The Liverpool Standard and General Commercial Advertiser.
Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1839-04-09 00:00:00

SENTENCE OF NATHAN motn.

Nathan Booth having been placed at the bar, his LORD-
SITIP proceeded to pass sentence upon him for having fired
two loaded pistols at Timothy Parkinson. The learned baron
said, the offence of which the prisoner had been convicted
was, in the altered state of the law, no longer capital. The
jury had found a very proper verdict. After he (the prisoner)
had had the advantage of a most eloquent defence from the
learned. Counsel (Mr. Murphy*). who took charge of his ease,
a number of witnesses had been called to testify to his ehb.-
Meter. He was sorry to have to remark on this part of the
evidence, that it had been of a nature that he feared was too
frequently brought forward in voarts of justice. He was
sorry to find from the inquiries that he had made, that the
evidence as to the character and disposition of the prisoner
was not exactly true. He was satisfied that the prisoner was
a man of violent passions', especially when he was under the
influence of intoxicating drink. He (the prisoner) had fired
a second pistol
Prisoner.—Will you allow me to state how it was that I
fired the second pistol, my lord ?
His LORDSHIP said it was now too late. He (the prisoner)
hail fired the second pistol, after he had fired the first, hav-
ing, from the state of nervous excitement in which he was,
missed his aim. He (the learned judge) had considered, and
maturely considered, the case. He should not have done
right if he had not, and he thought it was his duty to pass as
severe a sentence as possible. His lordship passed sentence
of transportation for life, intimating that he should give di-
rections that the prisoner be placed amongst that class of
felons where he would be least severely treated.
* His lordship has twice In the course of the present assizes
complimented Mr. Murphy on his eloquent pleading.

NISI PRIUS COURT.—FRIDAY.
Baron ALDERSON took his seat on the bench at nine
o'clock.

DOE V. 13ARLOW.

Mr. WIGHTMAN applied for the setting aside of the non-
suit in this case, on the ground that the action was only de-
layed by the plaintiff because part of the lands in question
had been given up, and a peaceable yielding of the rest was
expected.
Mr. WARREN opposed the application. Five assizes had
gone by, and the presumption was that there was no case at
all.

The action was for the recovery of lands held by the trus
tees of a school.

The court refused the application.
TAYLOR AND ANOTHER V. LODGE.—MARINE INSURANCE.
Mr. CROMPTON opened the pleadings. This was an action
on a policy of insurance. The plea was that £l5O, paid into
court, was sufficient to cover the damage.
Mr. CRESSWELL appeared for the plaintiff. The vessel
was called the Exchange, and in 1832 she sailed from Liver-
pool for New York, thence to proceed to Charleston; and re-
turn to Liverpool. The policy opened upon the voyage was
for £l,OOO, and the estimated value of the ship was £1,500 :
and the loss was stated to be by the perils of the sea. The
defendants after a long lapse of time, had admitted that they
ought to pay £l5O in respect of the £l,OOO which they had
insured, and had paid it into court ; and the question now re-
solved itself into this, whether that sum was sufficient. The
payment of this sum negatived many pleas of defence, often
set up in such cases as the present. The learned counsel then
proceeded to describe the sailing of the vessel from this port,
and when she was obliged by stress of weather to put into
Plymouth, where she underwent repair under the superin-
tendence of the surveyor of the insurance company. After
that, she had again very bad weather, and, after imminent
danger of going to the bottom with all her crew, she was, by
great efforts, put into Machias Bay, near Boston, with her
sails almost all blown out of her boltropes, and damaged in
her hull. It becomes then then the duty of the master to do
what his owner would have done under like circumstances, '
and he accordingly made a protest, founded on a survey,
which the learned counsel read. The protest set forth the
injury sustained by the vessel, which was made by these ship-
masters; another protest was also put in and read in which
two othr shipwrights, in addition to the preceding three,
stated their belief that the' vessel could not be repaired
under a cost of 5,000 dollars ; that there was no convenience
in Machias Bay for the repair of so large a vessel ; that she
was not worth repairing, and they recommended that she
should be told in lots or parcels. The captain accordingly
ordered her to be sold. But it happened the owner of the
vessel, a Mr. Huntington, was in the neighbourhood, and
finding that the captain claimed the proceeds, he out-bid every
one else for the purpose of preventing the money falling into
his hands. His bidding raised the amount of the sale by
1,000 dollars. Mr. Huntingdon claimed that the vessel was
a total wreck, with benefit to the underwriters of salvage
from the wreck. This is an undisputed principle of law,
that when a vessel is so damaged that no prudent person
would repair her, she is a total loss, and the whole of that
falls on the underwriter, to the extent of his assurance ; but
that if she is not a total loss, she is to he repaired at his cost,
and one third of the cost repairs allowed for the difference
between new and old material, so had this vessel been re-
paired at 5,000 dollars, one-third of it would have been
thrown on the owner. It therefore became the interest of
the underwriter to insist on the vessel being sent to sea and
repaired, as he thus got rid of one-third of the expense ; and
if ever after she is ricketty and unsafe, let those who have to
sail in her afterwards look to that—his interest ,was not the
less to set off with only two-thirds of the loss. The owners
made their claim, the underwriters disputed it, and negocia-
tion ensued. The underwriters, it seems, thought the case
suspicious, because Mr. Huntington had been the bidder for
the vessel himself. But to that he (Mr. C.) was fully pre-
pared with a sufficient answer. Mr. Huntington said, in a.
letter to them in 1834, that if they thought he had bought it
too cheap, they might have it again at the price he gave for it,
or he would sell it over again for their benefit ; that he had.
found that the captain had notified to the auctioneer that
payment must be made to him alone, and, knowing the cha-
racter of the man, this was the only way to preserve the pro-
perty. Accordingly, Mr. Huntington offered either to repair
the vessel at the ,cost, or to sell it for their benefit. Mr.
Huntington in the lapse of time found no disposition to ac-
cede to his just claims, and after waiting until the six years
were nearly expired, he was at length compelled to bring this
action.

There was now put in, on the part of the plaintiffs, a vo-
luminous mass of evidence, consisting of answers to about
forty interrogations, and about as many cross interrogations;
taken under a commission at Machias Bay.
Mr. James Ashton of this town, ship-builder, and Mr. W.

, • • • . , • . -
G 61114.118 paitner, 'were called 'to prove 'the 'prObabie coat 'of
repait4g the vessel, Which'they estimated at £llOO.
Wionfikkrureplied for tliedefendantln Plaintiff ap-
peared before them in'this‘caSe'6ll6iiik fora total loss. The
courts' originally held 'that totalloss could only be claimed
for, when•the Vessel. was actually lost and destroyed. Since
then, the 'definition had been enlarged, and a constructive
tothi'less Was held to be equivalent to an actual total loss ft or*
purposes of insurance. That is, that though the Vessel
continues to exist as a ship, if she be in sus b .state that her
owner, in the exercise of his best distretion, would not 044
her worth repairing, there sits*. be construed to be jiti dettial
loss. But as that was tonAruction which. *as. eilienittY
liable to abuse, it is tilins gintrded-,.H,thal lletdire tVe insured
party can etaita tonstructiVely teltal 144§, he must glye no-
tice to the insurer 'of his intenthin WandOnlthe vessel, and
leave it to their .disereflini eittiO.to repair tier, 'Or to acquieSce
in her being feoivka total 'loss. , of
abandonment hsd^rje6l given, 'therefore he 'Mr. Wlglitin.ae.),
contended that 'his learned
.friekid no -kroWri'd a action.
The learned Counsel •e4eil'ailtitillir lAithorities bearing
out his views, and their pitieeede,d to analyse the evidence—
the -Written evidenee 'fro% America. Mr. Wightman con-
cluded by'renaindint the jury of the necessity of protectino•
underwriters WS well as other men, and that their interests'
ought to be entitled to consideration. They were a body par-
ticularly liable to be imposed on by accounts which they had
no means of checking, and here they were called on to answer
a statement made wholly by parties residing abroad. and Wri-
confirmed by one of the crew of the vessel alleged tolie totally
lost.

The first witness called bY Mt. Widn'i'vf.h* Vi as I:llXert
Mackay, who stated that he had been a .tniveydr of
since 1828. Before that he
.was a masterYfigl4. fle
went to Krim% in r 832. The Dcehlinie Ift there. He
saw and examined her. flad 'seen the first survey now
handed to him. From Vs knowledge of the vessel, he was
of opinion' hat the 1%.,u fit to have been repaired. He had
been At kit did not know the cost of repairs there.
He iota heard that they were much the same as here. He
could trace nothing in the the survey to show that the ship
had settled. The cargo might have settled. There was
nothing that he could see to show that the vessel required
complete new coppering. Looking at that survey, he was Sf
opinion that it would have taken, to repair the whete Of the
damage therein, the sum of £304.
Cross-examined.—He was the reritai'snirveyottothevom.-
pany. If the damage described in the survey had been 'Mt-S-
-tained by a ship she have been very much strained.'
If a vessel had ken strained, with a Coal cargo in her, 'he dig
not think that it would have been 'Safe 'to.** tid 'her to t'e'a
again without a thorough "exaniinitiOn'nfler bettom. If he
had heard that a'ship had beett sir attained, and sent to sea
again 'witbotrt that exaMination, and was lost on her passage,
he could not -htrOe rerdrted her as a sea-worthyvessel.
Mr. `titi:ssAVlti.a. took the witness through the greater part
of the items in the survey, and, obtained from him his opinion
as to the amount which would be required to repair the da-
mage described in the survey. The witness's estimate, thus
aken, amounted to £591.

Re-examined.—The vessel. if she had beerr in the state de-
scribed in that survey, could not have made a voyage from
Port Machias to Boston. If she had been repaired to the
extent he had stated (304), she would then have been sea--
worthy. A vessel might be strained in one Orb, so as to
render it necessary to strip the whole of het ;kottOin-,
Mr. Bailey, formerly a ship carpenter, 'and *h hill had
much experience, had seen the two stub As ,Ont in. In his
opinion a vessel that had sustain eel the injuries therein de-
scribed was worthy of repair. He had Made an'estimate of
the expense of repair, a,cording to the LiverpoOl oc Londiin
prices, and it wonld have aniounted to £3OQ, Or' .£320. As
to the rapper, there might be injury.:ontlie larboard bow and
in the upper works, without Tendering it necessary to strip
the whale bottom. He-considered the estimate of Mr. Ash-
ton too high.

Mr.`Cit-esSwiiri replied, contending that the notice of
abandonment referred to by his learned friend (Mr. Wight-
man) teas hot necessary in the circumstances. If the damage
sustained were such as to render the loss equivalent to a
wreck, that was a total loss, and needed no abandonment to
make it one. The simple rule which the law laid down as
the criterion whether a total loss had been sustained or not)
was, that were the damage sustained was so great that a
prudent man, uninsured, would not go to the expense of It-
pairs, then that its nature was equivalent to a total loss of
the ship. Now the vessel had been pnrehasvil by a gentleman
(Mr. Worcester) and he, instead of repairing her, broke her
up, although he could have nOthing to induce him to do so
but a conviction of his own interest. The witness Mackay',
when driven into a corner, arid exarnined on the survey item
by item, admitted that a sum of £591 would Would tfe re-
quested to repair her, and he had only alloWed £too for cop-
pering, when another witness proved that £4OO must be
allowed, £lOO would therefore have to be added to £591,
together with the Value of the sails, deck, &c., and then the
two calculations would be found as nearly as possible the
same.
The learned JUDGE summed up, laying down the law of
the the case as it had been done by Mr. swell. He then
went briefly over the evidence. If Mr. Huntington', Imme-
diately after purchasing the vessel, had put her in repair and
sent her to sea, then he would have pronounced judgment
against himself on the very +potted on which the jury would
have to form their opinion. That, however, had not been
done. After having remained about six months at Port
Machios, she *as slightly repaired, sent to Boston, and there
sold by ipunlic auction to Mr. John Worcester, for the sum
of 33125 dollars. That person made no attempt whatever to
repair her, and, although known asa particularly skilful man,
he sustained a loss of 300 dollars by breaking her up. It
was therefore for the jury to decide whether the vessel was
really in such a state as that a wholly uninsured individual
would have deemed it an act of prudence to have repaired
the vessel. His lordship then pointed out the difference be-
tween the estimates of the two parties, and said that the one
party had not seen the vessel, and were determined to see no
injury that was not put down. The truth sometimes lay be-
tweenthe extremes. The question that the jury would have
to decide was, whether the loss was a total loss or not If
they decided that it was, then they would find for the plain-
tiffs—damages, £406 Os. 3d. But if they decided that it
was an average loss, they were to award the sum which, in
their judgment, would have been sufficient to put the vessel
in a proper state of repair, -allowing one-third, new for old.
If they thought that that sum exceeded £l5O (the amount
paid into court by the defendant) they would specify was the
excess was; and if they were of opinion that the £l5O would
cove: The loss, then they would find for the defendant.
The jury immediately returned a verdict for the plaintiffs—
damages, £406 Os. 3d.

PALMER AND WIFE V. ROBINSON AND ANOTHER

(ExEcuTous.)
This was an action brought by Mr. Paltrier and his wife
Eliza Palmer, to recover from the, executors ofJohu Morston,
father to Mrs. Palmer, the sum of .El5O.

Mr. Cresswell land Mr. Crampton,were for the plaintiffs,
and Mr 4. Alexanderand Mr. Watson for the defendants.
Mr, envssvti ir, stated the case. The plaintiff, Mr. Palmer,
reattitd Miss Eliza Marston, a daughter of John Marston,
an&, together with another of the children, was entitled to a
certain sum under the will of Francis Marston,. their grand-
father. Mr. John Marston, at the time of his father's death,
owed to the estate of his father the sum of .£4OO, for which
an action was brought against him by his sister Mrs. Bed,
dowes, the executrix under the will of Francis Marston. An
arrangement was made,. by which Mrs. Beddowes, Eliza
Marston, and her brother, Francis Marston, agreed to allow
the first and last-mentioned £12,5, and the second £l5O to be
deducted out of the legacies to which they were entitled un-
der the will, for the payment of the debt due by Mr. John
Marston. The payment was voluntary on the part of all but
Eliza Marston, and a note of hand was given for repayment.
Mr. John Marston afterwards came into possession of some
property, and died leaving £3OOO for certain purposes, subject
to the payment of his debts, among which that now claimed
by the plaintiff was not mentioned. During his lifetime his
children had not pressed for payment ; but they called on the
executors to pay it.
The plea of the defendants was, first, that the debt was ne-
ver due, and, secondly, that it could not be claimed, as it had
been owing for more than six years. He (Mr. Cregswell)
should prove, however, that the debt had been paid for Mr.
John Marston, as mentioned, and he should bring an acknow-
ledgment of the debt within the last six years, which would
take it out of the statute of limitations.

Mr. Francis Marston stated that he lived at Ascot, and
proved the facts of the case as stated. Mrs. Beddowes also
was examined. Both admitted that the payment was volun-
tary on their parts, and the latter said that she never expected
to be repaid, but that she thought it likely that her brother
would have repaid his own children.
Mr. ALEXANDER rose to reply, when a conversation took
place between his Lordship and the counsel on both sides, as
to whether the debt, if due, was barred by the statute of
limitations. The point was ultimately reserved for the judges.
Mr. ALEXANDER, after deploring, as had been done by
Mr. Cresswell, the bringing of the action into a court of law,
addressed -the jury on the matter of facts, contending that
the arrangement by which Mr. John Marston's debt was paid
had been a voluntary and final one on the part of the daugh-
ter, as well as the son and sister, whose object must have
been to prevent a long litigation, and the bringing of a dis-
pute between two members of a highly respectable, though
reduced family, before the public.
The Learned JUDGE summed up, and the jury returned a
verdict for the defendants.
The Court rose at half-past five.

CROWN COURT.—SATURDAY.
Upon George Turner being found guilty of having aided
in the riots at Todmorden, on the 21st June last, being
brought up to receive sentence, '
Mr. DUNDAS, on behalf of the prisoner, named an arrest
of judgment. He had not been able to find the case to
which he had alluded, but he would refer his Lordship to
the title of the indictment as contained in the 4th Hawkin's
book, 2d cap. 25, sec. 12.—" But there is a precedent in
Saunders's reports of a caption setting forth that the indict-
ment was taken by twelve men, and yet no exception appears
to have been taken on this account. Also many indictments
taken in inferior courts have been quashed for want of the
words "prOborum et legatium kominurn" in the caption ; but
this exception the court above afterwards over-ruled, as is
more fully shewn in the 16th section of this chapter. Also
many indictments have been quashed for want of the words
" jurat et orerat" in the caption, and also for want of the words
" adtunct et ibidem" before the words " jurat etloverat,"
and also for want of the words " ad inquirandum pro ditto
domino rege et pro corporecomitatis." And then the ques-
tion was, whether the caption would cure the indictment.
In the second volume of Hale, 164 and 5, it was stated,
" The caption of the indictment is no part of the indictment
itself, but it is the style or preamble, or return, that is made
from an inferior court to a superior, from whence a " certio-
rari" issues to remove ; or when the whole record is made
up in form ; for whereas the record of the indictment, as it
stands upon the file in court, wherein it is taken, is thus :
" Juratores pro domino rege sapei sacramentum suum prte-
sentant ;" when this comes to be removed upon a " certio
rari " it is more full and explicit, namely, in this form."
And then the form of the caption is given below. In the
same book also it is stated, it seems requisite also to add
the clause," " oneroti et jurati ad inquirendum pro domino
rege et pro corpore comitatis predicti." Many instances
had occurred In which the caption had been amended, but
there bad never been an instance known in which an indict- i
ment had been amended. If the objection were to go for
nothing, it would be sufficient to say, " A. B. is charged with
so and so," and th6n it would be replied, that the irregula-
rity was cured by the caption. The learned gentleman con-
tended, that the loose way of drawing up indictments would
lead to much inconvenience if not checked.
Mr. WIGHTMAN, on the other side, contended, that the
jurors of our lady, the Queen, were " the jurors for our
lady, the Queen,' the words being sufficiently co-extensive.
The learned gentleman quoted from Chitty, on crime, Ist
vol. 327.

After a long argument on this point, his LORDSHIP said
he should not suspend judgment. He then proceeded to pass
the sentence of the court ; and in doing so, said, the prisoner
had been convicted of taking part in a riot of a very aggra-
vated nature. It appeared that there was a determination on
the part of a great number of individuals to oppose, by every
possible means, the introduction of the new poor-law into the
Todmorden union: The orders of the poor-law commis-
sioners ought to have been obeyed by every good subject ;
and it could not be permitted that any person or number of
persons should endeavour to set aside their orders either by
fraud or by force. The jury had been pleased to recommend
him (the prisoner) to mercy, on the ground that he was an
agent in this transaction, and had been set on by others. It
would be hard in him (the judge) to make any remarks on
any individual who was not then before the court, but he
must say, that he agreed in the opinion expressed by the
jury. If persons were so situated that they were beyond the
reach • of the court, they must be taught that they cannot
procure agents who will escape without punishment. Be
(the learned judge) would not punish the prisoner in the
same degree as he would have done if he had been one of the
real leaders in the riot. The sentence of the court was, that

for this offence he would be imprisoned, and kept to hard
labour, in the castle of Lancaster, for nine calendar months.

His lordship then proceeded to try Nisi Prins causes-. The
first cause taken was that of

GREGORY V. GREEN AND iv
This was an action for the,:eorery.,9T he 'valUe 9f some
goods bought by the ,two defci/dantS ,upon a joint contract.
Since the
,purchase, the defendant Woodhead had become
itts9lvtint, and 'die oth'er defendant sought now to show that
lie 10 of ‘PiirclaSed the .goods. The jury, however; .re-
'&ilied a verdict for the plaintiff to the :full amount-0.949yd.

,ANDED.SQN AND ANOTHLDV. •:%lArktf,-04)
Wightman *Red f6:r the, plain-
tiffs, and *eggs) 1,11,0401 ayld 81/?ktscizi thE'llefendants.
„Mr, . Cor.tiv•c , tiSrietved. e.ase. This was an action,
9koElit lry Ore who are merchants at Buenos Ayres,
the defendants, Messrs. Chapman and Willis, who
were shipowners at Liverpool, owning the ship Kingston,
which left Buenos Ayres in the l'nonth of April last, in which
the plaintiffs shippte, t quantity of tallow, hides, grease. Akins,
and bones, and the action was brought for the revery of
the value of 27 casks of grease, which the ddenittgii hittler-
took to carry to Liverpool) and tto latitalJe ihidsteliv ei in
good condition, the datTett!O ;fhb
.4ea Whitie.:eiedpted. The
declaration) 4gettitig forth the aboye undertaking on the i
aftot
part of tilt Isi'efferidkiit, 4100d-:that the. detendants.did not I
teke 'Pieper and that in . conseiyue,uee nozliect,of the I
defendants,sin stowing; and fvot.the da4,cis sea, the
oA:NieKe..dam44o,.. The•defendai4!plearded, first, that there
,was ,nn such i;Yednis'et ar.'d secondly, that there had not been
oh their part.
WIGHTMAN: in stating the case to the .jurj, said that
this was an action to recover the e.T.Zlliii of damage done to
27 casks of greake,_whith had been shipped on board the ship
Kingston, at Buenos Ayres, and consigned to Messrs. Mot-
ray Ahcl Syme, of Liverpool. • The Kingston sailed from
BuenoS Ayres in the month of April, last yeat, with s rat'i'o
consisting of bones, tallow', hides) dry and Wet, grease, etc.,
and arrived in Liverpool on the Ifltt Rile, hod,her 'cargo was
discharged on the +.!th AinOngSt the ,eargo was 27
cask Ot grtale!, the Vi•`perty`of the defenda.nts, and the ques-
Ml\ itto the jury 'w
'to inquire as, whether the defendants were
'really, liable to
.;phy,., as the question of dairkage,(if ,a.Terdiet
iveic to be !corned. for the plaintiff) would be -ettUkl.
ishere. Th pititinOlie 'grease and ta/Io* iii Natd, one of
the casks sllplied frcnn th li6eEt., and fell upon a cask of
gryabie,.„*hicl. was •Stairid in. The grease was in casks, and
ivr,s ttoived iti the main hatch, in the third or fourth tier' and
the bones were stowed amongst the casks, the calcined hones
being at.the top of all. - Before the vessel had been long on
her vbyage it was found that the creation of heat wag 'very
great, and it increased to such a degree that the forecastle
(where the seamen generally slept) became unfit for their oc-
cupation, and they were forced to leave it. • When the vessel
got into a cold latitude the heat was not so great, Upon the
arrival of the vessel at her destination she wal visited l vy, a
custom-house officer, when it was tonod that ab'64 24 '`tie
casks had leaked, some of 'theta lAirm nea'rl'y teriky, '&'nd the
remainder more ot less dbfrelent.. I<t Was bentiefided by the
learned itelknsel that bOftes tiet beefi properly dried,
and the p4rgo 'Coriehuelice of the sweating and
titktfrig 'die liWit6.
The flat of lading. wits lhr, awl It; ayiPearect.tha:t ,there
Vva~s en `exemption from liability from Making 'good loco tiy
•. '
bhit
Waiehan3", i6A he railway, but in
P 37 wakchief .the Ktllgston' on her voyage from
Bilenos ',Nvteeg, ittaq the mode in which the vessel was la-
ger'', hetl after the vessel had proceeded on her voyage,
tne bones, which had been stowed in a wet state, began to
sweat, and the casks were " chocked, with bones instead of
quoins: The heat was most intolerable.

William Fenton, a tide waiter, ;iaied, that he examined
the cargo of the Kingston.
Other witnesses were called to prove that the leakage and
damage must have taken place from improper stowage:, Mod
that the casks in which the grease was ?tared-, were Otitable
for the purpose for which they' had been .
Mr. Duivnas addressed the ..-y for. he ' efendants, and
commenced bymtating that whatever Might e the 'result of
the easey it wdott Maim no difference in the respect al* friend-
shils thleithitient by his Clients, towards MeSnrs;. Murrayn and
tyrne, and then he pr' Oceeded to Contend thatt the caripS had
'been properly stowed, and that thetaSkS In which the grease
deposited, were 'totally ntfit for the pirpose.
The. learned gtefttleinakt theii called several witnesses,. who
stftedin eVidrence) that the stowage had been properly stowed,
via that 4.-he'eaSks used on the,occasion were totally unfit for
the 'purpose ; that they had not been properly coopered, and
that there was no extraordinary degree_of heat occasioned by
the fermentation of the bones.

The jury found for the plaintiff £l2, being the vabie of the
cask of grease which had been destroyed Mit i.ficon a gene-
ral question, a verdict for the defendaAt.

NISI PART COURT.—SAT-unnay
Before MI-. Baron ALDERSON.
WATSON AND OTHERS V. MORT.

This was a special jury case, which was tried in the course
of the last assizes. The action was brought by the plaintiffs,
Messrs. Watson and Co., engine-manufacturers, at St.
Helens, to recover from the defendants, Messrs. Mort and
Co., proprietors of the St. Helens Pottery Works and of the
Herculaneum Pottery, the sum of £575 8s 11d., the value of
goods delivered and work done. There was no dispute as to
the accounts; but the defendants pleaded, that they were
not liable, in consequence of the negligence and unskilfulness
with which the work had been done.
Mr. Alexander and Mr. Wightman were for the plaintiffs,
and Mr. Cresswell; Mr. Crompton, and Mr. Henderson for
the defendants.
Mr. ALEXANDER stated the ease. The plaintiffs *ere
Messrs. Leigh Watson and Co:, engine mannfacturers. at St.
Helens, and the defendants were the Orepfieters of the Li-
verpool Heecninnetitti Pottery.. In the year 1836 the defend-
ants, being Aboht to establish a pottery at St. Helens, ap-
plied to, the plaintins, who had frequently been employed by
in the, about the purchase of an engine. The plaintiffs several
years previous, had made an engine, nominally of six-horse
power, but capable of working to the extent of eight-horse
power, for Mr. Orrell's colliery, and on the termination of
Mr. Orrell's works the plaintiffs, who were in the habit of
purchasing, as well as building, engines, repurchased that
engine from Mr. Orrell for £175, of course, for the piirpose
of sale. When the defendants applied to them, that engine
was mentioned, and the defendants went Over to the colliery,
examined it, and ultimately purchased it for the sum of £220.
The plaintiffs were also employed to construct the mill for
grinding flints, which was to be worked by the engine in
question. The principle, however, with the knowledge of
the plaintiffs and their agent, was something altered from that
in general use, the mill being so constructed, that the " run-
ners" (or large stones which crush the flints) were dragged
over the flints, intead of being, as by the common method,
propelled or driven forward by the arms of the mill. After
the engine and machinery had been erected the account of
the plaintiffs was sent in as had been the in'aCtide; at the end
of the quarter. A part Of the account; for other work done
by the plaintiffs, was 0.4 bitt although several applications
were made, at the end of subsequent quarters, for payment
of the account for the engine and the flint mill, no answer
was returned iMtil the 13th of March, 1837, when Mr. Mort
wrote an answer to the following effect :—" It is evident that
.the engine put up by you cannot perform the work which you
engaged it should do when we purchased her, and we there-
fore, require, that you will do what you engaged. Our loss,
from your delay, is very considerable, which we beg you will
take notice of." In reply to this the plaintiffs stated, that
they had never made any engagement that the engine should
do any particular quantity of work : that they had sold it to
the defendants as it. stood : that it was to be paid for at the
time of setting up, and they, therefore, requested that pay-
ment might be made. This, however, had been refused up
to the present time, the defendants contending, that the en-
gine had been purchased and the mill constructed on a war-
ranty, that the whole should be capable of performing the
necessary work, which, they alleged, it was not capable of
doing, and that, therefore, they were not liable ; and the
plaintiffs contending, that no such warranty had been given,
but that, the engine had been purchased out and out by the
defendants, removed by them, and ought, therefore, to he
paid for.
The first witness called was John Cunliffe, the overlooker
of Messrs. Bromilaw's colliery. He was formerly in Mr.
Orrell's colliery, where the engine in question was used. It
was employed to take up baskets of coal, and would work up.
to the extent of ten horse power. It was purchased by Mr.
Watson, one of the plaintiffs, in the summer of 1836, from Mr.
Orrell. One of the defendants, Mr. Simpson, with another
' person came over to Orrell's coliery, in July or August, 1836,
to look at the engine, and they asked him (witness) what its
power was. He told them that it was a high-pressure engine
of six horse power, and would work up to ten horse power.
He also told them, that it was not to be sold, as it had been
previously purchased by Mr. Watson for £l7O. The engine
was worth £2OO for winding coal. He would have given that
sum for it himself.
Cross-examined.—lt had been in use for seven or eight
years. It was his opinion, that the engine had been worked
up to seven horse power. He had never noticed the weight
on the valve for a regularity.
John Deacon, book-keeper to the plaintiffs, stated, that
the plaintiffs had been for some time employed by thedefend-
ants, whose practice it was to send in quarterly accounts.
The qurterly accounts were then put in. The first, dated
September, 1836, mentioned an " eight horse engine, as per
agreement, £220 ; fly wheel, £14." This item continued to
be mentioned down to the period previously stated.
It had been part of the plaintiff's business to buy engines,
and sell them again at a profit.

James Dixon, book-keeper to the plaintiffs, proved the cor-
rectness of the invoice handed to him, containing an account
of the work done for the defendant. He knew of applica-
tions having been made to the defendant. There was great
difficulty in obtaining money, but some was obtained on
account.

Re-examined.—The last payment was on the 25th August.
Peter Arrive had been plaintiff's draughtsman for several
' years. He received instructions to draw the plan of the ma-
chinery for the. St. Helens Pottery, first from Mr. Dalglish
one of the plaintiffs, and then from them, through Emery,
their agent. He began the plan in the month of September,
and completed it in the month of- December. The machinery
was made to suit the first -size of the flint-pans furnished by
Emery. It could have been made to suit,the pans of any size.
The machinery was, in all respects, properly made. On one
occasion, when the whole of the plan was in procedure, he
had had some conversation with Emery, who stated, that the
weight of the stone to be employed in the pounding of the
flints would be 20 cwt., -at which he was much surprised. He
was then ignorant of the capabilities of the engine.
Joseph Webster, now in the employ of the Dublin and
Kingstown Railway Company, as an engineer, was formerly
in the employ of the plaintiffs. He was at the defendant's
when the engine started : it started very well. Emery was
present, and acknowledged that she did start very well. The
first trial took place without the attendant machinery, merely
to try the engine. In about three months afterwards, when
the machinery was completed and attached, she was started
again.. Emery then said he had no doubt the engine would
do the work required, provided she had a larger boiler, or
another in addition to the one-then in use. There were, at
that trial, four stones in the one pan : altogether, the stones
would have weighed two tons.- Emery told witness, that
they had bought the engine for an eight horse power engine.
In his opinion, it would have required an engine of sixteen or
eighteen horse power to do the work proposed by the defend-
ants. The pressure at which the engine was worked was
221bs. to the square inch. The engine would then be work-
ing at an eight horse power. Emery and Wareham came
together to my employers, and were shown a larger fly-wheel,
which Emery said would do better than the old one.
Cross-examined.—The engine went very slowly at first,
but when the steam was got up, it went very well. He could
not tell how many revolutions a minute were made. The
engine, however, would not keep " agate ;" and witness pro-
posed that the pressure should be increased. That was done ;
and, the steam blowing off, Emery became alarmed, saying,
" You are going to blow her up." They found the engine
would not do the work required.
Re-examined.—The weight employed was 281bs. The
steam blew off when they were waiting for it to get up,
previous to starting the engine. That alarmed Emery. The
engine was a very good one when at the colliery. The reason
it would not work was, because it was overpowered.
George Charters, who was formerly in the employ of the'
plaintiffs, was at the pottery during the erection of the ma-
chinery. The pans were made by the defendants. The en-
gine worked extremely well previously to its being attached
to the machinery.
William Dean, an iron-founder, at Bolton, was acquainted
with the manufacture and construction of steam-engines. An
engine, employed at a colliery, would generally have a smaller
fly-wheel than one for the work at the pottery.
Mr. Mansfield, an earthenware manufacturer, carried on
the same business, with the same description of machinery,
as the defendants. He himself used an eight-horse condensing
engine. At the Herculaneum Pottery they used one of thirty,
horse power. The model of the pan "produced was one of
average roughness at the bottom. 'With his engine, he gene-

rally commenced with a " runner" of iiiii.rivt.), and worked
with that for eighteen 1;140; afOpiihidb the !`, runners': were
increase:... it iths,A.Progeas which required some care. An
engine',..4d ..partibularly a small one, of eight-horse power,
-Could easily be scotched. 'When the pan was smooth, he had
increased the runners ,in his,two,pans to eighteen cwt. each,
but tlalitwas the greatest', extent to which he could go. To
begin-with a rough pavement at the bottom ot,the pan, and
put in weights to the extent which had; beets riam4l„(iia the
-case of-the defemlants;)7Wptild7 atop ;tirt 6,riginei ~ .I.t wasitri-
poSsible4that; it eoniktVbrlt. .He had `seed; ii the pans of the
defendant*, thl.6e- hones, one about fifteen cwt., the two
others of about twelve cwt. each. He did not thik that his
engine, though a good one, would have moved the largest of
the three stones. 1
Cross-examiner's—The engine of the defendants was not
working when he saw in the pans the three stones mentim)ed.
To break the flints, a certain speed was required: In an eight
feet six inch pan, !sixteen relthitibtit a Minute Shdtild 146 Made.
Heniy 1101t.hatt he aiti tht e\:iitiiikti as the oteetnitig wit-
neg. Ih RS 14Pillidd; it Witt 100 ebri;ect:. .
Thbilaits Bell; VM.illWright arid.iFon-fousid'ef; and Maker of
engineh,,at ti,xerpool; had seen the engine at Mr.. Mansfield's.
It is •a ten-horse power condensing engine, ••41e!liad Made
experiments .!on that; enginc,With,:different Weights.: With
37ewt: 3qrs:: .111).„ on-,,a..aMptir ba,,infieet; tin; engine was
stopped;;,• With ,V ci;,''.:. the would work, but not at the pro-
per speed. She would make sixteen revolutions per-minute,
with twenty-five cwt: in the two pans. There was•no defect
in the engine. - She was absolutely overpowered with 37cwt.
.3qrs. 4lbs. - .
Crass-examined.—He went to make the eltßiblefits with
a view to!give evidenoe in Ike peetent OSP:
Re-eztatnined.—Alt highlireSsilit pitgiiie, with an tieton-
' hieh cylinder (the sjie of the •tlefentiants% and t*efitHiVe
114 S: presSute, wditid iii 4,.0.0,1 t-,,,„litirk,finier `ongine. It
wen/111A ati! ekCealent engine if it resisted a.pressure•of forty-
fik''e lb-S: 4 Underthe.pi&umstances which had been described
by One df the 'preceding witnesses; the preSsiire must.have
been fiarty-five lbs. within a fraction on the engine of the de-
fendants. •- : ; ,'' - ! '.••, i.':' •i i - '1; ,
, ~,.. %
Mr. GRESSWIELL,- f9rk tihe ;tlefengants,;,Alien frOVeo. the
gro!myls.o.rr,Nylkich his erieefS thought it right to resist the
demand "trade on them. He trusted that he should be able to
shONV; that they were justified in so doing, 'inasmuch as the
plaintiffs, who had been employed as careful and skilful en-
gineers, had shown themselves•not to be such. The demand
which was. made on the defendants arose out of a transaction
whereby they became possessed of a steam-engine, and of
certain machinery to be worked by it. The plaintiffs sold
the engine to turn the machinery, and erected the machinery
to be turned by it ; and although the engine might have been
good for other pttrposes, and the machinery also I)ligslit have
been good, if it bad to have been, ?*kei-I.,hy.'.7..safticient
moving power, vets it theto vsSnibition I,lt of no *o., then
the Whele-yeb ri`e`,;*'-.4,Wkii-tblegi,..titte4Y.:Vainelriss to the par-
ti4.br ,Whi-,ra it *4 dOpe,and the plaintiffs could not reclaim
by.l.of. , 'such, as he' shonld.Prove by evidende, was the fact;
• and the, law of the'ease,was, thatif a custemeoventtO a. pro-
fesied engineer for the purpOse. of ;haying certain! work. done,
that engineer, was bo,und Oa Sytpply,-.llilt.qs welLts labbur ; and
even tho Ugh Ile,rOight 'rteeiveAgtait! instrifedelis. frbm his
.!employer, he ty.as,bpnild i'f" he rd'and nun going to erect some-
thing that Wottrali'dt answer the intended purpose, to tell him
%b, ueeause he, as a skilful engineer, ought to know what
was right and what was wrong in the circumstances. If, after
that, the customer chose to proceed in his own way, he did
so at his own responsibility.
Evidence was then called.
David Ashcroft is in the service of Messrs. Mort and Co.,
at the Herculaneum Pottery. His duty was to grind. flints.
In 1836, during the summer, MrcLeigh Watson eame In the
pottery to . examine the machinery, Whitt griti&i.the flints.
Mr. Sim song brie ef tile .4tieYieiAta , :c‘tas With him: They
examine th*' Whi`ntisr. ThelaWthe 'flint pans; The ran-
i
'lei:SW& ' rite zi bef,6& tif the•hr,- and riot dragged behind. The
dihiriefer O'fthe,'Pa'ris is /2 feet ti inches'. , The engine is thirty
linrae-"ppwei'. . It. drives :66, flint pies, ef 12. feet t; inehes in
widtb,; fiVt.' gliii,e;pans, ; 'six • colour, pans, sine;plastemiiill', A
chty 'mill', oe„pav of.rolferS„ aildnikalili4/itike ft'. r. i. Laing the
matertaT, Itals:!? WOles aantrrtp. • Fie has had much experi-
ence.ha a, 'liiit graider. He recollected, some months after
the Petidd first mentioned, going over to St. Helen's to pave
the pans there, which he did pave in the usual manner. He
He saw the engine first tried. - .Joseph Webster, Richard
Emery, John Roughsedge, and Matthew. Smith was - theres
They set to work by, putting one stone,. of betwixt 7: and 8
cwt., into the pan. The e4aging,drove,that; until the bottom
came to a face. They then, put, i,n another abetit thi: Same
weight ita the tftrit:. , The' tones Were lint In so as to be drag-
ged., . Whisii.t/Ve Weetind iLoile was put in, the engine made,
while the steam was well up, nine revolutions per minute :
then it gradually went down to three, and then stopped. Not
many minutes elapsed from the • starting till the stopping.
They kept firing, and starting, and stopping, but could not
get the engine to go for any length of time. The pressure
was increased, but the engine would not work properly. He
went away when the heavy weight was put on the safety
valve, being afraid of being blown up. From his knowledge
of flint pans and machinery, the apparatus would never work
properly. The engine and marhinery was not fitted to grind
flint.
Crbss-examined,---If there Was another boiler, it woidd nit
do then. The engine was not sufficiedtly powerful. If there
was sufficient power in the engine to work the machinery it
would not grind the flints: The Construction, iii hisopinfon,
was faulty. Dragging would not dd.
Richard Ethery had been accustomed do the. brieltWork
for niaChidety; He recollected; in 1.837; Mr. Valglish and Mr.
..
Simpson speaking about thi; ereetion of Seine maChinery, to
drive whieh.they were to have an engine then standing at Mr.
Orrel'b colliery. There was 'some 'conversation about flint-
panh. They were to have been twelve feet in diameter. There
was also to have been two glaie-pans, and three colour-pans.
He afterwards went ;to -Mr. Orrell's to look at-the engine,
which he examined, and took. the dimensions of the brickwork.
Wareham, the overseer, was with him., and witness asked
him the strength of the engine. He, Wareham, said it WAS ii
six-horse power engine, and would work Alp to eight-hoise
power. Witness told him he wit conscious, then; that it
would not do to .grind flint: He then went back to St: Helens.
Mr. Dalglish and Mr: SinipSon were there: Witness told the
latter. the engine vienld never do: Simpson introduced the
subject to Mr. Daiglish, Mentioning what witness had said,
and added that he himself was of the same opinion, and that
he thought some error in the calculations must have been
made. Mr. Simpson, however; acknowledged, that he knew
nothing about engines, and that he should submit his judg-
ment. to Mr. Dalglish. Mr. Dalglish replied that the engine
would do, and that no miscalculations had been made; Mi..

Simpson then said,'`, very well; but ' , you ptit the engine op,
and attach the machinery to it, an it willnot then do the
(if
work, it will be of nib. Asc. to its, tilt „ therefore, we shall not
pay you.'/ Mr: Dalglish replied, " certainly not." Mr. Simp-
son then &set-Vett; "that is what we wish to be understood in
order that there may be no disputes hereafter." Mr. Dalglish
came down again two or three days afterwards. Witness re-
peated his consciousness that the engine would never do the
work it was intended for. Mx. Dalglish laughed, and said,
" Well, Emery, I think you are right ; but if it will not drive
twelve-feet pans, it will drive eight-feet pans." Witness ac-
knowledged that -that would make some difference, but still
persisted that ft-would never answer. The engine was, ulti-
mately, fixed up
,under witness's directions, he receiving or-
ders from Mr. Dalglish. The machinery was altogether com-
pleted about the month. of March. The arms of the pans
were made to drag the stones by Mr. Dalglish's desire. When
the machinery was all completed,. they set it a-going. One
stone was first, put in. He believed that that weighedseven
and a half cwt. That was dragged easily enough, and was
worked fiont ten to twelve hours. Another, weighing about
ten cwt., was then . added. The engine wrought those well
while the. steam could be kept up ;, but gradually the revolu-
tions became less, until the engine stopped. The weight then
on the valve (which was the original one) was about ten lbs.
After it had gone with two stones some time, a third was put
in, and the pans were charged with flint. When the charge
of flint *as put in,. it was first worked for three or. four hours
with the two stones. About nine revolutions per minute were
then obtained. When the third stone (about eight cwt.) was
put in, they could get no more than four or five revolutions a
minute, which was of no use. He then went to Webster, and.
told him what had occurred. Webster came, and the engine
was again tried, in his presence, with the twenty-seven cwt.
of stones. Webster took away the weight;of the safety-valve,
saying that it was too small ; and, in.a day or two afterwards,
he returned with one about three times as large. Witness
said to him, " Why, you are going to blow her up." He said,
" You know nothing about it." Witness went away, and did
not know how far along the lever the weight was put. The
lever is twenty. inches long, and the greatest space it was re-
moved, while witness remained, was two inches. ' Mr. Dal-
glish was present, and said, " Damn her, blow her up." Mr.
Dalglish said, " a twelve-horse boiler ought to be put alp, the
furnishing of which would rest upon the kind of bargain made
between. Mr. Watson and Mr. Mort. . The engine was never
got properly into work.
Cross-examined.—He was told that, when the small weight
was on, there was a pressure, according to mechanical calcu-
lations, of 401b5.. on the inch ; and, he should think, there
must have been much more with the large one. _

James Bailey, a foreman at the pottery, at St.. Helens, saw
Mr. Dalglish and Mr. Simpson there, m July, 1836. The
machinery was set up. by Messrs. Watson, without any in-
terference on the part of witness. s employers. Experiments
were made, from time to time, but without any successful
result; The principle of the machinery was improper. In
consequence of. the. want of an efficient engine, they were
obliged.to send to Staffordshire for materials.
_ _

John Murray, an engineer, residing in Liverpool, examined
the engine.at the St. Helens' works, in .1837. The judgment
which he formed at the time was, that.she was incapable of
working the machinery attached.to her. On the 21st March
he went, in company with two other engineers, and made a
perfect examination of the machinery. The diameter of the
pinion to the spur-wheel was as four to one. .Every.stroke
of the piston gave.one . revolution of the pinion, and four
revolutions of the pinion nearly one of the spur-wheel. They
set the engine agoing, without anything in the pan, and got
from 36.t0 40 strokes per minute. The length of the stroke
is three feet. The rate of from 36 to 40 strokes per minute
is the proper one. . They could have got more, but it would
have been a waste of fuel to have done.so. They then put a
runner of 71 cwt. in the pan, the face of which was well worn
down. Nine revolutions per minute were obtained. It ran
with that .an hour. A second runner, of 61 cwt., was then
put in, and with a pressure of 361bs. on the square inch, they
got eight revolutions. A third, weighing 10 cwt., was then
put in,.and, with a pressure of 401b5., they got nearly seven
revolutions. That rate, however, could. not be preserved for
many minutes. It would not be safe to work the engine
with a pressure of 401bs. regularly. The Mill machinery was
strong, and any engineer might have immediately known,
that the engine was not calculated to work it. Taking the
engine; and machinery, together, they were worthless. It is
much easier for an engine to draw than to drive the stones.
Cross-examined.—The engine, has not power to work the
two pans.. The machinery itself, without any charge of
flints, required considerable power to work it.
Thomas Turner, an, engineer and millwright, was in the
habit of making engines and machinery for the grinding of
flints. He had accompanied the preceding witness, and
assisted in making the experiments spoken of by him, of
which Mr. Murray had given a correct statement, as well as
witness himself could have done. In his opinion, the ma-
chinery was unfitted for grinding flint..
Cross-examined.--With an eight-foot pan, such as that in
the mill at. St. Helens, from 16 to 18 revolutions, per minute,
ought to be, obtained.
George Kirk, a practical engineer, was acquainted with
the construction of flint-pan machinery. The dragging
principle was improper, becadse the runners were lifted from
the flint. The mill-work. at St. .Helens was improper alto-
gether. The fly-wheel shaft was too light, and the spur-
wheel and pinion were strong enough for an englne of 20-
horse power. The spur-wheel and pinion were not in proper
proportion to each other. He had never known any mill-
work.construeted on the dragging principle.
. Cross-examined.—The fly-wheel shaft was 41 inches in
diameter.

Thomas Findler, a glass-grinder, at Stanley Moss, had
been in business many years. He has an engine of 20-horse
power, which works three flint-pans, colour-pans, &c. The
largest flint-pan is 16 feet diameter, and in, that he works in
stones of five tons _weight. In the two smaller ones, stones
of 35 cwt. were used. The, engine was capable of working
the whole. .He had seen the machinery at St. Helens, and
was of opinion, that the engine, was not calculated to
work it.

. . . .
Mr. ALEXANDER replied, maintaining, that no agreement
or warranty such as that contended for by the defendant's
counsel had been entered into, and that in fact, his clients
would have committed an act of the greatest folly to have
given such a warranty. No evidence had been produced to
show that the engine was not a good eight horsepower engine,
for which it was sold, although sufficient had certainly been
advanced to show, that it was not capable of doing what the
defendants seemed to desire, namely, the work of a twenty-
horse engine. With respect to the Jilin, two complaints
were made : first, that it was too strong for the engine ; and;
secondly, that it wag constructed on a new and faulty princi-

ple., . The.first fault, if one it were, was owing to.the defend-
ants themselves, who had. Oven directions that the mill should
be made strong ; and with respect to. the second, even admit-
ting that the construction was bad, and that the blame rested
wholly on the plaintiffs, it was a fault that could be easily re-
medied, and which would cost the trifling sum .of £l4,,unly.
That, thereforeixtattld.uot entitle the; defendants to refuse
payrneht athe Whqle amount claimed. •
1 His ortiiStittli atini*d it; tit letigth, .itatilik, that
thi.!ie *A ,:tmid be three qiiestions for the consideration of the
jury—First, whether the bargain for the engine was an inde-
pendent and out-and-out bargain ; secondly, whether the
bargain was for a conjoint engine and machinery, to be used
in the trade of the defendants; and, thirdly, whether; if it
were a conjoint bargain,, the machinery was fitted for the in-
tended purpose. If they should answer the first question in
the affirmative, then they would
.find for the plaintiffs the
value of the ettgitie. if they were of opinion, however, that
it was a Conjoint bargain, then, they would ascertain whether
the whole lafOthhory Was Atto for the ,tiroOtible user find, if
they 'thought that it, Wai, dot, then they could find to what
stun the plaintiffs were "entitled ,short .of the. amount claimed.
The jury ratired.tarlinsult.npun theln:eidi;:t at 10 minutes
to six? arld'return at five mainu&;s to seveii, With a verdict
for thy-plaintiffs. damages £420.

CROSS V. GRAND JUNCTION RAILWAY COMPANY.

By consent of the parties, a verdict for the plaintiff was
taken, damages £250.

NISI PRIUS COURT.—MONDAY.
Before Mr. Baron ALDERSON.
SHARP AND WIPE V. LEPEYRE, REP. OP THE PROTECTOR
LIPH ASsWHANCE COMPANY.
This *AK all action brought by the plaintiffs to recover
he9V,oo.4lnoiint.tit 4,..p01icy Offnsurttnee effected
on the life of a person, nanaed,Penton, Wiiii to 146.7
'son named Brown, the former husband of the female plain-
tiff, shehaving,administered on 'the same. , , •
Ms. ALEXANDER `Stated;:thfOhia,action- wa.l' brought, to
recover; then moutit of,a Pol• jcY, of irisuhaftee, eirected on the
WM' bne W.tn, Fetittin;-fer the SAM of £2,000, dated 4th
November, 1830. In the month of October, or beginning of
November, 1830, an application was made by Mr. Fenton
to the agent of the Protector Life Assurance Company,. to
have his life insured. Mr. Fenton, wir-§C or' me
would be more particularly detailed to them, was then 27 or
28 years of age. He had ruined, by the dissipated course of
life he led, a constitution that was perhaps originally good ;
and therefore it became the Interest 'of others to secure at his
death, which Was then fast apPrtJaChing,the ifilibunt of a laige
policy of insitraritt; that 'ecais ldhe effectetlo.ll,Altaile hhe.-
miurii: aPPliea tri Downtrig, the agCnt. Of -the
coniiimir, and reeeititl frOnt •liini the necessary information
to enable him to.effect the,poliey. Downing himself is now
in New York, but tho;doeuments are .here containing' the
proposals of the insurance company, and also the declaration
which it was necessary for 'him to, sign, 'stating his age; the
condition...o; his health; -his.: 'desire: tO have ,arr iitSUrapeei on
his life effetked•,, and qpromise to abici Vs, tbt etlle.rof .the
A
company.,, Therte,is certificate onk the back of the deOara.:
Lion; erintaiiit certain number of questions to be
answered—as to age, and the state of the health, whether
afflicted with gout, rheomatisni, hernia, asthma, consump-
tion, or any other disease " tending to shorten life ; '
and this was also to be signed by the party. To the last
question, the 'party answered in the, negative. It is also
necessary to make a reference to Medical men, and lie re.
ferred to a medical gentleman hatted Harrison: tin looking
over the papers, there was found a lettei'. &din thO.direetors
to Harrison, as to thA 10 titre,. Had he
was entohAtiehlVT, feminad .1311.Partiettlar. I.n his answers,
as. tflywo'Uld .te basis '9f the. wrance, and any deviation
from the facf, would be a:forfeiture of, the policy. Attached
to this ;letter was, a. series of queries; relative to 'the health of
Mr. Fenton, all of. which; wore favorirably answered: Ano-
thee :question.w.as proposed trehira,,,,gavoyofi AttvAdeft,,gr.
Fenton, tymir.„medicp4 capanity, aild, if so; and for
what,cauee'?, riftsweh *a's, " Once, on account of a wound
heter;td'iii. the cneek." The eighth question was as to his
habits, whether they were temperate and sober ? Mr. Har-
rison replied, I believe they are, although he had only known
Mr. Fenton for about 12 months. The eleventh question
was,—Are there any other particulars in your knowledge
respecting him, with which 'the directors. ought- to be made
acquainted? He replied he knevcof none ~•.,-SO, that the.ln-
sutzance:Offirie lOarnedlrom the medical refer& that Fenton
wasin good health,. that he attended him dice foe A*thinditi
his eh'eek; that his habith Were temperate and regular, and
that there were no other particulars to be communicated to
them. This document, so filled up, was forwarded to the
office' and the consequence was, a policy Was effected, dated
Nov. 20th, 1830, and the premium, fees, &c. amounting to
£5O, were paid by a gentleman named Topham, and the office,
of course, bound themselves in the sum of £2000.. Until
the August following, the office heard nothing further re-
specting him, and at that time a person named Baynes called
at the office in London, and announced the death of Fenton.
The office discovered, that this young man, at the
_period of
his life, stated, had proposed to bate insurance effeeted on
his lift, to the amount of neat £10;000: He had three in-
surance with the Eagle for £7000; one With the Economic
for £2,9991 Heproposed to have an insurance , effected for
Seven yearS for £500; at the Asylum office, but the proposal
Was rejected, Similar applications were made to the Eagle,
for a renewal of the policy; wbich wehe rejected; and all pre-
tiohsly to the present Polley being effected: Oii these, and
several other tactbeing . krinktrri, the , office refused to
pay the insurance in question, the:conseqnenee,wa'S, that
the Claimants gave up, the contest-the matter ended—
and fromthe year 1831, down to the present time,
nothing was done to establish the right now set up. This
was a prudent course for the claimants,, as many of the per-
sons, who were acquainted with the habiti of the de'cea'sed,
and with the circumstances under Which the 06110 in ques-
tion was effected were now iteal Tht of cad cannot; there-
fore, , avail itself of the testimony that could have been pro-
duced, had the claim been made. at an earlier period. The
writ was issued on the 9th November; 1838; the policy was
eirected in NOVe, mher, 1830; and the person died in the month
of Augnst, 1831. The action having been brought, they re-
newed the inquiries, as the other offices did in 18297—they
found that many of the companions of the deceased were dead,
and they experienced great difficUlty in setting up a defence
to this action, as stated in the pleadings. The first issue to
be tried refers to the fact, that he was afflicted with a con-
sumption that ended in hi's .death; and that it ryas actually
existing in him when the policy was effected He had men-
tioned that the insdranee was effected with the Eagle for,
£4,500; in 1829, btit, t beCordrig necessary to make an ap-
Plieation iii Oetober, 18:10, to renew the policy at the end of
the year; a doctor's certificate 'as to the state of his health
was required. In consequence of the irregularities of the de-'
ceased, the certificate was refused, Mr. Manifold, the medi-
cal.officer of the office, having examined him carefully, and
declaring that he was inadmissible, from the state of his
health, and could not be recommended for a renewal of
the policy. The stethoscope was applied to him, and Mr. M.
gite it as his opinion, that he (Mr. Penton) was consumptive—
that he would not certify for him, and if he did not amend
his habits, (which Mr. A. described as extremely dissipated)
he could not live twelve months longer. A similar applica-
tion for a renewal of the policy was made in his :behalf by a
Mr. Young,. but it was impossible to give it. The result
proved the correctness of Mr. Manifold's views, for he died
within the time mentioned. He still frequented his usual
haunts of dissipation. Knowing that suchNere'the opinions
of medical men respecting his health, he applied to the Pro-
tector Office, and returned the answers he (Mr. A.) had read,
to the queries put to him. Was it possible; under such cir-
cumstances, to come to any other conclusion, than that con-
sumption existed in his frame at the time of effecting the
policy ? and that he was aware that hislife would be short,
and he had misrepresented the state of his health. The office
also complained. of Mr. Harrison's answer. The second
issue raised that- point, namely, were the habits of the de-
ceased temperate and sober, and were there any other parti-
culars they (the directors) ought to be acquainted with ?
He answered both in the negative. It would be found that
Harrrison attended him. in the year 1830. The next
issue is, was the policy obtained by fraud on the part
of Fenton, and others in colluSion with him? The de-
ceased was not a married man, he was exceedingly poor, and
therefore on what grounds, he would ask, was the insurance
effected ? For no other purpose than to enable persons in-
terested in effecting the insurance, by advancing the requi-
site premium, to obtain, in a few years, the large sum for
which the policy was effected. It is impossible to get the
confession of fraud from any one, but when they saw he had
no family, that he was in destitute circumstances, that he
was unable to raise the money to pay the premium, they
must come to the conclusion that some one else was assisting
him. The next issue refers to a concealment of the state of
his health. They could not entertain any doubt, that gross
fraud and misrepresentation were committed here. Upon
the sixth issue they could have no hesitation in coming to
the conclusion, from the evidence that would be produced,
that the insurance was effected for the benefit of a Mr. Brown,
who had no interest whatever in the deceased, with respect
to the sixth and seventh issues, they were mere points of law,
and more for the consideration of his lordship than the jury.
But it appeared that Mr. Fer_ton had an acquaintance, the Mr.
Brown alluded to who, though of good family, was of dissipated
habits, and had married the bar-maid of tne inn (the Union)
which he was in the habit of frequenting. To this gentleman
Mr. F. assigned the policy for £2OO ; and it was only this
amount the plaintiff, the administratrix of Brown, now
claimed. Brown died two or three years after, and his widow
subsequently married the plaintiff in the present action. He
(Mr. A.) had mentioned the application" made to renew the
policy at the. Eagle, and thatit was rejected: After this Mr.
F. continued at the Feathers, in Clayton-square, till March,
1831. Then he went to Birkenhead.' After which he is not
heard of till the month of June following, when he is found
at the King's Head public-house, Great Tower-street, Lon-
don, and he died on the 26th of Arigust, in the same year.
Several witnesses were called to prove the dissolute habits
of Mr. Fenton, and to 'corroborate the various statements of
Mr. Alexander, when
Mr. CitEswEm. rose, and in a very ingenious address re-
viewed the evidence that had been adduced to resist the
claims of the plaintiffs. He censured in severe terms the
conduct of the company in refusing the performance of their
contract, and called several. witnesses, who deposed that
though Mr. Fenton was a man of convivial habits, he was not.
intemperate.
Mr. ALEXANDER then rose to reply, but ho. had not pro-.
ceeded far when one of the:jurors interfered, and said they
had made up their minds to find a verdict for the defendants.
His LORDSHIP said that he was precisely of the same opi-
nion. One reason for Mr. Brown not bringing this action
was this, that a bill of discovery might have been filed, and
he would have been called upon to show what consideration '
he gave for the assignment Of the policy, for it appeared the
office could not be' called upon for
,payment until two years
after his death. " • • •
The jury then returned a verdict for the defendants on all
the issues; except the 2fid, 3rd, and Bth, which referred to
Mr. Harrison's conduct. .
BLACK V. RENNET AND ANOTHER.
This was an action 'brought by the plaintiff, a grocer in
Burslem, to recover from the defendants, the representatives
of the Anderton Carrying Crimpany, the sum of £ll5, the
value of six chestsoffea,, and one barrel of coffee, which had
been entrusted' to,them to 'carry from Burslem to Liverpool,
and which, owing to :their Alleged negligence, were destroyed
in the late tremendous hurricane idthe month of January last.
Witnesses were called to prose the delivery of the goods.
The receipt acknowledging their delivery to the cothpany en-
gaged to send theria to Liverpool on the 3rd January. They
did not do so, and the Consequence was that, having arrived
on a Sunday; instead of a Saturday, they were exposed to the
storm of the fellowing Monday morning, and totally destroyed.
Even if they had arrived at the reguiar time agreed upon, it
was contended,
,and witnesses were called to, prove, that the
slip in which the boat lay was not a proper place,—that it
was more dangerous than the open river, for, the boat was so
dashed against the sides of the slip, as to make her a complete
wreck. ' A notice from the defendants was read, stating that
the goods had arrived, and lay at the risk of the owner in
the slip.
Mr. DuNnAsjor the defendant, denied the contract, and
submitted'that it would be too hard if this or any other com-
pany were made liable for the damage done• by such an un-
precedented hurricane as that of last January. He stated
that the ship had been used for ten years, and that until that
destructivegale, no accident ever occurred to goods lying in
it. Every "exertion was made to secure the goods, but all
was ineffectual. It would be extremely hard to make the
carriers responsible for this act of God, and he trusted, that
as they did all in their power to prevent loss, the jury would
find a verdict in their favour.
Several witnesses were called on the part of the defend-
ants to prove that the goods were not promised to be in Li-
verpool before Monday, and that when the defendants sent,
expressly for the goods about six o'clock on Saturday even-
ing, they were not ready, and the waggoner did not return
untileight, when the boat in which room was reserved for the
goods had sailed. . •
His LORDSHIP in summing up said, that there were two
questions for the consideration of the jury : first, what was'
the bargain between the parties, and whether the neglect,

if,any had taken place; was such as to produce the inlgrr
complained of. •
The Jury retired for a few Minutes, and returned at half- •
after sevenowith a verdict for the plaintiff—Damaies—when
the court adjourned.

. • • • • NISL,PRIUS
&foie. Mr. - I
-
His Lordship took his seat in-the Crown Court-at a quarter
before ten o'clock.

DUCKWORTH V. HARRISON.
In this action Mr. Edward Duckworth was the plaintiff'
and William Harrison defendant.
Mr. WATSON stated the case to the jury. The plaintiff in
this case, Mr. Edward Duckworth. had been for forty year,'
a warehouseman in the service of Messrs. Ewart, Myers, and
Co., of Liverpool, and the defendant was a joiner and.builder:
also carrying on business in Liverpool. The plaintiff had
been a trustee of some property, and a dispute arising between
him and ,111;11... Harrison respecting a sum .of ,X2OQ,. Mi'... Par'
respn •brOuilit.an &akin againtat Mr.inuultwigh for ilt t strg,:
The caiite, was, abont to be tried: .at the ,liiyerpoell SP•rtnift-:,,,;
sizes, 1836, when, by the interposition:of mutual friends, 17
matter was referred to arbitration, Mr. Duckworth appoint,
ing Mr. William Bowman, ,of Liverpool, iron-founder, and
Mr. Harrison appointing Mr. Berry, of Liverpool. account-
ant; it was also agreed that Mr. H. Banner, of Liverpool,
accountant, be appointed referee. The appointment of the
arbitrator did not take place as agreed. By the agrAe;
ment, the third arbitrator was to be, appointed on 25th of
April, and the Ist of May was the time appointed for makin;
the award. However, it was not unttl the 16th May that
Mr. Banner was appointed the third arbitrator, and then
the arbitrators finding that they could not conclude the
business by the first June, extended the time for delivering
their awald tki.:the illst.Deember; in that yea 4; TherVAii
no lesS than six meetings Oa the month of June, „anti 111
arbitrators having heard thb evideHoe, on ,hpth„vittcs, ,oH:tg.
31st Recto-lie, awarded that Mr: Harrison had? 7i9
fOr action, and adjudged that he should pay to Mr. fine
.;
worth the costs to which he had been put .in defending 1-o`,'
' action brought against him, and should also pay the costs of
the reference. These costs amounted to the sum of p..;
He (Mr. Watson) would call the arbitrators before him; an
• _ .
would mew that tn.; ~,i.efendant and his solicitor attended thi
different meetings.
The arbitration and award having been put in and 1)1'04'
witnesses we're ailed; -
Mr: Unbiiritiii foe the &tenant, took it hilifilief bf frelt!,
nieed, ti.hbetihti tlol qie afbitfatiknb, On 4.11. ilk +t.*lik the 11t
Cle:--)4ed figAiita.the elAntitint, itlifoll;vSS,lese'lryq-A..,,' - ''"'
The jury, under the direction of hiviordsliq .j.. found•avere'
diet. for ,the .plaintiff, !el/tillages
.£49 4s. 8d..,, with-,leaVef!o
move to enter a nonsuit, on the ground that tthe costs of.tir
agreement were not stated ott the declaration. . .
, ~- .'N ''" 'cirAnTeic-VAHTY,'P " ' ''''"• '.4 t'g
•In this daate,lhaars4.4. F.)3retil;:aucl,W..r&clilit:otte-or ~,_
plaintiffs; and iNtr,toCorgo,Yatt.s, •broker, .defendant ; and ti'.
acht,ol-I.Was,brolight flit a htDaCh of Charter Party, ' 1
Mr: WATSON opeited the pleadings; the iiitbitNtir-Gts
NERAL stated the ease tb the jfify. This Was an action broue
felt the redo Very of the. sum of X 450 for a breach by the de',
fendant of a charter party, the agreement for which to?,a.
place on the 30th September, 1838. In the year 1838, the
ship. Mary was under repair in Liverpool, and this Ay:
having been made known to the present defendant, a charter.
party Was entered hitt) tin the 29th Of ?September, betwee,
It. F: tread; W,illieltn Ectslort, Anti Cleorge. Pate & to.ehtl
ter tilt Mdf :I y i AA Wal -Er inligtel', tei„ghil to pot Pl. 4.-
.
• i'lqi.tia, roi .thq §upi of •!5 ,-2l lolig days,SithattYs;•'/F
cepted, ;at Ltverpool,ft. F. Bread and Co, to be .at lihela
to •put onboard of her 4,000 bricks,. three hogshead* of !A,
. • two _sofas, four bales.of sacks, or 14 bales at most, tIS tong;
coals, and 50,pieetesof COttort bagging'•fret of r-expensal.td
vessel rlos.t to •soffel".anY, detflptiOn at Gibraltar or Srartial'igi
Yond t4,-iiiilb iiebeagal7 to digiiharge her goods at t-
' plaCes. Ile sum agreed for was £4so—lay days to ate
mence on the .29th of September. This was signed .13/_..,„`"
parties. When she lay in the Graving Dock •somerootds„7 4 •
placed on board. She left the Graving Dock on the ou '''_.,
• October, and the lay days would expire on the 23d October'.
The master applied for a berth for her in the Queen's Doe"-_,'
She-could not leave the Graving Dock as soon as she In.
ready, in consequence of the state of the tide, and it wasll`
until-the Sd'of o.etober Ahat kike'qeftl the Dook,tanditln:
6th gbt her berth in Queen's Dock. Upon this an ;aOOIA.7H,
tion Wiii inane to the defendant to put his cargO in ljoarT;
but instead of doing that, he chartered the Louisa. In u;.
plea, the defendant said that he did not niakea charter at and:
secondly, he said that the vessel was not sea worthy, an-
• that he (Sergeant Atcherley) supposed was the great point 1/1
dispute.
Mr. WIGHTMAN (who, with Mr. Alexander, appeared fCi.. r,
• the defendant).—That she was not sea-worthy for the Pa'
pose of putting the cargo on board. • el
• Mr. Sergeant ATCHERLEY.—The fact was, that the vess,-,
was under repair in the month of September, under the di,
,
rection of the ,J.:doyd's surveyor; which eipairg Nett C 9.
• pleted oil the 3d Obtbbell' at an 6. pease of X•3;C.)OP: ~,
vessel was built- in 1828,- anti platted on clagg 1 at.1.14'4
; After ten yearg service; it is custbinarY kir tessela 0 ,6
bottom' remOted tb the botto of the listat 'Llhyd'S' in We the
not put itt thorough repair in the,rneatt While, • The veif '
was in eotisetpienbe 66nt to the Graving Doai and aft, •.
• being_ repaired; she was surveyed and replated in her sitteq•
tion in claaS 1. The vessel, in eohsetnienbe bf the default o 4
the defendant, did not Sill till November, when she saileetli
Smyrna in' Perfect Safety, And delivered her earge, in s°l';i
• condition, and, returned to Liverpool with a Cargo Whichl"
Of the most delicate description: '
The learned sergeant then Called_Mr; H. D: Glyflri,,ll.,°
piched the Signature of the defendant to the charter t. aill'i,i
• Jell Walter, the master, was nest called, And he SftltV
• the fa:6 lif the Vessel hAtinbeen reaired iii teraVinPc• !
• the removal bf the ship to the Queepn's Dockhand hersubs!:
quent loading.. When the defendant tame down to the ship'
he said he would not trust his old shhe round the Head Iv ,t
her. In hit cross-examination, the witness `said that tP.;
vessel made more water (iii consequence of being a nalln{ ,
built vessel) than a broad-bottomed ship. The defentla.d
desired him to keep the water in the vessel till the 9ell, 'II?, ,
he never came on board again: The vessel had been in to
~
graving dock several weeks in the aummer, aiid Made netkel
water in consequence pf beilik built of harcl Wood: , She Ml. 41
on the 15th November, for , Smyrtiaifid Malta.; hod bt'Ous a
back a cargo of ('molter roots and yellow berries; Anil return
on the 14th March last. Her cargo had since been dischar;
and a drier cargo never entered the port of Liverpool, tb s
being no symptom of wet. He could not tell when the-hatleth
were down ; he thought the rigging was complete on the 1„
October; she was quite fit to go to sea on the 15th Octo7,
. After an examination of other witnesses,
ot,
Mr. WIGHT:WAN, in addressing the jury for the defends A
said his Lordship would tell them that the vessel was bours
to have been ready on. the 29th September, and unless -it,
was so the defendant must have a verdict: He should ':-',',. I
able to show, from a letter of• Mr. Eccleston's, that the s!rat •
had not got a berth till the 11th October. Independen't,;,
this, he should be able to show that the vessel was in 3
tally unfit state to receive dry goods.
l'he learned gentleman then called a man named "%"11„itn:,
wright, some tune ago foreman of Mr. petries.shipwrg-,ijo
who enumerated a number of things in which the ship r
deficient when she was taken to the Queen's Dock. f a
Mr. Adam Kellock, who had been 20 years master
1.180!
-- '
• vessel, stated that on the 6th October he boarded the
the
There were a number of men employed in caulking above - o
water. The vessel was not in a condition to receive a car
of goods.
-
Two other witnesses were called to corroborate the evident, „
Mr. Sergeant ATCHERLEY replied at considerable lenabthe
observing that the original question at issue was whether
(0
vessel was sea-worthy, and it was quite clear that any glci,
that might have been put on board could have been sill'
ently protected had it been shipped. - -ye'
His LORDSHIP asked the jury to consider whether the
sble
sel was at her berth in the Queen's Dock within a reason
; time after the 29th September.
Foreman.—She was at her berth on the 6th October, an
; it•was a reasonable time. .
ready
' The JUDGE.— next question is, whether she was "-air.
to load on the 6th October, regard being had to the other
; cumstances. dslii?
The jury retired to consider the question, his Lot .0,
telling them that another question for their consideration "4,.
whether there is any usage in the port of Liverpool to ev
sider a vessel so incomplete as ready to receive her cargai re.
sAfter an absence of 25 minutes they returned, and the i°oo.
man said, she was not ready to receive goods on the 6tit,.
there was no usage.
(16''
Verdict for the plaintiff on the first issue, and for the
fendant on the second and third issues.
EJECTMENT.—DOE DEM BARKER V. WRIGHT.
..p.4,0
Mr. MARTIN opened the pleadings, and Mr. Dv,;ent'
stated the case to the jury. This was an action of ejecti..tbe
brought by the plaintiff, -Mr. Richard Barker, agaiiis'obe
defendant, Mr. William Wright, to recover possession '
° de:
Brunswick Hotel,' Toxteth-park, which was let to the
fendant, at a weekly rent of £2. ' The tenancy col:wile:0
on the 19th May, and he paid his rent regularly up to ta:riea
August. On the 11th February a notice to quit was 6'
on the defendant by the attorney for the plaintiff. /,1 the
Mr. Mouritv,,for the defendant, called Mr. Wta',.`;'ere
attorney for the plaintiff, with a view of showing that tithe
had been a lease of the premises executed in favour of
defendant, but failed in doing so. • dsiiiP
The jtry found a verdict for the plaintiff. His 1-er
granted immediate execution. .
GAIR AND OTHERS V. MIN. , 0,.1,3,
Mr. CRoMpTON opened the pleading, and• Mr- sl^:ht l'''
stated the case to the jury. This was an action brot, _ de,
Messrs. Baring and Brothers, of Liverpool, against the re.
fendant, formerly residing at Leeds, and was brought to, 0
cover the value of seven 'bills of exchange, anionnti.no,)
£576 6s: 6d., (or with interest to the sum of £690 FL'. the
alledged to have been accepted by the -defendant. „,I`,,'ist, -
year 1834, Mr. Ikin gave an order to a person narned,,'b--3103 '
at Buenos Ayres; to give orders to purchase for him 2uvatlie "
.of wool. Mr. Ikin gave orders to Guest tO•draW Ullit 0
plaintiffs for two-thirds of the amount. Notice oug 01.1
have been given to Messrs. Baring of this cireumstanl Oil ' '
the 11th of August, the Mary Wise, (the vessel in v.41,1-C-,atiff'
wool was shipped) arrived at Liverpool; and the 111-at'hir°'
were to have there accepted bills to the amount of tw°' %Oa`
of the invoice price, and in consequence with IVlessrs e for,
inermaaand
.Co:, they accepted two of the bids, 553
£7OO, and the other for £3O; as on account of Mr. II"' and
a third bill they aceepted on to the honour of Messrs' 31r.
merman and Co., the payees and endorsers of the bili:s; ;tie
Ikin accepted the seven bills' in question. The plaints ettet • ;
not at all aware of the transaction . till they received atbeq
informing them that the wool had been consigned-tot lit o
and that bills had been drawn upon them to the es :11‘1°
two-thirds of the value. Messrs. Baring .then Wrote, .`'.°rote
for some account of the transaction, and he in reply;}'
that he had no doubt the goods Would, be of such a quatiat,e,
would justify 'them in accepting. . The bills were nag Die'
to Messrs. Zimmerman and. Co., and July came ta,e'sloo
The bill accepted in honour of Zimmerman -was for the bill'
of £2OO. For the remaining third portion of the w°°Ntess'l'
were drawn in honour of Messrs. Zimmerman by •I,efetti''
Baring and Co., and notice having been given to the bill'
the 1,
ant, he said he was not able to meet the bills, and, 00.. s
were accordingly' taken up by Messrs. Baring. r-leolan',
were sold in March, f0r.X1085.9s 3d, which gave . fli
on that account of £59 5s Bd, in favour of Mr. 1103' e
action was for the amount of the bills.l l'
A large quantity of correspondence, with reference tot i
~
resat
above facts, was read.
His LORDSHIP, after the correspondence had beerco. -0•_t;
said that the letters entirely put the defendant out ?Ist aft .e.;
with the exception of the 6th plea, which alleged, trib. to !!'_s
Messrs. Baring took up the bill, they sent them lfeol`o, 51`,.•
party, and the money was paid before the a 'LI e ,
tli:
brought.
i ' for
not
Mr. Sergeant ATCHERLEY in addressing the ,a.r),,,,?e not
defendant, said that the real plaintiffs in the cause coop
Messrs. Baring, but Messrs. Zimmerman, on whos,e,...„Asonti,
the 61.76 -_. the present action had been brought against
who had not received a single farthing from the tratroarr4 ;
and of this circumstance the plaintiffs were peefee_ 'all;
The wools were not of the quality, and the bills wer`.._er ;; :. ' it
by the son of the defendant, on behalf of his farrlarci !et
if he had known of the real state of things, he '7,GO, tb7 oi
have accepted the bills, and told Messrs Baring an • ,-,
~,
they ought to apply for the amount. , had m' `l`
His LORDSHIP said that the learned sergeant cis, of -i'
mistake, for the defendant had received the proeee •lio,f i
wool. ; „ceoa' a: . !
Upon the correspondence and statement of the,_`"ing read.
..,'
between Messrs. Zimmerman and Messrs. Baring,ntrader iota
over, it-was clear that the action had been brought__ error
direction of Messrs. Zimmerman, and there was a" 01,1.) 1
about £6OO in'one account. •• ants s'r°,,lt• 4
betat appearing that the investigation of the Ito .er ,
work of considerable time, the cause was reer4i7h -Pow,. •,;'
Armstrong, to try the question on the sixth plea, ' .- -
to raise any points in the award. , . --, •• • - p
- ' WILLIAMS V. SHAW. ••nitanaSt::d
b Mr. Ralph willetoor
This was an action brought y ,A,
recover the value of a thorough bred mare, Wu'''. . ,

i
l

the
Plaintiff, and
51ef°11clant p •
ves, and thec
14,ePOSitory fr
Its premises,
Mr the defendant
lat the 13AS,
niare had b
!nout to leav
,„ inare awae
17,!ete NVa 8 th4t ti
fil
oa betting ao(
v.r.r
d::thesses to the
The ff, 'TTokNEI,..(
Jury
'be fuund a
did not

ri/E,4 rii------F

tip
Nra?ei •
ti q• ci,Llri the ear
NletrkLEs BATH: •
ce will
1* iLt
4,34,11,2,
tir r
aaPriri erB can;
he) ciPled fella
are th„
free
Live
toc
hen obf
' t torY in
nor • eve
Olt to: I)istrant
°'•
that thai tb.'
to e
jet
IL r`att Fill
fd_election
;Public re*
°llte °tit(' not
4 thq Prorni
!ni tentl
if:re 404 I. e;
gat ,
Üb~
ore} sb
ikrated toi„
lhE
Zlich L'444 like t
art
itl4eY I:r exl)eri
mkise °tight (
t,av, 4.116 h_ tt
11 bee "t
h• itfreern,
*4404t ee wi„
0, 4,ipeach
tlt "lid in
raordi esen-
-4clfi 41arY Punic4(l to rice tl
oti;
Iletnobribe
Leh uld be cr
leeei~ yell is.
of Corrt Poo]
)11) didbillipt. was to
ki
Nrr 4'51 OCC
Pike .ea-t° Our rat
°lie
hi: any
holis
•,( Jogged :
under the
/°l. the 1
the 4'aY set el
eago al the
' is ac
it our e
, _
ti.s. a
e _.httli
liher;
kN"ed or rtce
9f
P(
tied. May,
sh
tkile:Who
t. 711 0
(ltihrleti,ed
auunt
\IV}; arid alwgaent
r-'lleet )ts I
ter, 'eala(l bank het
(Ir„,---4
clik-tY, Slidces
the
t° he v
441 e 4 'net a'
t) Sri 1.°I)0
13erl
jtlt. tlettlePeo 1
1111.t1e3 aridri wh
(1_ bear t
so ?
Fat It de" Pei
angel off;
.e 44 yinan
.
doubt
tr
t1(1 (travelaiin
\:(
:"tleets) and
Ilt,N,h4ppenedwitl
pi4ja tl-
titdel bn,
v,d ohn
4,„ e
1114,`1N 1,,,a1q t
hmitaff:r(iPleBt
ey,, °eel, turned,
ear
1..1t0
IN of
1,144 tnr 4 doll ;ell
, Lit ft
-err
-k7llee erPool
faii
city most
1, t, ust
711 eve,
bll
111
thrillt hi off
t h. • tto
;rne
rlat
te ttlaY
b b e4B
to
hear. ~Ve
Y a
but
p
h: qt; L. 1811 ed,
does
14 his 8
phi relY; but
.15411*) hiB et if
the r'h th rich
e
p ale little
eight
.e Justice'tL'fir,l4'able t
1413, era 4
Itelkl3orti v
4411
Ala e
orle,
thee ill a 3
z4p tittnri
brib(l44;llN of
\'oli4l:4lclre b:hibt
.Ave —ar
17:3' hearetertd
thi.4kethe.,Lt, to
of
t.lh:n w.
to; 44d vet
Ltie •
• rllt at

11.1
sc,q4r.
•0
ower
P

the plaintiff, 4 ' - ' • ii
Ik. defendant and Which had been sold by the defendant.
_,,e paid £52105. into court. The parties were
;I; . ' and io.e plaintiff, bought the Otis filly at Mr. Lu-
lhavtes Pository for Zl5O. The plaintiff sent her to Mr.
kat ti Pre'n,ses, and after some time the plaintiff ascertained
mr. Ldefendant had sold the mare for fifty guineas.
kat th DAS, in addressing the jury for the defence, stated
irig,.. e mare had been sent to Mr. Shaw's, and Mr. Shaw
iegtout to leave the country, wrote to Mr. Williams to
• re away ; but he got no answer,_ and the con-
was thAt th% mare was sent to Mr. Lucas's Reposi-
t4 aaa
of ;tl.-'-..d. .- filtt";, gaineast !and: itiwa.i.nat.ufitil.the st-
IN br belt account betyreon ih;3 parties that this action
itntlght*
- '
141. -esses to the character of the mare were called on bath
The 1
' I.ToRNEv-Gx:S_ERAL replied on behalf of the plain-
Tlie ju
the r)• fen nd a verdict for the defendant.
eanrr did not break up until half-past nine o'clock.
1;4,,
ITRP, ROYAL, LIVERPOOL.
. ......____,
• ‘ ' t .th Last '‘.'elk of . -
*-, Aill. htcKTo&t & mtts: HONED:
' • 17 k; r.
~, :“...,,,,__,._ A, . , !. ; .:, ~„ .
T ,wee pr,sentl' LT E S D At; Apriitie. 1830, will be per-
Nill'eti a Comedy in two acts, calltd' : • 7 .
illol, GANDFATHER'S WILL;
44-4P,CYnic.
_.Mr, Baker. Mandeville...Mr. Gray.
air;
• qr. W.:How; rd. . M.rs. Rigid. . Mrs. Edwards.
'After wt,, Albina Mande.ville.. , . . Mrs. Honey.
'eh, will be performed **
* for the third time here, Mr.
w Buckstone's last new Farce, called
tAK PoINTS,
,:41141). wk-rt, A OTIIING LIKE WHEEDLING.
I 4 (41.. "edle., 4 ~,,,,, 4 1 , 4,, 4 , Mr. BuCkstone,
r•J'oft.aLiTii.Onally petfottned 14 him iti tioni) .
1 ~C,..1-1' r ;-. t 1.6 Mr.II kat' * r. n Croilre-
iikil)enr Tile ** " -a/ ••• - • H. ,I.
9_9,_ ... .! 4
trill, ~nlas 1: ernon .. -, ~ Mr.. W± • Pal, .. •• Tell et
To 1),,enL4411, P-Ars'AClake.,,Sally Fybus... Mrs. Te e
it Yr-ilicle.vith MK Bnckstone'is Farce of,
r• 44 , ~,-1 4P. R t P p ,t 4,1 7,., -..! ..
kr r)..e°ve (his origin;ti chi.,.i•46r)
'arnl.ccr„!•,..l-fenry Dove .... :. ... Mies, Cleaver.
.. :171r, Bucks Lone.
Nit
L7ocinieei.ilV!yrnExaker. . •Mrs Sai4rl..Sovdcl.wMarrds..Clarke
Ilr, p, :;:ti.,;,,p9ig.ct i.:37.... Miss Fault.
hr, . Alt": riltcelcle 7.gliugSand. ..
...1111.
-1;46. 1 °linglius an . .
b d Mrs..w Bland.ii(l)-iney.
iv r, 14175: eredig.. ii/Sin. it.i..: ....... Edwards.
atee ki" i'''' ''''' '.,. ~,,T--;
.. • ;.---- th-. S,"sati
t%..r'ri,alt4 14e Pkri 6 YY- 414-C1i1.6114 p,,; 1..,i
eh, -4 PlaY beliadand,Places.tk-en,of 4,.. •B
- 6d :
't;k24. Ckt 1•1'441:11iree• • Bexes,*4s.•,.:UPper Boxes,- 35:... . •,
14.7rts: t,"'„Gallery, is.' ' A limitid number.
efit, tae • Boxes not iTransferable, . nor ,admissible a
of Sulscriptiont
, • i, 7.may )111d.on application at the liy:)-9t0 c'?; ;, i
(14- " the tqi 1 ';,i NI oF. li-OW
h NI- a 'NtrIT 'f. RIPS: i ONtV: 07a .. ls!
ritE,l-4244Y') Aprl 10°th, the thama of CATCHINtG
KAil.
211. 1, • Capt. Poodle, Mr. W. Howard ; c4P •
itlililtei„,4;orh. Wu' U. Bland ;Tom.Turg, Mr. Baker; Caro-
li„,;', the 1,-,Ars. Honey ; Sally Giggle, Mrs. 'rellet. After
Ittitel,r, NT -aree of TOM NODDY'S SECRET.
With Tom
' tN'rvr• Baker ; Inkpen, Mr. Buckstone.
tued "kl'ip SEVENTEEN. Miss Carrington, with
ri ltd ix characters Mrs. Honey. 1 To conclude with THE
tilllirtl,t ~THR' RHINE. Irma, Mrs. Honey..
,' pkBt'PAT-
-14,1)4 ItidAne,valid ,mi.4l.'ilitroientyydr Enit
pteroriunnriitis , 17 wdhtihche
i Inaight 1., 1--r-Mr BUCKSONt S ENE T, and i. .4410 -'. , . lie of his t. '''' ', '
' buitt)llllleoBtorie' "gageniaellcalled A .LESON FOR
11 -, "S in. prePanrewatioDn Drama called a LESSON F()
" lir.pdS.fll,s
-and-will be
it N_ ~. i, 44.',_.;_: . *-. ; • ,
produced on Friday
lagt ed • lqii.* iirilciiAM j.,i
liTs.
tfe It
NJ: the early pait MADAME Season, for FIVE i..._G
Mr. Nt AilLts
IRLES KEAN, VESTRIS,
eminent
c
etehitar:\:AeTßEWS, Mr. POWER, and other emi
Ike ~ !)erforrner • are also engaged.
will besiiven of their first app
earance.
_
!e thrrpoot g9ta;lbar*
,n. '----

A 48bil I' 2'40 R11,471'43, 2P-e-r-t' 1/' -'39.
Ota.
'4llp-riritead, enders
cannot fail to he aware what extremely
k,clPled fellows" (if there be any truth in whig-
the)free-,„e th°se good friends of the conservative cause,
Nil 'en of Liverpool. We dare say there is many
I°Vl(ott.elletill t°rY in the good old town, who neither has
3' °or •ever means to forget, the Liverpool
tilititliefli bid' L. Bill. If we can do any-
1 t toil, . . rancnisement , • , ,
~ .
4.41 e.th._*;dB I)eilietiiating its rememlifante,, We will
NrN 4,4' --.L
4,ittat th 6. radibals ball iidt forget it either.te
eili.,ittie4titeli.l fOitir, to the if they can •helP it,
, i'lletti f 7.4 election contest of autumn i 830;
—scfniteheir
P4rt, q Anblic reasOfis, hecause the interests o
jorite4;(4lld ndt he greatly benefited by calling that
b6l. they Piii.t°4linently before the public mind : several
i-rte 1 n4I-L,;vise; (with all respect be it spoken of such
glat!) ,Auth:rnindedpatricits,) 'because certain gold
_
elleni:7l3i'e some literal pdlini yet remains unearal
lielte - .*' Tiiek are fond; .therefdre,
t!llith L' all like to speak of the
thief !"
" dorrupt'o'ff geeemn en,
411,ey browall experienced ctitpurse cries " Stop .
rite h6glit lii the afOresaid bill to disfranchise, not
'4
4.-
had b il of bribery; but those who
i t Iqg he
freemen; , Peen pi ty .
..
Ntel.,ll. wry not househOlders. It for-
j4k'i 111Plieiid that the House of • Lords did not
*ith::)., ee wily a rich man might accept aa
poor
itlati eh, `l°Peachment of his honour, and yet _
gould • h such severe and
tettraerd. deserve to be visited with
',lie4a 'll.larY punishment. Still less could our radical
likl taket'4illee them that some poor freemen, who
lle, ,hon tio bribe, and would have scorned to take
ti4l 'lll be disfranchised, because other freemen,
I , , 41411
"41 cob., as poor, had been scandalously and shame-
:, the iii Pt. And be it remembered that the objectn
-q" ddb-' was to cut off the register all those
.Ireeme
(lettarte44°t occupy £lO houses. Doubtless
could it neverh have
l,
e
Place in t° our radical friends thathonesty
°lle iiadanY house rated below £lO. wish some
411.1 e inm klged their memories on this,We
when
look
time
for %Id. er the Municipal Bill, where we i
i the £lO clause.
• tht hedge 11l
steal the horse; but. you may not look over
I°‘‘l,l' is a canon of politics very broadly laid
IN! it .. our liberal and remarkably candid opponents:
c"lrke4ll°t a little curious and instructive to e the
141 in.q.,vhell liberal vengeance takes, when anyssehame-
Irre-finee of political turpitude either has actually.
-", or
defiled maY, for liberal purposes,. be plausibly
,4.llherate 1 eine should think that a set of men who
e9Nvii, Y co
llooct in London a scheme of wicked-
kl)el'i ii.`° count their costs—who assemble
Reform
\:llll3,eaa-ced4 agents (men well known at the
; '11() ~alwaYs the purse-bearers in close contests)
4 - eou - a sufficient credit
a I eet their gold, and lodge .
te (kat b
LN an bat
then, having printed in large let-
g`ltielli,44dress about purity of election, public morals,iat
prancestll4.'). 4M • the like, go down to the borough that
cti, t° he. vacant, and bring into play all theirt
4414;4 Metro ort seductions upon the ignoran
t;11 Ati'ar). ;—onePe?plelan ' should think that these are
1q114:t1-elliell who should feel the weight of public
:11 i''',alll,(l bear the. heavy brunt of liberal indignation.
".< s"' so ? We answer, it depends upon eircumh-
rN
`r'' It d
p depends upon whether the offender,-.ht e
11„.. If a,ll,:ged offender, be a conservative or be ah. e-
-lre -"Y trian have lived in Liverpool these last
ttenf
'ilv4ti,'l:ll,d doubt the perfect truth of this statemen o
"411 x. - tlitn travel a few.hours on the Grand Junctiont
11,1.4,1; (Za\velling will be useful to one so ignorant .(larh. -,) and get out at Stafford. The first pe.r
Ith
't4l heah-eetB with in that town will be able to tell him
b'tl'aJ, i Peaed there when• the Queen's-Attorney-Ge-t
,'IkPDe 1),rill John Campbell, was a candidate ;—wha
-ikt:-"' we mean, in the town at the time of the
‘klt)/111) 41Id in the House of Commons when that
1"V
,%.,- Ivag questioned afterwards. He will alsO hear
:11)te-‘41, °4l came to be dealt with when the tables
l
'114114,,,, ltreed, and the borough showed unequivoca
1:t44 .: °I returning conservatism and good sense..h
i'4l 1:1T111 friend do this and he will bring hack with
itilbltiee 447,0.01 a little more sapience. about. liberal
i,, rtit.".' fair dealing; and though it will surprise
"litig ti_eitY tnost exceedingly, he must make up his
!:Ifi h• Patriotleve, that a mamay not only be a whig
the ~,-,:, but he may be the very man entrusted
Lk'ttlitir;"le liberal faction with the office of pro-
' tlit' all offences against public morals—he may
yet hts 4ttorneGeneral of the whigs himself, and
east
11()ti°118 of public morality and of common
Itert4iitlaY be totally opposed to the ideas of ether
beN, rlie.„.(l be
a simple-minded man, who is not a li-
p.;l' .
e 4 ' well
but surely the briber is the person most
;'ke. vbilolshed. lie is the originator of the atrocious
I.ekli.,:le_ does it designedly; he lays his traps—he
i'ti iiil; his
nets—the poor fellow who is bribed is ta-
: ee(l4,l,,are's•---(perhaps when full of liberal beer)—he
~erei e`i---tetripted—of course he must be punished
'llitle Y;
but if this poor fellow be whipped with
Di ) his •
°N • richthe seducer will be scourged with scor-
e the li I
‘, Niv t_t e finger will be laid upon the tempted—
bliee:wei.ght of the loins upon the wicked tempter.
f)tia,ilzilitiaJhuisetitcoerireesq,u, ires no less. And whatever the
may think 'of course the righte-
fltiil,.
preor,,Qos_w.in visit upony,eacii offender the punishment
tc),)ki,,P rtioned to his guilt : of course they will!
L -cr,..._...._a; A
itl piae -. 'l4 you ever hear of a great election that
srittlie_:4l:Blnbra.tib atilet:3eroit? and most respectable borough
Ntllcluttilion
of
Did you
ever hear that most
\? rites il bribe prevailed, and the rich received
‘ltt lf• ' e Ilarnefultlr and notoriously than. the poor ?
eve aye heard too
xiii 4 exertion
to
.I.4it hat the liberal faction strained
,thlixl/41,.,11: rich were 1
1 the penalties upon the poor,
of the ve eto go unscathed ! • What do you
to;te and th IT n who. so visited the poor—the
4rliato e .unbribed together—actually returning
. ellt it th
e next election, as representatives of
. .
•

their respectable faction, the two men whose money
was circulated 66 shamelessly—who were the princi-
pals—the chief offenders ?
We haVe reverted to this matter now, because we
are desirous to present to our readers an impartialopi-
nion as to the relative crime of the rich man who
bribes, and,the poor man who takes a bribe.
" But the immorality is much more enormous in
th?se*lipihiluenee tliah in those who are influenced.
1 Oho the #ristOraey- ltt itditEts
theni into the en4)l63:.itteiit of,b tse. au Corrupting
means. It tempts them to beethre; tempters,. and sends
them forth as missionaries of vice. According to the
cant of the day, their personal honour is unaffected i
and what is the personal honour of a man, who makes
drunkards, who makes liars, who makes citizens untrue
to their duties through their fears or interests,:and ex-
pahas, tile,ag.eh6iabf ppittl eott.uption over whole dis-
tricts'? He isfiei:sonally hunted; filfittittly than
his-picfim4„a :plagye7spgt in society, and tib,
Itb„ merit;
and not the les7 .4he;;Ttm,cgrfing distinc-
tion of private and potiXii!: character that makes him
to sneak behind a pitiful conventionalism."
We are indebted to the Morning Chronicle of Good
Friday for this sketch of the two gentlemen who figured
in the contest of 1830, who were afterwards returned
together (for, though one of them never sat for the bo-
rOtigli, tliey *ere fettitned together) as the representa-
4V6S" of so sense;
d common ust as subsists Whig,gelq• ;:, 1.4
men of Liymostj.,rit4 arid akaly them;
andremember that this Cl;raCter i ifrkvh bx 4e.ex„-,
perienced hand of the Morning Chronicle,--- lib6re
friend.

We adverted in our remarks of Friday last to the
natural history of that very peculiar animal, the modern
tifdnitsed td 'hirsute our investigation of
this anomalous attempt a furtiiet fit;
count of the eccentricities and` various' dd'xitSl at-
- • , • • t.,,. i,!(1 I!'
tribntes;pf this remarkable creature.: We bointed
that Inlpr9fession47as„,zpest,tibexalr-in
ex&figve; univei allq Tegardeslwith dislike p ,r dis-
trust, and that by every man ui e er ;ill-1;ile of Witicaf
opinion; yet the acknowledged head of those disco
dant sections which. assemble at the Reform Club, and
call themselves the " popular" party. So when Pro-
testantism was in the ascendant in England and Ire-
land, the " whig" %vas identified with the Protestant
faith: The Mattrt " whie was in fact synonimous with
" PrOtest4nt:" fliell ifie totging penal
laws, and kept in.. check the P4i4.9 Irid tie wicked
tories.,. Now the ROtruai ,faciiol4 has obtained a tem-
porary infittence, and„the,,"„whii'i, and the Roman Ca-
tholic have bOtuid
corm,
pact" alliance. Like the chameleon, the creature takeS

its colour from its food. The noisome incense of the
Romish mass is now the very health of its political ex-
istence : its colour and complexion wear the taint of
Rome.

Lord Melbourne. voted against transferring the fran-
chise frdin.4efOrd to Birmingham, A pleasant story
is told of the non-Chalarit •viitount; Oftl
iilie„qpiposed
the reform bill in Lord Grey's cabinet as otontiy as
Wetherell might or Croker ; but when the " whole
bill" had passed that secret conclave, he struck his
cane upon the table, and exclaimed, " Well, gentlemen,
you have done the mischief ; and, after this, I shall
stick at nothing." Accordingly Lord Melbourne is
premier of the "reform" ministry. The chief secre-
tary and leader of t 1 natio of Commons vindicated
the sternest rigour bf the penal laws c shOWed why
Gattop should be saved .While Sarum N justly
sacrificed, and slinite iii WliA lie rile Ont for ttitiehing and
expressive words; of " preserVing
keeping in the vestal fire." We thank thee, John, for
teaching us these eulogies of the old constitution; we
rejoice that thou hast written thy book. Posterity may
forget many things of Lord John Russell that are too
well known and remembered now; but they will never
forget the alliance bf Lichfield House; the history of
the appropriation clause, and that this same lordling
bears the name and profanes the Prineiples Of William
Lord Russell. To talk of PaltheistOri; and Hobhouse;
of Rice, and Normanby; and Holland; time and the
patience of our readers would be wanting; but it any
man desile to see'theni exhibited in fgithftil cold-Ors by
a graphic hand, let hint read the letter of Mr: Eneas
Macdonnell in the Times of Friday.
But we endeavoured to explain the reasons why this
same "whig" is always most liberal (as he is pleased
to call it) in his public professionS; and most insolent
and supercilious in his real conduct. It is because he
is acting a part. He is in a false position; , and there-
fore there is no sincerity about him. He knows just
as well as the tory that there must be grades and dis-
tinctions of society : a duke and a dustman cannot be
yoked together, like the ox and the ass of Ulysses ; not
because there is any conceit or absurdity in the mat-
ter, but simply, " Natura opposuit." Habit, educa-
tion, means and mode of life, forbid such a preposter-
ous association. Now the whig gets upon the hustings,
and declaims in general terms about equality. He has
a lie upon his lips, and this he knows right we 11... He
comes down, and is afraid he will be taken at his
word. He expects some "fusty plebeian" will embrace
him. In self-defence he throws into his manner and
deportment a Siberian coldness. General Jackson and
the hiccory staff are a joke in comparison of your
whig. He is confoundedly condescending, and re-
solved to keep you at your distance. Now, mark that
man ! Wherever he goes, he carries with him his hol-
lowness and insincerity. He is a, "tuft-hunter" when
lie gets into high company ; and if

" niggard fate no peers afford,
He takes of course to peers' relations ;
And sooner than not sport a lord,
Puts up with e'en.the last creations."

It is familiar to every man who has passed through a
large school, that the reckless insubordinate little
junior is always the boy to become in his turn
the overbearing bully. Just so with the whig.—
When power is in other haxids, he is ready to tear
the very framework of society to pieces : he would
rather have " anarchy than Peel." When power has
fallen into his own grasp, woe to the objects of his
" centralizing" legislation. He lays down the bed of
Procrastes, and, long or short, he makes them, fit it.
A vain and pretending democrat when out of office, he
is a hollow and haughty aristocrat when in. The peo-
ple of England have learned, in the last eight years,
that if the tory were King Log, the liberal is King
Stork. We suspect. it will be many a long day before
frothy nonsense from the hustings will get up such
another agitation for the liberals. If the liberals throw
dust in the people's eyes, they will find that the said
people can throw stones as well as dust—can meet de-
clamation with fact—plausible pretence with an appeal
to party history—fair promises with the record of
pledges broken and hopes disappointed, of faith plighted
and perjured to an extent for which the history of Bri-
tish politics affords no parallel.
Now one set of these men is as bad as another. We
are far from being desirous of seeing Lord Melbourne
overthrown prematurely. Galling as 'it is to see pre-
ferment given in the inverse ratio of merit—bishoprics
'bestowed on subscribers to Socinian sermons, judge-
ships conferred on men like Baron Maule, every post
of influence and profit filled with men who are quiet
enough just now, but will be nuisances and pests here-
after, when better men are masters—galling as all this
is, it is the just punishment of our folly, and we must
hear it as we may. Let others accuse Sir Robert Peel
of inactivity and the Duke of indecision—we shall be
content to wait until the rapidly disorganising mass of
liberalism shall fall to pieces of itself, and betray to the
world the disgusting and corrupt materials of which it
is compoSed.
Meanwhile we are too strong for them to perpetrate
any violent legislative inroads on the British constitu-
tion; and the schoolmaster is going abroad every;
where, and raising recruits for the cause of truth. Spe-
cious. as the liberals may be, they will scarcely persuade
the people of England that the best test of public sen-
timent is secret suffrage—that compulsory education is
the morning star of dawning liberty—or that the ex-
clusive system is that which teaches anything, religious
as well as secular—the liberal and tolerant system, that
which closes to the learner the only book which it is of
infinite importance he should know. Let education,
free and unfettered, fairly prevail, and the dinservative
cause prevails with it. This is• the time of sowing.
Nature, in her own due season, will so bring about the
• harvest,.

" Ut ipsa suss mirentur Gargara messes."

Our attention has been arrested for the present by
the so-called crisis which comes off next week. We

purpose, at a future time, to take some of these liberal
fallacies in hand, and show them up as they deserve.

We li,'.fe, gtetat *mire this day in laying before our
readers the interesting elNeeftl, of ,the Hon: and 'Rev.
Horace Powys, delivered at the DiBVsa.:ll. ttiCation.
meeting, at St. Helens, on Thursday last, but for
which we had not space in our last publication. The
sentiments breathed throughout this admirable address
will find, we doubt not, a cordial response in the bo-
som of MO tftle Protestant who may peruse it.
i It i§tru: 1:i gra'tifyi'ng do itcitttess these simultaneous-
' proceedings in,faying,of:neiiten. ds. stern.(if nation-
al education; ‘.t.;k flie has); of ~.I;riif,ianill.: ,re bishops
who initiated this grand inchirtient; and the Clergk.and
laity of the Church of England, who have so nobly and
so successfully taken up the cause, deserve the thanlss
of the Christian community for their dissinterested and
self-devoted exertions. Not that we tifGUld for one
riiiiingtit insinuate that the clergy have been hitherto
indift4ieiV or IkAgeitt in the cause of education.
1134.118,1;:eoril4ilfully,' i; ti most fatstr; laid to their
~, . ..•, .;, ,•:, ,i , t, .. • ~•4., n. .• 4'
thane, by the turbitleppo,lu4tary.agitatO'rs of the ort:y.
, ,-,• . '4 ,: ,•
They have been &ierited; in the ilarithtenlis.pf the.
" march of intellect" folks, as lasaittit4itigOis,";" op-
posed to the advance of knowledge," and as " placing
every obstacle in their power in the way against the
extended education of the people," The mendacious
scribes, who have thus heaped all manner of Apse
Uplit fig dewy? eannot be ignorant of the fact, that
i the MO'Knedi iaiiigi 19f ilk: elisttreh of England have
i dorip ,four trines .S nii4,' :iii t,tV iik 6f tittrtroting
. ~ ..4!,.*,,,...-.,., , ,;..• . i.. 4,1 r.., ,- •ec.• , , .71
n6tiorial education,. as 41 Ale chsleriting: SectOries pia
'fsource,the" S4ifra.- i ' who together—excthuing; o. c pi.. 1450, o
have certainly done much towards thi6 praiseworthy
object, without ostentatiously boasting of their tier-,;
tions. Look at th 4 innumerable schools attached to
the Church of England in our populous towns. Look
at the thousands upon thousands of similar schools
hi 4liiitisfwil village throughout England and Wales,
aint ti ii of iiAiiiiiii* supported through-the counte-
nance I.iiil,e4i4-I':iiii R i ii,11.66: Ltiolt, vain, at the
rupx.,!;loyeaciNo4', 4:0 4n ruin' of thE
lint dorn, , ip,!wAihe;rvio43ll has been made te?l,-,,tiic
ge,tififiA ..-1,111;-:Ati9n of. thousands, 4of 4
s.kUtatiO{l.:
Are not these sufficielit 61 iVi,iii4elivei to fpniiilyp;Oiyi
most sceptical that it is the basest and most AiWthleci
of calumnies to accuse the clergy of the Established
Church of indifference on the subject of education ?
But though much has been done during the last
generation for the instruction of the more indigent
elatSes of the people, there has been, as yet, no syste-
miC t phhiSidri. nia'it• 6ii dil 6leciliate scale, for the
educatio'n.O‘ft4e,iiiislare 6laS*; 1"8 f6tifaiy this de.
tFct, by,* establishment of
.dihria; ieii6oli;.iii AA
g suOrior education-1:-1..bie4flik milli.o7a
.yo- t* ii-kig ,
and intellectual imprOWiiii4i.t--s.h.Y re groicleA,:*-:t
pears to be the characteristic feature off' iii 6 fteSent
movement among the friends of the Church.
.The
accomplishment of . this object is most appropriately
associated with the church extension scheme : for as
the youth educated in these schools grow up to matu-
rity; it is essential -that provision should be made for
Sniqiliiiii, Apii :kitfi iidgitifal iiigttnetion,
_ o ,ac , a seem It is a ineikAiii fl tit"i; '-,0 eve' Ad thoide
, P rialt,...— ..1 .i. ... , ~.
of attack to be in vain, tire enemies ot7 rc fgren; attic
enemies.of the Church of England, fitiilai are n'il,.i-:

tible terms, have of late years endeavoured, with tin,
remitting zeal, to secularise the education of the people.
The grand end and aim of the infidel philosophers,
who are prosecuting this heathenish task, is, undoubt-
edly, to banish Christianity, with all its benign, and
sanctifying; but corrective influences, out of the land.
Mr. irrriikiri; efitd the philosophers of the Central
Edntiatia hafe tdeitly -AtktioAetiged this
to be their do lgn: if it *efe othervirise; *irk sb ita=
lously insist upon time eietiiiiioltb: OSoinie Arid un:
conditional exclusion of the Bible froM ihe naiidnal Sksf
tern, which they so audaciously endeavour to foist upon
a Christian country like England ? • The motive of this
exclusion is too transparently evident to need much re-
mark. It evidently arises from a desire to quench that
light of truth ivhich the free circulation and unre-
stricted perusal of the Able lute spread over the
country:
The principle in dispute i)itiveen the Central Ednea;
tion Committee and the Clergy of the Church of Er*.
land is; not whether the people are to be educated or
not, but what des6rifltieti of instruction is hest adapted
to promote the real 'Welfare of society: The `` march
of intellect" philosophers advocate a system of educa-
tion exclusively secular : the clergy, on the other hand,
insist upon the necessity of making provision for the
religious instruction of the people, as the only safe
basis upon which the superstructure of intellectual
knowledge can be raised. Which of these two sys-
tems is the right one ? Is secular education calculated
to do good or evil, when separated from religious in-
struction ? Is intellectual culture sufficient, per se, for
the moral improvement of mankind ? For an answer
to this question look into the history of ancient na-

ions. Do we find, upon consulting these records,

that morality was the concomitant of even the highest
degree of refinement in the arts and sciences, and in
human literature ? Was not the reverse notoriously the
fact ? It is a dangerous and destructive fallacy to
maintain that this species of unsanctified knowledge
can produce any better result in modern days. In the
eloquent language of a clergyman in South Wales, we
would say—" It was not by a chymical disquisition on
the deleterious effects of ardent spirits that the drunk-
ard was to be reformed. It was not by exposing the
dishonourable character and injuriousness of theft that
rapine was to be restrained. It was not by discoursing
on the nature of the bond which unites a man to his
wife, and the duties which it involves, that the marriage
vow would be preserved inviolate. There must be an
appeal to higher considerations." These higher consi-
derations can only be supplied by the system advocated
at the meetings of last week. A sound scriptural edu-
cation can alone supply motives sufficiently powerful to
influence the passions and affections aright. Every
other species of instruction will be found utterly in-
operatiVe, unless indeed, it proves the source of moral
. corruption 4nd scrcial degradation,
We find that we must again postpone our remarks
on this interesting topic. We shall again bring the
subject before our readers on Friday.

THE CHESTER CALENDAR FOR CRIME AND

THE LIVERPOOL MERCURY.

TO THE EDITOR OF THE LIVERPOOL STANDARD,

SIR,—Observing a comment upon the heavy calendar for
crime at Chester, by the Editor of the Mercury, and a re-
quest by him that the Mail may copy it, and contrast it with
the Irish calendars, which he pretends are so much more
free from crime than the Editor of the Mail would have us
believe, permit me to ask the Editor of the Mercury how
many of the criminals upon the Chester calendar are natives
of Ireland ? and also to advise him never to make any co
parison betwixt crime in England and Ireland, until he h s
honesty enough to tell us how many of the highway robberies
and murders committed in England are by Irishmen. In
this part of England, at least, if we may draw a conclusion
from general reports the majority of this description of felony
cases are perpetrated by those harmless innocent pisantry
which the Editor of the Mercury so much loves, and whose
principles he is so fond of advocating. I could heartily wish
all such of their admirers would transport themselves among
them, and there, and only thew, extol their virtues and enjoy
their society.—l am, &c., OBSERVER.