeft, upon which the
oved, that the price of the bell Plaintiffs and the Defendant came to the following
when this was fold, v..as t iss. per agreement in writing—" Hull, all of May, sBOO,
Mr. Poynton bought of Littledale and Co. 850
i going to reply on behalf of the quarters of wheat, daily espeited by the Anna Ca-
therine Eliza, Captain Jank, at zzo thiliings per
i fpoke nearly as follows : Dif. quarter, payable by Banker's bills at two months
ay take different views, and form date, &c.; the danger of the Peas excepted, to LJZ
upon the fame fubjeft. I have delivered in as good condition Si eau he expefied
inn in this Cafe in favour of the according to fample, confidcring the length of the
itb your leave, Mr. Pei', I will voyage."
oto the Gentlemen of the jury, On the fecond of May, IBoc, thin was a good
ground on which I have formed bargain, for the Defendant had aflually paid three
at they may be enabled to review &alums per quarter more for Come other wheat ;
nd by comparing them whhtheir btu afterwards the article fell, and that was clic
n if erroneous. whole Englifh of this cafe: the Defendant refutial
is brought to recoverthe value to take the wheat. On the 9th of May, t':e market
her of ricks of flour, fold and de- fell about five (billings per quarter, and fo cat the
iintifto the Defendant ; anddates loth the Defendant wrote a letter to the Plaintiffs,
this cafe. The flour was fold in dated on the loth of May, i floo, direCted to
c—on the toth iff June ; it is in Meffrs. Littletlale and Co. Rating, on behalf of the
is. The ground of the arguMent Defendant, and his partners.--" When we made
t is, that theflour is not of &cis a the agreement with you for wheat, fay 850 quay-
ht to be. The-Defendant receives tens, on the actiollant, it was then underßood that
warehoule, or fotne place fit for the fame watuld be delivered in two or. three der) s
keeps it for eight or fine days-- at the moll ; as we had none, and as there is no ac
lacks and begins to ufe this flour. count of its artivel, we do not confider ourfelves
in evidence again hirrifelf, and bound by the lane, and fliall therefore, front this
d him it all events. By that evi- notice, decline assepting the Lime." To which
that he hat dealt with the inno- the Plaintiffs wrote in antwcr, dated Hull, the t ath
his bread, Off the flour was fit of May, in which the Plaintiffs laid, they lltould
e old and the young have bought hold the Defendants to their agreement—upon
m in bread, and given him the which the Defendant. Poynton, wrote another let-
as if the flour was the big.— ter to the Plaintiffs, alledging, that it was not he
slopinitin, that when fedi a man who bad broken the terms of the contras, but the
aim, that that flour was bad, he Plaintiffs had broken theirs, as the corn was not
heard laying fo in a Court of yet delivered, and expreffing an expefNtion that
s as bad as he now lays it was, they would make fatisfaiffion fur the difappoint-
flribute it to all degrees of per- ment. The truth of the matter.was this: if the
ne ? He began u ling this flour article had been of the fame price as when this fpe-
June ; this article goes down to culator in corn contraded for it, he would have
without any complaint upon waited with patience for it, and would have taken
till then is faid againfl is. At it cheerfully into his granary, and the poor might
is a mighty alteration in the price look at it through a telefcope, until the price fdr
month of June. An abundant it had become tuificiently high in his opinion to
bounty of Yeovil:neer bellowed bring it out again. The lots was very confider-
,eidence of Goo—and would to able upon It, however ; and Mr. Erfkioe faid he
lw to be thankful for it, brought was glad of it, and "tithed had been much
r that article fifty per cent. and greater.
n,petfonal,knowledge,from 235. A Witnefs was then called, who proved the
'ea this great alteration in price, whole of the coiwerfation between Mr. Poynton
it Darts his objedion to the qua- and one of the plaintiffs, as Rated by Mr. Erfkine,
then he makes his complaint, and likewife the agreement already Rated, to
laintiffs before the Lord Mayor, which he was the fubfcribing witnefs. He proved
::account of the difmne there.— Alb, that the extras of t.ie letters which had
s managed after it came into the been fent to the Plaintiffs, and all the information '
ndant, nobody has told you. The they poffeffed, was faithfully communicated to the
nflone, tells you, what I cannot Defendant Mr. Poynton; and it was proved alto,
ndeed, know is not true---, That that the wheat, when it did attire, which was a
ace good, it could never become confiderable time afterwards, was tendered to the
ahe law it.' I know, Rly Defendant, &c. OR Rheumatifms' Rheumatic Gout, Sciatica,
fewer days than this (lour ewas It was proved alto, that corn fell about 55. a r Lumbago, Head-act,, Numbed:, Patty, Indigeflinu, Fla.
s polietlion weeks, flour nray b!. quarter on the 9th of May sew, at the market at totem npafistodic or flying Pater, gnsOal Debility and ! ax-
ed leaven ; it may be convened Wakefield. tion of the Syltans, Sprains, Drulfes sod CHILBLAIN—
odity in forty-eight hours; there. Lord lizerox (aid, that for the purples of this Exggrknee ban pawed the mild fobs stating powers of
is flour could notliave altered, as caufe, it did not fignify whether it fell or rofc, With 's Essence or MUSTARD Pills, and Fluid Ef-
tner,ring r molt cif
eeeeded :eat remedy ever inarte known to the world,
1, is fayingthat %which hist true, except as it 'hewed the conscience of the de-
ti
es of fix, eight, too, twenty, and even of
s, at leak ignorant of whammy* lendant. forty ran Banding, after other means `ad (aged, and Is au
of flour. do not lay that the The ATTORNIT GRNERM. fithmitted to the abfolutdy mired more patients of ripe above complaints, t'.an
impofe upon you, Goo forbid 1 Jury, that the witnefs for the Plaintiffs had not an the medicines ever before made Whlic. For ChilbLlss,
It a motive to any man who is ex- reprefented the cafe cot rally ; that the under- rettits.a" Brut:ere; the
atedthin Ifectelle'einell
aill'fling w
anguhit.
not nutnifelt it by his evidence ; Rending between the parties was, that the whole peaet„wag name. and ypcliT operation,a. gena.iiri;
tbe is ignorant, who lays what of the Corn was to be delivered in two or three to effixl the cure of CHILBLAINS, by a Bogle liked appal-
son this fub)'ed. I cannot for. days, otherwife that the Defendant &could repu. cntou.
a your minds the idea of who diate the centred, and this, he contended, was to Whitehead's Flfence of Nfuttard is prepared and fold St
roes before you to fay that this be inferred from the Words of the contra& as well is. yd. each Box or Bottle, by R. JON SISTON, Apothecary,
He has tiled it for days and as the probability of things : for the control/
.Nl7. Gttenttet` it7Pullitlicilo i
>%
%dr:
y the moil dangerous If it was of Rated the (hip to be expelled daily. He .11sould irthad,wat
ty, for he has atimmiltered hits call a witnefs to prove that the information Rated To prevent counterfeit impoiltioo, porehafers are reireKnot
md, and the feeble old man on by the Plaintiff's witnefs was not coneft ; that the to obC-rve, tk. Genuine is tilittngutlhed by the King's Patent,
-ave, to all ranks, degrees, and eireumftances Rated in the letters were not con and the weritere R. Joa Frio's, die Peteldeee own Welting,
1, irons him who lit; on the tight misnicated to the Defendant, am! that the de au dig label of abat but* and Vol.

fendaid ems not to it an indefinite lira fete this
corn, after giving this high price, dte. fie did
wait (even or eight days, which was a reafonable
time.
John Richardfon, Clerk and Nephew to one of
'the Defendants, WAS examined, and he aid. that
Mr. Poynton faid, in the Plahuirs conntinglionfe,
the corn mutt come immediately, or el& it would
not do for him, and that Mr. Clarkfon, one of
the Plaintiffs, faid to Mr. Poynton, if he would
hop till Tuefday, he had no doubt it would arrive.
Some of the paragraphs, which were extracts
from letters to the Plaintiffs, and which the Plain.
tiffs' witnefs (wore were read to the Defendant
Poynton, were hated to this wittier', and he faid
they were hot 'read to him at all, &c. &c.
The Arroawsr. Genital. faid he had another
witnefs to the tame effeit, but he could not go
further than the hatement of this witnefs, and
therefore he (timid not call him.
Lord IrliYON faid, there nerer`'was a clearer
Cafe than this was : the Plaintiff was entitled to re-
cover molt clearly ; for the Agreement (poke for
itfelf. The Defendant knew that the arrival of
tbe veifel was a, circumilance of which the Plain-
tiffs bad nci more eontroul than the Defendant—it
mull depend upon die elements. There was one 01.
fervation made by the Attorney General, on which
his Lordibip could not help laying a few words.=
The obfervUtion was, that it was not-likely that
the Defendant would agree to give this price and
watt an indefinite period. Gracioso GOD !" raid
his Lordthip, Have we forgotten the pra..ices
of there Engroffers and Monopolits—bas it not
appeared before us in evidence, and even in judg-
ment, that they have not only paid the price of
the market at once without offering to lower its
but that they have offered tq give more than was
aneed 51. why don't you elk 161. t give you
t6l.—Have we not heard thefe things provecti
it might appear extraordinary that a purchafer
coup do this, but there is no wonder if it when
you come to confider, that this very pnrchafer has
got an enormous quantity of the article in his
own hands, and that, in fast, he h iaterefled in
giving the higheh price that any body elks him ;
end than he takes care to charge the poor min-
mer roundly—be having obtained the command
of the market. Ido not with to make pie of in.
vidtions exprethonslti theft perfou, but 1 camp*
help feeling there things. To be lure, nodiingean
be more clear than the Plaintiff's right to recover
in this anion."

Vetdift for the rlaintiffs--Pamskys to be cora
putid by Mr. Lowrost to whom the 1L141%11111
was referral.

vt ,

Who -wifit.to poffefs, through Life, their Hexith
and blonrrt.•ate4 frir] motives of the puren reg.trd
and refpeet, reqttelled for their own lakes, .to en.
quid what .wondees have been wrought in femak
cafes by Dr. Zamora's. Nervous Conli*and Lo-
tanical Syrup t invented and prepared •by Lim
alone, and which has flood the teft of fo -marry.
years experience amongll that fez whom it has et er
been his pride and glory to relleyein every inciden-
tal to lady. .