The Liverpool Standard and General Commercial Advertiser.
Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1838-04-10 00:00:00

that far. Wherever it s.,!nelt there was no dispute.the gni
wets prosent. It was au irritating gas, and could not be drawn
:into fire lungs at elf -except in a very dilute state. It did. not
mike him cough, It was a gas that would nut only irritate but
desiroy mucous membranes completely.
.This wis 'he LP? 4,4,1141.01 r.

. .
The court then acljourtied at eight o'clock, the further hear-
ing of tue ease to be resunti!d in the morning.

sATuuDAY.
(Befisre Mr Justice Coleridge.)

His Lordship took his seat at nine o'clock.
The whole et the evidence in the case of the QUEEN V. M es-
Pit ATT having heen got through on Friday,
Mr. C UESSWELL rose to reply. He could not, he said, rise to
address the jury on behalf of the prosecution, without offering
an apology fur being the means of calling them together again;
tint he was so much exhausted, and had been suffaring.so se-
verely front indisposition for a considerable time past, that he
was utterly unable to go on on the preceding evening, and he
thought he should have ill discharged his duly to the Corpora-
tion and public of Liverpool, if he had not asked for a postpone-
ment to rnable hut properly to fulfil his task. He had one. or
two preliminary observations to make on the remarks that had
fallen front his le.trned friend. It ha';l been stated that it was a
contested wager by a public body, in possession of an ample
public fund, for the purpose of crushing Mr. Muspratt; that it
was no fair war, but one waged at unequal odds; and that, if it
turned out that he could not effectually defend himself, they
were to consider that it arose froth the great weight with which
he had to contend. To what better purpose, he would ask,
could the corporaliitil apply their funds? what could they do
better than listen to the complaints of their fellow-townsmen,,,
and protect those privileges which ought to he equal to all ?
They came forward to help those who could not help themselves.
An injury stgaiust two or three.was no public injury, and could
not be, in the case of a nuisance, proceeded against by indict-
meet. But if they found, upon au examination of the evidence
in this case, that the injury was spread far and wide, and in a
degree that depreciated the value of property, invaded the com-
forts of multitudes of people, and produced great distress and
inconvenience, then the proper mode was by.indictment. Let
them mark the condition in which Mr. Muspratt was placed by
the mode of proceeding that had. been adopted. He had had
but one action entered against hint, and he would have the costs
of but one action to pay. If one hundred and fifty actions haul
been brought, he would have had to pay the costs in every one
of them. He knew of no better way of crushing an individual
than that of involving him in one hendred and fifty or two hun-
dred lawsuits. ills friend said, they had called people who
spoke only of Mr. Muspratt; that the complaints that had been
made were the effects of vulgar prejudices directed against him;
•that the effluvium had obtained the name of the Muspratt smell;
and, in fart, that he had called people to speak of Mr. Muspratt
only. if he had called witnesses who had spoken of other par-
ties who had produced the vapour, what would have.beeu the cry
then ? Why, it would have been said, that he bad called peo-.
ple who spoke of touriatic gas only being produced without.
speaking of any particular individual as having produced it, but
merely proving that others produced it as well as Mr. Muspratt..
He would call their attention to the distress, discomfort, and
loss which had been suffered ut Everton, and in the inure itnme- •
diate neighbourhood of the works, all of which was attribeted to
Mr. Mos.prata His learned friend had set up two defences,
one of which was, the gas was not injurious, and the other, that
it was impossible fur it, because of certain laws of nature, to get
'near the parties who complained. lie was glad of this, for, if
two evidences which. were inconsistent with each other were set
up, they either neutralised each other, or, as it generally hap-
pened, fell both short of positive proof, and, in such circum-
stances, two halves would not make a whole. They would now
see the state of the village of Everton, and examine how the
gas had effected it. It appeared that it was about twelve years
since Mr. Museratt first introduced his alkali works, and very
soon afterwards it. was surmised that it was a nuisance. Be it
partieularly remembered, that all the annoyance from smoke,
kilns, tanneries, and so forth existed before that time. They
had the testimony of most respectable witnesses to the tact. No
complaint was made of injury to vegetation. It was the same
in the parts that appeared to lie inure inhabited; eachanan pur-
sued his trade or occupation without loss or discotuairt. It was
sottnvi,laei
iedstihaoi
I,lttliteakis.ctol
indicted,
err.then,Muspratt
could
prejudice
existed,a
ewr10,8,72,11911,-3!.(a),viet,:eb
jesee3nrseiNitteadrd.eAlithitiin:liev,sie.asrtyat
h o
f
ung a complaint
unit, iu the years
tall chimney. Up to that time no complaint came from Everton.
All the complaints had been confined to the flat intermediate
space. But, within a year or two after the tall chin-Met' was
erected, Everton began loudly to complain. Why did not
Evertor' complain before? It had been made evident, that all
the other manufactures existed before, and the fart of the an-
noyance commencing at Everton at the time this chimney was
erected proved, that the chimney was the cause of it. lie would
be geverned by the, evidence of' his senses in spite of the inge-
nuity of theorists. \Vhat followed ? Why, Mr. Muspratt was
indicted by Everton ; Everton evidence was excluded, and Mr.
Muspratt was acquitted. The evidence from Everton having
beers excluded, how was it possible that the indictment should
succeed? It was found that Everton was not within the ""1"
boundary, and he Could easily believe that this would cause stone
donlits in the minds of indiViduals who were but imperfectly ac-
quainted with the law. Tile municipal boundary line had now
included Everton, and the case was now brought before the
present jury. 'Several of the witnesses for the defence bad
given testimony that showed the effects had been produced that
were stated by Dr. Thoerson. The learned gentleman here
proceeded to comment upon the evidence that had been brought
forward for the defence, particularly dwelling upon that given by
Dr. Thomson, and its variation front the facts proved in the
evidence of the numerous witnesses teethe Prosecution. Was
this mighty town, asked the learned gentleman, which, within
the:last century, had arisen from being a place comparatively
little known until it was almost a rival of the metropolis itself;
were the inhabitants, with their taste for the arts, to have their
town,. Which it had been their pride to adore, disfigured, to
increase the wealth of the overgrown Mr. Mitspratt, who lifted
his head arid destroyed the comfort and the property el others,
just as some towering tree reared itself on high and flotuished,
while it withdrew the nortshment front the surrounding vegeta-
tion ?
His Lonnsint, said, it was now his duty to assist them, as far
as he could,-in the discharge-of their ditch inure important one.
He htar,l thought it right, considering the importance of the ques-
tions .both to the public and to the parties, to allow the fullest
investigation, and:to allow the case to he resumed at infect/els
such as Would perinit the advocates and the jury to recruit their
strength, and he wished the jury now to act with the same deter-
mination for patient and calm inquiry. They had been very
naturally addressed, by the counsel on both sides, as tut the pro-
bable consequences; but he Wished them to •understand, that in
n,, point of view ought the consequences to operate in their
minds, except for the purpose of inducing them to give the sub-
ject more deliberate consider,ttigm, . It would be incumbent on
them to throw altogether out of their cousideration the conse-
quence, (which, to either party, which ever way the verdict was
given, must beOf great importabce,)and todeliberate only upon
the real queStien at. issue. With respect to the consequences,
if thee were of Opittion, that the effect of a verdict against the
defendant would be to remove a growing and beneficial branch.
of trade, and to remove it to a foreign shore, they had nothing
to do with it; nor would it be any defence at all, that Mr. Mus-
pratt closed great benefit to accrue to many individuals, ands
that. was Making-a large and honoorable fortune. He was
charg?il with having caused a nuisance to the inhabitants of
Everton. A public indictment only extended to a public nui-
sance. It was necessary that they should be convinced, that the
injury complained of was a substantial injury, ,and not merely
such an annoyance as would be taken notice of or ly by nervous
people. It must be an injury to the health, comfort, or property
of the people residing within its influence. If they should find,
that, in Everton, property had been depreciated by what had
been done; if they should find, that furuiture had been spoiled,
that iron had been rusted, that articles exposed for sale in Shops
haul been discoloured or changed, (hat would be a tangible in-
' jury, and would he sufficient. Though they should not find that
it was productive of any fatal consequences, or any series of af-
fections peculiar or -dangerous, yet, if the general daily comforts
of the inhabitants were broken in open, that was a substantial
injury. Their next point would be to bring this home to Mr.
Muspratt- Yet, it was not necessary that they should bring all
home to him. The learned Judge here explained, that all the
parties could not be included in one indictment ; and, there-
fore, it was sufficient it' Mr. Muspratt were proved to have done
sonic substantial injury. If they knew any of what were com-
monly called reasonable doubts on the subjects, it would he
proper to give hint the benefit of that doubt. He did not mean
that they should require mathematical demonstration of that
which was not capable of demonstration, but that they should
see that the case was not encumbered with such doubts as would
hinder them front coming to a general conclusion. Both par-
ties came into court armed with a scientific evidence. His
lordship dwelt at great length on the evidence, parts of which he
analyzed minutely. At the request of one or two gentlemen of
the jury, lie reiid over the testimony of Mr. Borstal% Mr. Mil-
ler, and Mr. Warner. If the evidence did not carry conviction
to their minds, they would at once dismiss the case; but, if they
were satisfied that Mr. Muspratt had pcoduced such a nuisance
as had caused serious loss and discomfort, then they would de-
cide against the defendant.
rf-ihewjs t jury
ie,,,,z whentiredatthetywedievleiveor'celdocin ak; ‘teteizieretmofiti(i;tueiailitoyu.t until
ha
The court, which had been excessively crewiled up to this
hour, was: immediately deserted by the vast bulk at he auditory.
BUTTLI:WoaTti AND AN oT HER V. CA TEsWoRTII.—sPECIAL

JURY CA su.
Mr. Alexander and Mr. Crompton appeared for the plain-
tiff. and Mr. Cresswell for the defence. .The declaration stated
that this was an action brought for money had and received by
the defendant for the use of the plaintiff, and for interest on an
account, stated. The defendant pleadial that be did not pro-
mise, as alleged, and, secondly, that £193 7s. 6d., pail of the
money, was received on certain terms, which was denied..
This was an action brought to recover the above sum, with
such interest as should have. become due. The question de.
pended upon the construction to be put on certain documentary
evidence. The plaintiffs, Messrs. -Butterworth and M`Dougle,
were merchants at Manchester, the defendant was a Merchant
at London. The late Mrs. Duncan M'Dougle, formerly re-
sided at Liverpool, and carried on business at Buenos Ayres.
In 1825 the plaintiffs intended making a consignment of goods
to Buenos Ayres, and through the medium of Mrs. Duncan
M`Dougle, the goods were sent out; and it was agreed between
the parties, that an advance should be made on these goods by
the defendants in London; and the plaintiffs sent out a quan-
tity of marino and other goods, subject to the commission Of 4
per cent.'at Buenos Ayres, and some other charges. There was
an alleged breach of contract on the part of the defendant, for
which the action was brought. 'The case hinged upon a point
Id law, on which the terms of a future nereement were settled;
and a verdict was taken fur the plaintiff by consent, subject to a
special case.
IWKENZIE AND OTHERS V. COCKSHoT.—SPECIAL JURY CASE.
In this case-`the action was blought for the recovery of a large
stun of money front the defendant, on an order by him to the
Waintiff, 111`lienzie for a quantity of cotton. . In the August of
1836, Mr. Cockshot, residing in Liverpool, had some conver-
sation with an individual named ITKenzie, the nominal plain-
tiff in this action, relative toi the purchase' of some cotton.
M*Kenzie was going to reside abroad, at Mobile, and the de-
fendant was anxious to speculate for 51)0 bales of cotton, pro-
vided the crop of cotton in A ii erica that year did not exceed
a certain amount of bales, and that prices dud not exceed a cer-
tain amount fixed by himself.- But whether the markets
brought the prices within his limits or not, he was desirous of
having 200 bales at all events. The question was whether Mr.
Cocsksbott did not altogether repudiate the authority he. had
given-to Mr. M‘Kenzie to purchase those hales for hint. It was
also contended by the defendant that the specific order given,
was not executed—that the cotton was tint of the required qua-
lity. The names by which cottons were known in the trade,
were " good," "loud fair," '" fully good," and " fair." fair
being the lowest quality. 11 wits contended b%' the defendant
that the cottons, if ordered at all, were to be " good," and that
even if he had not. repudiated the order given, still the cottons
did not answer the description ordered. The plaintiffs cots-
tended that the order was for cottons ranging between " fair"
, and "good fatr," and that the cottons sent ranged between those
limits.
A windier of letters to M`Kenzie from the defendant, contain-
ing the orders, were read. The first was dated Liverpool, Sep-
tember, 1836: stating, that probably his limits would not he
practicable early in the season; but in the event of Mobile et,t.-
tons of good gadities being purchasable at 9 per lb, freight
included, ne was to purchase 500 bales on his account; but thttl.