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

THE LIVERPOOL STANDARD

deposit Ilion them which woutd have the appearance of dew.
would als) have the ,i,l1110: effect upon vegetable sutstances.
Forestlrees submitted Le its action .vnuld decay from year to
year. 'nit. witn,ss teen proceeded to describe the different
processes of the manufacture of the The suPhurous
acid. gas which escaped from the works themselves, in the ma-
nulicture of sulphuric acid, was extremely deleterious.
Cross-examined.—He had seen a dew-like deposit of the vas
upon artificial leaves: The taste was intensely seer. The
Botanical Gardens had been removed owing to the quantity of
buildings about, the quantity of smoke, and the comparative
impurity of the'air. During his investigation of this subject he
had not seen oysters speedily jaw-locked by this gas; csabs and
lobsters quickly die, and lively shrimps unable to crawl away.
This wits the case for the prosecution. •
Mr. ALEXANDER then rose to reply, and spoke with great
fluency anti eloquence, on behalf of his client, fur two hours and
twenty-five minutes—a speech which it is, of Bourse, entirely
beyond our limits even to give an outline of. He spoke of his
anxiety for the success of his client, and the weight of respon-
sibility resting on him, and of the disadvantage under which he
laboured in rising to prole his case, after forty-five witnesses
had endeavoured to prove the prosecutors' case against him.
It was one of the feelings of human nature to be biased by the
first story. The case was one of immense importance to his
client, fur on it depended whether or not he should be allowed
to continue his business. He had expended a large*suin, about
£30,000, in the erection of his works, and' was' now pitched
single handed to uphold these, the fruits of his industry, against
a corporate body, wielding all its influence in a town like Liver-
pool, and p.ossessing as much wealth as many petty monarchies.
He desighated the prosecution, instituted by the corporation
against Mr.. Muspratt, as a harsh proceeding. If parties were
damaged by his works they had their remedy by action against
him, which he contended was the proper course, leaving those
individuals who felt aggrieved to recover, if they could prove
that he had injured them, compensation at his hands; that was
the proper course, and not to attempt to crush a man by an in-
dictment supported by all the wealth and influence of a power-
ful corporation. He contended that the manufacture of the
alkati was one6f immense importance to the soap manufacturer,
to the glass manufacturer, to the palm oil merchant, and others,
and that this was an. attempt to exterminate the, trade, which
was a novel one. The attempt would have been a great deal
mire Quixotic if it had been made against an older established
trade, though proved to. be highly detrimental, because there
would be more individuals engaged in it. He contended that
he should be able to prove that the evidence of the prosecutor's
witnesses. was not correct—thatle should bring- front the same.
streets and from the same neighbOurhood, witnesses to prove
that the gas was not at all injurious and not unpleasant;—that
it did not damage vegetation, nor deteriorate the,yalue of pro-
perty. He contended that it was impossible that gas from Mr.
Muspratt's chimney could strike Everton, because it had been
proved that Everton Hill was only 225 feet above the level of
high water, whereas Mr, Muspratt's tall chimney, tollich was so.
much spoken .if, was 228 feet high, and its base was 15 feet
above high water. So that if the gas issuing from that chimney
travelled in a horizontal direction, it would pass over Evertor;
but that if it ascended, as was its inclination to do, it would pass
far away above it. Mr. Muspratt had bad three indictments
preferred against him, and. at each one had endeavoured to
render his manufactory less obnoxious, by improving the con-
struction of his apparatus, and by heightening his chimney ;
and .now, for that very act, his high chimney was to be the cause
of this indictment.
Mr. ALEXANDER then proceeded to call an immense number
of witnesses, who nearly all of them reiterated the same story,

that they lived in the neighbourhood of the works, and felt no
inconvenience whatever from Them. That •property was gene-
rally increased in value in their neighbourhood;.ana that, since
the erection of Mr. Muspratt's tall chininey, ten months ago,
they had felt no inconvenience whatever. On cross-examina-
tion they generally stated that they had been inconvenienced
by the white vapour, but it was not from the .defendant's chim-
ney. The vapour from his chimney went right over their heads
They were principally annoyed with the vapour proceeding ft oin
manufactories in Canning-street and Paul-street. Some 'of
them swore stoutly they never were inconvemei by any vapour
at all, though they had lived a great number of years in the
town. One witness. a farmer, brought to prove that it. -had not
affected his crops, said he had heard a good deal of Muspratt's
smoke, and was determined that morning to get a mouthful, and
for that purpose went down to the manufactory when the chim-
ney was vomiting forth its vapour, and snuffed lip the air, and
felt not the least inconvenience. On being cross-examined by
his lordship, he said the vapour was not near him. When asked
if he expected to snuff it' down, he answeretL "To be sure."
This, of course, as were many other similar sallies, was Wowed
by loud laughter.
Mr. John Miller, merchant, residing in St. George's-place,
Everton-road North, was examined. He deposed that his resi-
dence was east north-east of Mr. Muspratt's chimney, near Mr.
Horsfall's. about three quarters of a mile from Mr..Muspratt's
works. He could distinctly see his chimney. He had wsbrub-
lieu in the front of his botise, and a small garden behind. He
had suffered no inconvenience whatever from Mr. Muspratt's
works that. he was aware of.. His garden and shrubs were not
injured by it. He had fruit trees which produced abundantly.
He WAS not aware that he lied suffered any of the evils from Mr.
Muspratt's works, derailed.by the witnesses for the prosecution.
Cross-examined.—He had resided four years in his present
premises, and nearly three close to them. He had not been in
the habit of going into any gardens but his own to obserVe any
alteration in them. He -had not noticed that vegetation was
not in a flourishing state, so far to the contrary, the field iu the
front of his house had produced a very abundant crop the last
year. He had traced Mr. Muspratt's vapour, and be did not
believe that it did fall. It appeared to him to atceind in an
angle of 25 or 30 degrees, and he did not believe that it did fall.
He had noticed the vapour. issuing from the other alkali works.
He thought the vapour front them did fall. He bed observed
the vapour and smoke from Mr. Muspratt's chiinnex ascending
in the angle he bad said, while the smoke of the others seemed
to hang in suspension at the_ height of 20 from the ground, and
remained in that suspension for about an hour, perfectly-mo-
tionless. The smoke from Muspratt's chimney seemed to go in
an upper current of air. •Ha could not pretend to explain the
cause of -this appearance, but so he had that morning seen it,
and had watched it for an hour.

By the JUDGE.—Th(tre was a strong wind blowing against
his windows, and the vapour from Atuspratt's chimney passed
rapidly over head, apparetitlj, in a current, but ifie vapour below
was stationary, and did not appear subject to the scrim of the
wind. • ,'

Re-examined.-7-Uniformly when he had been thle to trace
the vapour it passed over the highest ground at Everton at fully
a greater height than when it issued,from the chimney.,-.
Mr. William Skirving, nursery gardener, had a nursery at
Everton and another at Walton. Forest trees an-1 fruit trees
throve welt at his nursery at Evcrtou, which was close to Mr.
Horsfall's residence.

Cross-examined:—llis nursery at Everton was surrounded
with high waits. Ou the whole the trees did nut thive so well
there as at Walton, and,he could not account fur it.
Michael Ashcroft, farmer of Kirkdale, deposed that he occu-
Pied ab‘iut 250 statute acres of land. His crops wets Out at all
injured by the vapour from Mr. Muspratt's works.
Cross-examined.—He had a large shrubbery httween the
manufactory and his fatal, which acted as a screen.

Dr. Thomas Thonipson, professor of chemistry at the Uni-
versity of Glasgow, and had passed a long life in chernieal pur-
suits. He had had his attention directed to the purposes of the
enquiry that day, and had paid much attention to it. Muriatic
acid gas was evolved duringmne process of the manufacture of
alkali during the decoMposition of common salt. ,The first pro-
cess was to decompose common salt by mixing with it sulphuric
acid, and during that process muriatic gas was evolved. The
proportion of gases escaping from Mr. Musuratt's chimney was
not more than 6,1 per cent, of inartistic acid, and the rest was
carbonic and azotic gases and common air. There might be
less than that proportion of muriatic acid gas, but certainly not
more. During the decomposition of the common salt, for every
ton of salt four tons of .ceat are consumed, The coal, by beinv
burnt, was converted into water and carbonic acid gas.. The
water was in a state of steam from the heat of the fire, that was
to say an invisible and elastic substance like common air, and
the muriatic acid was united with it. The moment it came at
the top of the chimney it expanded and became a visible smoke.
The water was changed into the substance of a cloud. That
cloud consisted of a congeries of hollow bladders of water,envdersyo
one at a small distance from the other. The diameter of these blad-
ders varied immensely; generally they were so small that they
could not be seen. lie had seen them as large as peas, a
small as to be invisible. These globules, combined with mu-
riatic acid, were generally in the form of a cloud. It was a little
lighter than atmospheric air, and or course floated on. As it
went through the atmospheie,. it gradually changed again into
what was called steam, that was to say air elastic and visible
vapour, after which it dispersed, but the process was a very slow
one. It never fell till it was all dispelled. The muriatic acid
was changed again into muriatic gas, which moved at the visible
rate of 1000 feet per second, so that by the time it got to a cer-
tain distance, depending on the state of the atmosphere, it was
impossible that there could be the least particle oluturiatic acid
in the atmosphere. The gas would one day travel a long dis-
tance, another it would go a short distance. He had examined
the air at a distance of a of a mile front the alkali works, and
could in that air iletect no muriatic acid at ad by the most deli-
cute test from the largest manufactory of this suit that there
was at Glasgow. He had investigated in consequence of a law
suit similar to the present which was tried last year, and
he had been determined not to give his evidence until he
was perfectly satisfied of the correctness of his judgement. If
there had been but one lifty-thousandth part of this -acid to
the bulk of the air prereut, the tests he applied .would most
certainly have detected it.. The consequence of which
uses that the Inuriatic acid spread itslf equally through- the
Whole. 'atmosphere; and by the time it had got a quarter,of a
mile it was so very dilute that he could not detect it except
.by
one test, the smell. It was most certain that no mischief could
be done by the muriatic acid so diluted. He thought that few
people were properly capable of observing the white vapour
impinging against anything. No witness could speak of the
white vapour impinging at different distances, It was not
possible so to impinge- unless the wind brought i:. The vapour
would gradually rise at an angle when it issued out of the
chimney top till it was lost. It would ultimately become re-
solved into steam and muriatic acid gas, just in tie same state as
water when in the atmosphere. It could not be brought to the
earth unless there was a vertical wind, a water-spout, or some-
thing of that kind. If the vapour, instead of assuming the
character of a cloud on leaving the chimney top, assumed the
character of drops, it would fall to the ground; and if the dia-
meter of a drop was one thoUsandth part of an inch, it would
begin to fall at the rate of ten feet in a second, tie next second
at the rate of forty feet, the third at ninety feet, and so on, as
the square of the time. Ile never saw this to be. tie fact, though.
he had watched a chimney of the same kind for twenty years.
The vapour, at the heights of Mr. Al usprait's chimney and
:%rerton hill given, must necessarily pass ovet Everton hill.
It would be contrary to a law of nature if it did otherwise, unless
there was a wind blowing it down. He should attribute the
rusting of the metals talked of to the primary aid great cause
of it —Abe moisture of the atmosphere. a pers'n were stand-
ing 300 feet from the base of a chimney as deseihed 228' feet
high, vomiting forth this vapour, the proportion that would pass
to. him would he one-ninety-thousandth part per volume, that
is if the muriatic acid gums were pure; but, in order to get at the
actual quantity he would breathe, they must multiply that
quantity by sixteen, whieh would be less that one-Millionth
part. if there was a wind, it would have the teidency to make
the gas go all on one side, and then the quantity of gas so
breathed would be one five hundred thousandth tart. That was
an established law of mature, about which their, could be no
doubt. Muriatic acid gas had no effect on meat Jut what would
wash off directly. The examination was contnued at great
length, which our limits oblige us to curtail.
Cross-examined;--All gases expanded accordng to the same
law. The rate at which the vapour moved %%luld depend on
the velocity of the air. The gas, when it esuiped from' the
top of the chimney, combined with the action ofthe atmosphere
would not be so heavy as common air. Raindid not always
fall in right lines; a wind would prevent it. HEcould not rre-
cisely tell where a drop of acid would fall, driven by a current
of air, without the velocity of the atmosphere ads ascertained.
If the vapour once got to the ground it mightfloat along the
surface, and, with as much as 61 per cent. of muiaticacid in it,
it would be decidedly injurious to yegetation It Would kill
man, woman, ,and child, and destroy every thin}. if it wept en
the surface, forever; but there was a law of natire which made
. that impossible. • If it was'a foggy day it wouldcertainly carry
the yapourdoiva with:it. If, the,vapotly were,trivep,alongohe,
ground it would do mischief five hundred mile• off, if it Went

that far. Wherever it was smelt there was no dispute the gas
wat present. It was an irritating gab, and could not he drawn
into the lungs at all except in a very dilute state. It did not
make hint cough. It was a gas that would not only irritate but
ties; roy tiie mucous membrane,/ completely.
This was this case for the defendant.

Mt, court then adjourned at ei,,ht o'clock, the further hear.
ing of the case to be resumed in the morning.

SATURDAY.
(Before Mr. Jusiice Coleridge.)
His Lordship took his seat at nine o'clock.
The whole of the evidence in the case of the QUEEN V. M US-
Plt ATT baying been got through on Friday,
Mr. CRESSWELL rose to reply. He could not, he said, rise to
address the jury on behalf of the prosecution, without offering
an apology for being the means of calling them together again;
but he was so much exhausted, and had been suffering so se-
verely from indisposition for. a considerable time past, that he
was utterly unable to go on on •the ,preceding evening, and he
thought be should have ill discharged his duty to the Corpora-
tion and public of Liverpool, if he had unt asked for R postpone-
ment to enable hint properly to fulfil his task. He had one or
two preliminary observations to makeson the remarks that had
fallen fronahis learned friend. • It had 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 from the great weight with which
he had to contend. To what better• purpose, he would ask,
could the -corporation apply their funds? what could they do
better than listen to the complaints of their fellow townsmen,
sod protect those privileges which ought to be equal to all?
They came forward to help those who could not help themselves.
Au injury against two or three was no public injury, and could
not be, in the case of a nuisance, proceeded against by indict-
ment. But if they found, upon an 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 corn-
forts of multitudes of people, and prodticed 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 bad had
but oue action entered against hitn, and he would have the costs
of but one action to pay. ,If one hundred and fifty actions had
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 hundred and fifty or two hun-
dred lawsuits. His 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 fact, 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 been the cry
then? Why, it would have been said, that be had called peo-
ple who spoke .of muriatic 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 at Everton, and in the more imme- •
diate neighbourhood of the works, all of which was attributed to
Mr. Muspratt, His learned friend had set up two defences,
one of which was, the ga's was not injurious, and the other, that
it was impossible for it, because of certain laws of nature, to get
near the parties who complained. He 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, they
both short of positive proof, and, in such circum-
stances, two halves would not make a whole. They would new
see the state of the village of Everson, slid examine-how the
gas had effected it. It appeared that it was about twelve years
since Mr. Muspratt first introduced his alkali works, and very
soon afterwards it was surmised that it was a nuisance. Be it
particularly 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 fact. No
complaint was made of injury to vegetation. it was the same
iu the parts that appeared to be more inhabitati ; each man pur-
sued his trade or occupation without loss or discomfort. It was
said, that Mr. Muspratt contributed to increase the wealth of
the town. how, then, could they say, that prejudice existed,
or that so strong a complaint would have been made unless a
nuisance did exist that was intolerable ; In 18.38 Mr. Muspratt
was indicted, and, in the years 1829-39, he erected this very
tall chimney. Up to that time no complaint came from Everton.
All the complaints had been confined to the Hat intermediate
space. But, within a year or two after the tall chimney was
erected,, Everton began loudly to complain. Why did not
Everton complain befure? It had been made evident, that all
the other mannfactures existed before, and the fact of the an-
noyance commencing at- Everton at the time this chimney was
erected proved,. that the chimney was the cause of it. He would
be governed by the evidence of his senses iu spite of the inge-
nuity of theorists. What followed? Why, Mr. Muspratt was
indicted by Everton ; Evertou evidence was excluded, and Mr.
Muspratt was acquitted. The evidence from Everton having
been excluded, how was it possible that the indictment should
succeed? It was found that Everton was not within the same
boundary, and he could easily believe that this would cause some
doubts in the minds of individuals who were but imperfectly ac-
quainted with the law. The municipal boundary line had now
included Everton, and the case was now brought before the
present jury. Several of the witnesses for the defence had
given testimony that showed the effects had been produced that
were stated by Dr. Thomson. The learned gentleman here
ptoceederl to comment upon the evidence that had been brought
forward for the defence, particularlydwelling upon that given by
Dr. Thom Son, and its variation from the facts proved in the
evidence of the numerous witnesses for the 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;
arts, •
were the inhabitants, with their taste for the to have their
town, which it had been their pride to adorn, disfigured, to
increase the wealth of the overgrown Mr. Muspratt, who lifted
his bead and destroyed the comfort and the property of others,
just as some towering tree reared itself on high and floruished,
while it withdrew the norishinent from the surrounding vegeta-
tion ?

His LORDSHIP said, it was :tow his duty to assist them, as far
as he could, in the discharge of their much more important one.
Ile had thought it right; considering the importance of the ques-
tion, both to the Wine and to the parties, to allow the fullest
investigation, and to allow the case to be resumed at intervals
such as would permit 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 to the pro-
bable consequences ; but he wished them to understand, that in
no point of view ought the consequences to operate in their
minds, except for the purpose of inducing them to give the sub-
ject inure deliberate consideration. It would be incumbent on
'them to throw altogether out of their consideration the conse-
quence, (which, to either Party, which ever way the verdict was
given, must be of great importance,)and to ueliberate only upon
the real question at issue. With respect, to the consequences,
if they were of opinion, that the effect of a verdict against the •
defendant woulii 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 caused great benefit to accrue to many individuals, and
that he was making a large and honourable fortune. He was
charged 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 orly by nervous
people. It must be an injury to the health, comfort, or properly
of the people residing within its influence. if they should find,
that, in Evertoe, property had been depreciated by what had
been )lone; if they should find, that furniture had been spoiled,
that iron had been rusted, that articles exposed for sale in shops
had been discoloured or changed, that would be a tangible
in-
jury, and would be 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 upon, that was a substantial
injury. Their next point would be to bring this home to Mr.
Muspratt. Yet, ft 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 if Mr. Muspratt were proved to have done
some substantial injury. If they knew any of what were com-
monly called reasonable doubts on the subjects, it would be
proper to give him the benefit of that doubt. He did not mean
that they should require mathematical demonstration of that
which was not capable of demonstiatiou,sbut that they should
see that the case was not encumbered with such doubts as would
hinder them from 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 read over the testimony of Horsfall, Mr. Mil-
ler, aneMr. Warner. If the evidence did not. carry conviction
to their minds, thew would at once dismiss the case ; but, if they
were satisfied that -Mr. Muspratt had produced such a nuisance
as had caused serious loss and discomfort, then they would de••
tide against the defendant.
The jury retired at twelve o'clock ; they remained out until
half-past two, when they delivered in a verdict of Guilty.
The court, which hail been excessively crowded up to this
hour, was immediately deserted by the vast bulk of the auditory.
hurreatwoirrn AND ANOTHER V. CATESWORTH.-SPECIAL

JURY CASE.
Mr. Alexander and Mr. Crompton appeared for the plain-
tiff; and Al r. Cressweir for the defence._ The deciaratign 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 pleaded that he did-not pro-
mise, as alleged, and, secondly, that £195 7s. Gd., part 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 construct* 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 Ages.
In 1825 the plaintiffs intended making a -'onsigninPnt 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
of law, on which the terms of a future agreement were settled;
and a verdict was taken for the plaintiff by consent, subject to a
special case.
111`KEN.Z.IE AND OTHERS V. COCKSHOT.—SPECIAL JURY CASE.

In this.caseth;action Wasbtought for the recovery of a large
sum of money from the defendant, on an order by him to the
plaintiff, Allcenzie for a quantity of cotton. In the August of
1836, Mr. Cockshot, residing in Liverpool, had some conver-
satibn with an individual named 111`Kenzie, the nominal plain-
tiff in this action, relative to the purchase of some cotton.
M`Kenzie was going to. reside abroad, at Mobile, and the de-
fendant was anxious to speculate for 500 bales of cotton, pro-
vided the crop of cotton in America that year did not exceed
a certain amount of bales, and that prices did 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.
Cockshott did or not. altogether repudiate the authority he had
given to Mr. Il`lienzie to purchase those bales for him. It was
also contended by the defendant that the specific order given,
was not executed—that the cotton was not of the required qua-
lity. The names by which cottons were known in the trade,
were " good," "good fair," " fully good." and " fair." fair
being the lowest -quality. l t was contended by the defendant
that the cottons, if ordered at all, were to he good:, and that
even it' he had not repudiated the order given; still the cottons
did not answer the description ordered. The plaintiffs con-
tended that the order was for cottons ranging between " fair"
and "good fair," and that the cottons sent ranged between those
limits..

A number 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 be
practicable early in the season; but in the event of Mobile cid.-
tups:og.good qualities-being purchasable at 91 per Ib, freight
-ioclUded,'Pe was- to purchase 500 bales on his account; but that

rather than not have any cotton, he was at liberty to gelid him
200 bales, when he thought it would he incist to his (defendant's)
benefit, though his former limits should not he practicable. The
next letter was on the 13th of October, 1834, which did not at
all notice the 2U) hales, but reduced the limits for the 500 to 9d
per lb. add in case the market increased, to repeat the shipment
of a fair quality of Bd. On the 3d of November the defendant
wrote again to 111'Kenzie, saying he " had that pleasure on the
15th ult.," and reducing his former limits id per lb, with this
order, "my limits now stand 814 for good,' 7-id for 'fair,' and
if this should not be practicable, then 2.10 bales to be sent when
you think your market lA at the lowest." The defendant's limits
net being " practicable " Al'Kenzie, on this order, purchased
200 bales, and shipped them to Liverpool, at the invoice price
of £3016, which duly arrived in Livet pool, but to a falling mar-
ket. Under these circumstances the defendant refused the cot-
ton, and it was sold by other parties I'r £1598. On the 7th of
February, 1837, some time after the 200 bales had been bought,
the defendant wrote to Al-Kenzie that he was to consider the
order given to him on the sth of December as null and void, the
market being in the most
." awful". state. It was on this le-
scinded order that the defendant. refused to pay. The action
was brought to recover the difference between the price for
which the cotton was bought and sold:
A verdict was taken for the plaintiff for £1175 8s 3d, subject
to a motion.