The Liverpool Standard and General Commercial Advertiser.
Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1838-04-06 00:00:00

.~► -.~

t ~ ~y

LIVERPOOL SPRING ASSIZES.

CIZONVN COURT.-TUESDAY
AE,ON.

Elizabeth Chapvel was indicted for having, at Ileaton-Norrk,
on the 21st July,itfully set fire to a stack of hay, the property
of Juhn Thornley, and Samuel Chappel, her father, was charged
with having instigated her to do the same.
Mr. Brandt and Mr. L. Peel appeared for the prosecution.
Dr. Brown defended the prisoners.
The principal in this indictment is a pretty, delicate-looking
girl. She presented herself at the bar without any appearance
of trepidation, and both she and the male prisoner pleaded not
guilty.
Mr. BR AN rYr said this was a very grave and serious charge,
and the prisoners stood in the relation to each other as tattier
and daughter. The learned gentleman, in the course of his
statement of the case, said, the male prisoner kept a beer shop
at Heaton-Norris, and he had been brought under the notice of
the police in consequence of the manner in which his house was
conducted. The prosecutor, 'l'hornley, was a constable, and
the female prisoner had been heard to threaten that she would
be revenged. Mr. Brandt went on to detail the course of
evidence fur the prosecution, and then called the following
witnesses:
William Hultne stated, that in July last he was in the em-
ploy of Mr. Thornely, who resides at Grundy-hill, Heaton-
Norris. Believes he farms his own property. On the 21st of
July got up at three o'clo-ck, to go to his work. John Pott was
with him. As they were going they saw a new stack of hay on
fire. Went np to it. It seemed as if it had been burning
some time. It was on fire in several places. Thought it was
done on purpose, because there were some sticks laid across,
and coals between them. Went back to get assistance. 'l'hete
was an old hay stack at hand which was kindling.
Cross-examined by Dr. BROWN.—The sticks were at the
old stack. The brick-kiln was about 100 yards from the stack.
Was once in Chester castle for nine weeks for poaching. Was
tried at Chester. Had never been in any other gaol. Was
convicted, and served 18 months in Knutstord gaol.
John Pott remembered the morning of the 21st July. Saw a
stack on fire at three o'clock. Went up to the new stack and
found that it was burning all round, and appeared as if it had
been set on fire on purpose, in three different places. There was
an old hay stack near it, and that was slightly burned.
Cross-examined by Dr. BROWN.—A great number of people
came up, and amongst the rest his brother, Thomas Pott. He
(Thomas Pott) had been about a good deal, and he was then
wearing a pair of his mother's shoes. There was but little dif-
ference between his mother's shoes and Chappel's shoes. When
the comparison was made (it was three weeks ago) the shoes
that his brother had worn were worn out, but they compared
another pair of his mother's shoes. Witness ran for the en-
gine, and when he returned there were about two hundred people
there.

Martin Armitage stated that he was book-keeper and cashier
to Mr. Stocks at H eaton-Norris. Heard the alarm, and went
to the stack about half-past three or four o'clock. Assisted in
putting out the fire. A Mr. Kenyon was with him. There was
a brick kiln about 63 yards from the stack. Looked for foot-
marks near the kiln, and traced them from a point at which
they appeared to meet towards the stack. Noticed them only
five or six yards from the kiln. One foot near the kiln, at a
part that was most red, seemed to have made a deeper mark
than the rest. Named what they had seen to Irlam. It had
rained very heavily on the night preceding. The rain had par-
tially obliterated many other footmarks, but these were quite
fresh.

Cross-examined by Dr. BaowN.—There were numbers of
people there before he pointed out the footsteps to Irlam.
'Thomas Newton Beaver stated that he remembered the
Thursday night before the fire. He was at the Griffin public-
house till twelve o'clock. It had rained about eleven o'clock
And was fine at twelve o'clock.

Daniel Ashton stated that he went with Irlam, the constable,
to the house of Chappel, on heating of the fire, at half-past five
o'clock. Witness went in at the front door, and saw Elizabeth
Chappel tome in at the back door with a light in her hand.
Irlam asked Mrs. Chaopel (the mother) to take off her shoes;
but she would not. The daughter was asked to do so, and she
threw them off in a careless manner. There was coal, slack,
and clay on the shoes, and they were wet. She said she had
never been out after eight o'clock. Her mother said, "Yea, it
was nine." Irlam asked her where she had been ? She said,
only to the coal—that was to the ash-place. Irlam went out to
the ash-place. Witness went with him.' The way to the ash-
place is one part flags and the other having stones. The clay
he thought could not have been collected in going to the ash-
place. Witness and Irlam went then to the fire, taking the
shoes with him. Saw footmarks near the brick-kiln. Irlam
tried the shoes with the footsteps. They corresponded. The
impressions which he tried were leading from the brick-kiln
towards the hay-stack. Returned to Chappel's by the way of
the Griffin public-house. Near the latter they saw more foot-
steps going towards Chappel's house. They appeared to be the
same, but they were not tried.
Cross-examined by Dr. BROWN.—lrlam took the mother into
custody after he had made a comparison of the shoes. He did
not take the daughter. Witness never was before the magis-
trates against the daughter. Can't tell whether the daughter
was ever taken before the magistrates previously to the month
of October.

Henry Irlam stated that he was a constable in Heaton-Norris.
Went to the stack at the time mentioned by the last witness.
Saw the footmarks. It had been very wet and the impressions
were exceedingly good. Measured the impressions. Took the
length and breadth of a small stick. Traced the footmarks not
only to the stack, but back to a gate which led into .a clover-
field. There were no marks in the clover-field, but the opposite
gate of the field was open. Went to Chappel's house, and asked
Mrs. Chappel ,o take of her shoes. She would not. He then
asked the daughter, and she kicked off her shoes. They were
very wet, and had clay and slack at the bottom. Asked her
where she had been, and she said to the dung-heap. Witness
went and examined the dung-heap, and thought it impossible
that she could have got the dirt there which was on the shoes.
Went back to the kiln and compared the shoes. They filled
the marks. At the further side of the kiln, where the fire was
very hot, found a deeper indention. Returned from the kiln to
Chappel's house. Saw footmarks in the road near the Griffin.
Compared those with the shoes. They corresponded. When he
received the shoes from Chappel's daughter, he observed that
her dress was soiled and wet. Took the mother into custody.
Took the mother into custody before he tried the marks, because
she seemed so very much confused. The magistrate discharged
her. The daughter was taken up on the 12th October, and was
confined in the lock-up. Heard her conversing through the
grating of the cell. There was a person kneeling at the grid.
That person said "Bess, don't answer any questions that Irlam
may ask you." The person said "if you keep your own coun-
cil they can do you no harm, as he, Irlam, was no lawyer."
Witness went to him, and said, if he wished to say anything to
her, he must come in a proper manner. He would not allow
him, or anybody else, to speak through the grating. Chappel
kept a beer-shop, and had been, at his instance, brought before
the magistrates, and had been committed for want of bail.
Cross-examined by Dr. BROWN.—Was constable at Heaton-
Norris, and attended upon the Coroner. There was an action
brought against him about three weeks afterwards, for having
taken the mother into custody. The daughter was taken into
custody after that, on the 12th of October. When he saw
Chappel, and heard him talking to his daughter, he had gone
down for the purpose of listening. He took off his shoes for
the purpose. Saw Saddler, the constable of Stockport, and
showed him the place where they had been, but they were all
obliterated. Chappel's daughter said to Saddler that she had
been at Coops's house, which lay between Chappel's house and
the Griffin.
Ite-examined.—Did not examine the shoes of the mother be-
cause they were sadly too large. The action against him had
"stood for trial at the present assizes.
Mr. Samuel Stocks, of Heaton-Norris, heard of the fire, and
went to the stack about four o'clock. This witness had seen
Irlam try the shoes with the prints, and he said they fitted. He
also stated, that he had ascertained that the stack had not taken
fire from spontaneous combustion.
John Wainwright, a shoemaker, stated that Chappel came
and asked him if it was possible to make two pair of shoes from
one last, and if his daughter's shoes fitted the marks. He asked
if it was not possible for another pair of shoes to make the same
impression. Witness said it was. The shoes of Chappel's
daughter were made by Mr. Clark. Samuel Chappel gave his
orders to measure his daughter for a pair of shoes, and after-
wards countermanded it. Heard Samuel Chappel say, a few
days before the fire, "If 1 had a pistol in my hand I would
shoot Jack Thornely."
Ashton Holland stated, that in July last, he lived in the cellar
of Chapple's house. There were several persons living under
that root. On the night preceding the fire went to bed at nine
o'clock. Got up between twelve and one o'clock. Heard a
door open immediately over his head. It was shut again and
opened again. Than he heard a sound as of two persons going
out. In about twenty minutes or a-quarter of an hour heard
them come back. They seemed to ascend the steps in a great
hurry.
Martha Cottrell said, that she heard Chappel say to his
daughter, on the Wednesday after he came out of prison, some
time after the fire, that from one word which she (the daugh-
ter) had said, all the devils in hell would not keep her from
being transported.
Cross-examined by Dr. BROWN.—Her husband had been out
of the way three years and a half for poaching, and her (witness)
house had recently been searching for stolen potatoes, but none
were found.

Michael Redmano remembered the prisoner Chappel being
in custody of Irlain. The latter ordered him to take him into
custody to the New Bailey. Chappel's wife and daughter came
up. and witness said to Chappel that he was very foolish not to
pay the costs at once, instead of going to the New Bailey. He
said he had nothing to pay with, and if he had he would not
pay. He was talking to his wife. Just as he was putting him
away, he said—" Fire the haystack—fire it to night." Eliza-
beth Chappel was standing near. Witness took her to the New
Bailey, and saw her out the next day, and at the Vernon Arms.
Witness said, " Well, I see you've got our" She said, " Yes,
it's very well I was not out before. I should have been put in
again for firing the hay-stack."
Cross-examined by Dr. BitowN.—Had been frequently be-
fore the magistrates as an informer. It was not because the
magistrates had refused to hear him, though one of them had
said he was to beware what sort of cases he brought before the
court.

Charlotte Coops lived near Chappel, .but did not know the
prisoner, Elizabeth, very well. She saw her on the night of the
fire and observed that her father was in prison. Elizabeth
Chappel replied that it was for 12s. Witness asked if !Ham
had put him in? She replied "No. If Irlam had come near
her father, he would have smacked his face." She stood for a
moment and said, when Jacky Thornly's tulips were cut, they
said it was my father; but now, that they have put my father
in prison, I'll have my revenge of Jacky Thornly, near as
it is."

Cross-examined by Dr. BROWN.—Witness stated that she
was not married. She had had three children and was about to
be confined again. There was a reward of £lOO for the dis-
covery of the person who set the stack on fire. Her master
asked her what conversation she bad with Elizabeth Chappel,
vet she (witness) did not tell him this. He took what she told
him down in wiiting. . . _

Anne Coops, sister to the last witness, corroborated the testi-
mony brought out on the examination in chief of the last
witness.
On Cross-examination by Dr. BaowN,,witnessstated that she
was not married and had one child She also had been ex-
amined by Mr. Stock immediately after the fire, but she did not
mention these words,
William Coops stated, that saw Chappel on the day after he
came out of prison, and Chappel said to him, " They said
I took Thoruly's tulips, they can't say that I fired the hay-
stack."
Dr. Bilows addressed the jury in defence of the prisoners.
He said the only evidence against the prisoners was the evi-
dence of the constable respecting the shoe marks. He re-
marked on all the circumstances attending their examinations
and comparisons of the shoe marks, and on the testimony of
the witness who said the shoes worn by her brother were so
like those of the female prisoner, that he could not see any dif-
ference. He dwelt upon the bad character of many of the
witnesses, and upon the circumstance of the renewal ot proceed-
ings atter the action for false imprisonment had been com-
menced. Ile also prayed the jury to remember, that after the
very evidence on which they must depend, namely, that of the
shoe marks, a reward of £lOO was offered for the conviction of
the offenders, when they actually had her, according to what

17:

they wished now to show, ill their power.
The jury wouhi nut trouble his Lordship to sum up. They
immediately retitined a verdict of not guilty.
This closed the criminal business ot the assizes.

NISI PRIUS COURT—TUESDAY.
(Before Mr. Justice Coleridge.)
ORRELI. V. GREENOUGH.

At the opening of the court this morning, his Lordship, ad-
dressing the counsel in the cause Orrell v. Greenough, (which
was adjourned lust night at nine o'clock,) said, he could not but
think that it was a cause in which there were so many facts and
so many deeds that ought to be looked into, and which he could
not look into, that he thought it would be for the interest of the
parties if they would let it go before some person who would
have the opportunity which they could not have there. He had
thought the matter over, and this was his opinion, but he had
no feeling about it, and did not wish to press it.
Au arrangement was then endeavoured to be made between
the counsel; but Mr. Alexander, on the part of the defendant,
objected to refer the cause, on the ground of the enormous ex-
pense, unless his Lordship's notes should be received as evi-
dence to do away wi!..h the necessity of several witnesses.
Mr. CRESSWELL wonid refer the cause on these terms, taking
his Lordship's notes, making the notes of the reference biding
:he event of the award, being at liberty to add other witnesses;
or he should be at liberty to call witnesses again, and leave the
costs of the reference in the discretio❑ of the arbitration.
Mr. ALEXANDER said this was not the usual terms.
Mr. CRESSWELL would then only ask to take the witnesses
in the ordinary way, Without his Lordship's note.
Mr. ALEXANDER was sorry they could not agree to that, on
the ground of the expense.
The cause then proceeded, and a number of deeds were read
on behalf of the defendant, showing the possession of various
closes and pieces of land adjoining the slip of laud in dispute.
Witnesses were also called, who gave evidence to the same
effect.

Mr. CRESS WELL then rose to reply, and concluded at three
o'clock.

His Lordship, in summing up, said, the defendant's land ad-
joining to the slip of land in dispute, was clearly made out.
Under some of the deeds by which the defendant proved his
right, he took a right of common which seemed to settle the
defendant's case, because it was clear that the soil of the land
did not belong to him. No man took a right of common on his
own land. But he would advise the jury to draw this strict con-
clusion, for the plaintiff would be liable to the same difficulty if
they drew the same strict conclusion with regard to his deeds.
There was no doubt that the judges laid it down for juries to
draw the presumption, that he who owned the land had the
middle thread of land between his land and the road adjoining,
and if he owned the land on both sides he owned the soil of the
road and the intermediate strips at both hedges. That-was the
ordinary presumption if the case stopped at that to which they
would arrive. Standing on that presumption, and the defend-
ant having proved his right to the soil of the land adjoining the
road, there was legal presumption that the defendant was en-
titled to the half of the road. 'The plaintiff endeavoured to re-
but that statement by direct evidence and overthrow the ordin-
ary presumption. There was no doubt that it was competent
for a party to do so. The plaintiff set out with saying, " I am
entitled to the soil of all the wastes of this township, and therein
to the soil of all the roads of this neighbourhood. This was an
extraordinary claim to set up, and one that required cogent
evidence in order to satisfy a jury, because it went against the
ordinary presumption of law. The way in which he went to
prove'this was by showing acts of ownership in all these different
roads. The jury would say whether the plaintiff had satisfied
them that he was lord of the manor, or freeholder of all the soil,
and had a right to all the wastes. His Lordship concluded
summing up at half-past five o'clock.
The jury expressed a wish to retire, and, after an absence of
an hour, delivered in a verdict for the defendant on the first
count, and for the plaintiff on the second.

BATTERSBY V. 1101. T.

Mr. Harden appeared for the plaintiff, Mr. Crompton for the
defence.

Mr. HARDEN said, in this case Mr. Alexander Battersby was
the plaintiff, and Mr. Edward Holt the defendant. The decla-
ration stated that the defendant owed certain sums of money to
the plaintiff. To this the former pleaded, first, non assumpsit,
and second, payment. The sum of money claimed by the
plaintiff was £26- 4s. 6'd.
Several witnesses were called, who proved that since 1834
work had, at different periods, been performed to the value of
£23 lOs. 3d., which, with potatoes supplied to the amount of
£2 14s. 3d., made the amount claimed £26 4s. 6d.
Mr. CnoNirToN, in defence, said he should prove that the
defendant did not owe the plaintiff one farthing, payments
having regularly been made, and a receipt having recently been
given which cleared off everything.
Witnesses were called, who swore to the following facts :
That several receipts had from time to time been given by. the
plaintiff for money paid as it became due. A receipt was given
on a sixpenny stamp, and it was heard that Mr. Battersby had
stated, that he was drunk at the time when he signed it. Upon
this Mr. Holt, the solicitor, brother to the defendant, advised
that a receipt on a ten shilling stamp should be prepared and
signed by the plaintiff, to free the defendant from all demands.
This was done in the presence of Mr. Hall, Mr. Holt, Mr.
Smith, the plaintiff and defendant being present. This receipt,
dated 25th October, 1834, was for the sum of £5 lie. 4d., and
the witness swore positively that it was distinctly stated to the
plaintiff; as appeared also on the face of the receipt, that the
instrument was in full of all demands. . _

Mr. HARDEN said, with such evidence he could not hope for
a verdict.

The jury returned a verdict for the defendant. His Lon n-
SHIP remarking that it was one of the most impudent actions
that ever was brought into a court of law, in which opinion the
jury expressed their concurrence.
There was a similar case, Battersby v W. Holt, in which Mr.
Harden refused to proceed, and withdrew the record.

BOND AND ANOTHER U. B.ARDSLEY.

This was an undefended action, in which Mr. Crompton ap-
peared for the plaintiffs.
The plaintiffs, Nathaniel Calvert Bond and another, are wine
anti brandy merchants, in this town. The defendant is an inn-
keeper, at Manchester. The action was for goods sold and
delivered, and the defendant pleaded that he was never indebt-
ed. There had been other transactions, but the only amount
now claimed was a sum of £32 15s. 6d due for a hogshead of
whiskey seat on the 2.5 th November, 1836.
It was proved that the whiskey was sent by the railroad to
Manchester and delivered to Mr. Bardsley. The value of the
whiskey was proved.to be £32 15s. Gd., fur which amount the
jury returned a verdict.

MORETON v. CA RNES.
This action was also undefended, and Mr. Crompton appeared
for the plaintiff.
The action was brought to recover the amount of an attorney's
bill, for having brought au action, Carnes v. Rigmaiden, in the
Common Fleas, at Lancaster, and another for breach of con-
tract, in the Court of Exchequer, Carnes v. Tiplin and others.
Samuel Holland Moreton, the plaintiff. was stated to be an
attorney of the Court of Queen's Bench. The account was
proved, and amounted to £57, for which the jury returned a
verdict.

SMITH r. nowI.ANDSoN.

This was an action brought to recover the amount of a bill of
exchange. The defendant, Frederick nowiandson, formerly a
solicitor in this town, had accepted a bill of exchange for the
sum of £74 lls. 3d., which had come into the hands of the
plaintiff. The defendant pleaded that he had accepted the
bill for the accommodation of the drawer, without any consi-
deration or value having been received.
The defendant failed to make out his plea, and the jury re-
turned a verdict for the plaintiff for £Bl Ils., being the amount
of the debt and interest.

NISI PRIUS COURT.—WEDNESDAY.
(Before Mr. Justice Patteson.)
TREASURES OF WAR.—CON Y Y. SHERLOCK.

Mr. CROMPTON stated this to be an action brought by Jobn
Conway against George Sherlock, for money had and received,
and the balance of an account stated, to which the plaintiff had
pleaded that he was not liable. The plaintiff was a pensioner,
who in his earlier days had served his country in the peninsular
war; the defendant was formerly a clerk in the office of an emi-
gration broker, and he became indebted to the plaintiff in the
amount claimed under singular circumstances. In the year
1811, there was some marching and counter-marching, and in
the fortunes of war the plaintiff was lucky enough to get a booty
from some French soldiers that he had slain, which he buried
for better safety, and was himself afterwards invalided. The
money was buried on the confines of Spain, where Portugal
nearly touches, and there it lay until the year 1835, when the
plaintiff prevailed upon the defendant to accompany him to
Spain, to recover the hidden treasure. They accordingly sailed
to Oporto at the latter end of that year, and returned with the
same shin in the following January. On that voyage the de-
fendant managed to get possession of the treasure, pretending
that he could key it better than the plaintiff, and for the 120
doubloons, which was its amount, he gave the plaintiff a written
acknowledgment, signed Geo. Sherlock. But now the defend-
ant denied that he ever received the coins, and he took upon
himself to charge the plaintiff with having forged the document.
But he (Mr. C.) should call witnesses to prove the handwriting,
and also to prove that on their return frohi Oporto the defend-
ant emptied a bag of gold, foreign coins, into his %fe's apron.
If he proved those facts he apprehended he should-be entitled
to a verdict.

He then called Catherine Jones, a charwoman, who was
employed at the house of the defendant at the time in question,
who deposed that she saw the defendant empty a bag of gold
coins into his wife's apron, two of which were shown to her.

Captain Ferguson, master of the ship Henry Hoyle, in which
the plaintiff and defendant sailed out to Oporto, and returned
to this country, proved that on their return he heard the plaintiff
speak of a treasure; but in
Cross-examination by Mr. MURPHY, for the defendant, he
stated that on their arrival at Oporto the pat ties left the ship,
to which the plaintiff returned ten days before the defendant,
and they were then on such bad terms that they would not oc-
cupy the same cabin on their homeward voyage.
Witnesses were called to prove the handwriting of the ac-
knowledgment to be that of the defendant, but at the utmost,
some of them could only venture to state that the signature
alone was in some respects like the defendant's writing.
Mr. MURPHY, for the defendant, made a humourous speech
to the jury, in which he said, that never since the days of
Aladdin and Sinbad bad they heard of such a monstrous story
of hidden treasure. He then commented on the improbabilities
of the case, and called witnesses who positively swore that the
document produced was cot in the handwriting of the defendant.
Mr.CRoMPToN, ou behalf of the plaintiff, thought he had
not gone far, enough i❑ his proof, and would therefore consent
to have the plaintiff called. Plaintiff nonsuited accordingly.

CORLETT V. JONES AND ANOTHER.
This was an action brought by Mr. Corlett, public officer of
the North and South Wales Bank, to recover the sum of £2OO
from the defendants, who reside at Newtown, in Montgomery.
shire, on a bill of exchange. The defendants had paid £BO into
court, and pleaded they were not liable for the balance, other
bills of exchange having been given for that amount.
The jury found for the defendants.
MILLER. AND ANOTHER V. NEWLAND.
This was an undefended action, brought by Messrs Miller
and Peel of this town, solicitors, to recover £365, the amount of
their bill against the 4elendant for business dune by them as
attorneys.
Verdict for the plaintiff.

KIRK V. WRIGHT AND ANOTHER.
This was an action of trespass brought by Joseph Kirk, for-
merly a hatter, but lately the keeper of a spirit vault and tap, in
Tarleton-street, in this town, against John Wright, the keeper
of the York Hotel, whose premises the tap adjoined, and Jo-
seph Amos, clerk to Mr. Buller, wine merchant, for entering
the plaintiff's vault, and assaulting and expelling him from the
premises in September last. These were the facts of the case
as stated by Mr. Murphy for the plaintiff.
Witnesses were called to prove the expulsion of the plaintiff,
and

Mr. ARMSTRONG, then for the defendants, stated that the
vault in question was known as the " Yolk Shades," and was
held by Mr. Bullen as under servant to the defendant Wright,
the plaintiff being placed there as Bullen's servant, and that
therefore Mr. Bullen had a right to turn him out on his miscon-
ducting himself. As the "Shades" were attached to the York
Hotel, Mr. Wright was answerable for the manner in which
they were conducted, and complaints were accordigly made to
him by the police of the disorderly state in which the Shades
were kept. Mr. Wright communicated these complaints to

,

APRIL 6,183 P.

Mr. Bullen, who thereon determined to change nis servant, of
►►Lich notice was given to the plaintiff. The plainuff, however,
ultimately refused to leave, and persons were sent to expel him,
hut no more violence ►vas used than was necessary for that pur-
pose.

Evidence was given that the plaintiff was Bullen's servant;
Bullen supplied the premises with spirits, and that the license
was taken out in Mr. W right's name.
A paper was also put in and read, which the plaintiff haft
signed on being appointed to the situation, in which be acknow-
ledged himself to be the servant of Mr. Bullet], and that the tix-
tures, &c. therein were Mr. Bullen's property.
The jury found for the defendants.
TONGE V. lOYNSON.
This was an action of trover brought to recover a purse and
its contents, £2155., from the defendant, who is a constable, and
who took the property in question from the person of an accused
party, who was tried and acquitted, and therefore the money
ought to have been given up. The person in question was tried
for obtaining money under false pretences in the town of War-
rington, where the defendant resides, and though acquitted, the
defendant delivered up the money sought to be recovered to the
party who was said to have been cheated.
Mr. Wit.xiNS, who appeared fur the defendant, said he would
not unnecessarily occupy the time of the court, and as his client
could not justify the course he had taken, he would submit to a
verdict against him.
Verdict for the plaintiff accordingly.

(Before Mr. Justice Coleridge.)
ottEErtouGu V. ORREI.I.. (Special July Case.)
This was a cross action, brought by the plaintiff, against the
defendant, the Lord of the Manor of Parr. The case of the
defendant versus the present plaintiff, for an iufringrnent of his
manorial rights, occupied the two previous days, and this action
by agreement was to depend on that verdict.
Verdict taken for the plaintiff by consent, conditionally.
HASLEDEN V. DANIEL AND ANOTHER.

The plaintiff in this action was a merchant of Liverpool, and
the defendants, Messrs. Daniel and Dickenson, were mer-
chants, in Loudon. Being anxious to extend their business to
the Bombay and China trade, in the year 1834, and for that
purpose, Mr. Dickenson came down to Liverpool to get an in-
troduction with some person with a good connexion, and was
introduced to Mr. Hasleden, and with him it was arranged that
he should receive one per cent. on all orders procured for theni..:
From that time to 1836, matters went on, at which time he had
obtained orders which would procure him commission to the
amount of £SUO. Mr. Hasleden. still kept getting very large
orders, when Messrs. Daniel and Dickenson thought they could
do without Mr. Hasleden's agency, that they knew enough of
the business, and would establish a branch house themselves,
and then came the settlement with Mr. Hasleden, when they
refused to pay him, saying, he ought to get his one per cent.
from the parties abroad to whom he sent his orders. This was
the point in dispute.
It was agreed to refer the matter, and a verdict was taken by
consent for the plaintiff, subject to a reference.
LAWRENCE AND ANOTHER V. KNOWLES. (Special Jury Case.)
Mr. James Lawrence, and Mr. Charles ©kill, assignees of
William Okill, were plaintiffs, and Mr. Knowles, shale-broker,
of Liverpool, defendant.

. .
The declaration in this case contained eleven counts. That
the defendant sold to William Okill, before his bankruptcy, 60
shares in the Grand Junction Railway, at the price of £l4ss.
to be paid for on Saturday, the 9th of June, in part, and the
remainder on the Saturday fortnight. The declaration went ors
to state, that the plaintiff paid £155 as part payment, and after-
wards paid other sums, amounting to £558 as purchase money
for these shares, and that, the defendant accepted, and received
the same for the remainder of the shares, and waived the pay-
ment of the residue on the 29th of June. The defendant in
part performance, delivered 35 shares, but, although the assig-
nees had tendered the residue of the payment, the defendant
now refused to deliver the remainder of the shares.
The second count stated, that the defendant sold the plaintiff
50 other shares, at £lO premium, which the bankrupt agreed to
accept the same on the first of July, 1835, and the defendant
promised to deliver them. Okill became bankrupt on the third
of February, 1835, and the plaintiff's assignees were always
ready to pay fur the shares, but the defendant would nut deliver
them.

To this the defendant pleaded that he was not liable. To the
second count, that he did not waive payment. That with respect
to the shares the tender was made at an unreasonable times He
also pleaded, that as to the 60 shares the defendant agreed to
put an end to the contract, and to discharge each other. He
also pleaded, that atter the bankruptcy the assignees did not
take to the bargain, and agreed to put an end to it. As to the
sixth count, the defendant denied that the assignees were ready
and willing to fulfil the contract. They further pleaded to the
second count, that the tender of the price was made at an un-
reasonable time after the shares were sold. They pleaded far-,
ther, that the assignees did not take on themselves the second
count, and that the plaintiff and defendant discharged each
other for the first performance. They pleaded further to the
first count, which related to the 60 shares, that the plaintiff and
defendant, after the delivery of the 35 shares agreed, that the
defendant should give further time in payment of tha price of
the shares, and it was agreed, that the defendant should give
an acceptance for them, and should continue to hold the shales.
and if the acceptance should nut be duly paid, the defendant
should have power to sell the shares. It went on to state, that
the acceptance was dishonoured, and the defendant went on to
sell the shares. On all these pleas issue was joined.
Mr. CRESS WELL and Mr. WiouTmaN appeared for the plain-
tiff ; and Mr. ALExaN Milt and Mr. CRoMPTON forthe defence.
Mr. CRESSWELL, ill opening the case, said, at the time when
these transactions were going on, the shares were not quite so
flourishing as they are now. Mr. Knowles, at that time con-
tracted to sell to Mr. Okill 60 shares at the price of £l4. ss. on
on the 12th of June, 1831, a portion of it to be paid then, and
the residue on the 29th of June. It appeared that the suns of
£155. was paid at the time contracted for, but the residue was
not paid ; but at different times sums were paid in the transac-
tion amounting to £740. Therefore it was clear that at that
time Mr. Knowles did not choose to be off his bargain on ac-
count of the non-payment of the money at the time stipulated
in the contract. On the 9th of August, a call became due on
those shares, and Mr. Okill paid to Mr. Knowles £275. Not
long after this an arrangement was entered into by which the
defendant was only to deliver 55 shares instead of the 60. To-
wards the close of the year the remainder of the purchase money
not having been paid, which was only £ll5. Mr. Knowles ad-
vanced these monies for Mr. Mill, and desired to have an ac-
ceptance for the amount, and accordinglv an account was stated
between them by which it appeared that Mr. Okill owed Mr-
Knowles £4OO. for which an acceptance was given by Mr-
Okill. When that acceptance became due Mr. Okill was not
in a condition to take it up, and finally became bankrupt, and
ceased to have power over his estate. The bankrupt remained
in Lancaster Castle for some time, and came out on obtaining
his certificate. The assigness then called on Mr. Knowles to
complete his contract for the shares, and Mr. Knowles referred
them to Mr. Thompson, his solicitor, since dead. A tender
was made to Mr. Thompaon of the rest of the money, but Mr-
Knowles,.th rough his solicitor, refused the tender. Mr. Knowles
bad received £740. and was entitled to receive £ll5. more, he had
never offered to return the £740. or any part of it, but would
now keep it because he had not received the £ll5. according to
the contract, and his reason for not giving the shares up was
because he pleaded the tender was not Made in a reasonable
time. He (Mr. Cresswell) believed a legal reasonable time was
six years. He contended that it was unreasonable to suppose
that the bankrupt would agree to discharge to contract after
paying so large a sum for the delivery of the shares, having 30
of them deli% ered, and only £ll5. to pay to entitle him to the
remaining 25 shares. The defendant pleaded that Okill was
not a bankrupt, that they should prove. With respect to the
second contract by which the defendant agreed to deliver to the
plaintiff, 12 months after on the Ist of July, 1835, at £lO.
premium. The .defendant pleaded that the assignees were not
ready to pay. ' They would find they were ready ; but pleaded
that the lender was not made in reasonable time. The amount
of damages sought was the difference in the amount of price
which the plaintiffs would have to pay now for the goods, and
the time at which the payment was tendered. As to the second
contract, the damages must be estimated at the price of the
shares at the time th tender was made, over the contract price.
The tender was made in the month of January this year, when
the shares were at £153 premiums. The amount, therefore, to
which the plaintiffs would be entitled would be £7839. on both
contracts.

The debt of the petitioning creditors was proved, and also the
act of bankruptcy and the appointment of the assignees on the
23d of February, 1835.

Mr. Wm. Okill was then examined at great length. He was
formerly. a share broker in Liverpool, and contracted in June,
1833, with the defendant for 60 railway shares in the Grand
Junction Railway. The contract was dated 12th of June. 1833.
"Sold Mr. Okell-60 Grand Junction Railway shares at 1.34.40-
per share. Net payment £155. on Saturday, and the remainder
on Saturday fortnight."
"Signed L. P. Knowles."
He made the first payment at the time specified, but did not
pay the remaining £7OO on the Satuiday fortnight. He after-
wards made payments on account at different times. The re-
ceipt following was given to him by Mr. Knowles.
" Liverpool, 29th August, 1833.
" Received of Mr. W. Okill £275, being the deposit of £5
per share, on 55 Grand Junction Railway shares, and paid to
the rail company this day. J. P. KNOWLES."
He gave Mr. Knowles an acceptance for the balance due on the
shares £ll5, £2OO lent money, and other sums he owed him.
When he bought the second lot of shares he paid £2 per share
in addition to the £lO to be paid on the transfer. He paid this
by a bill dated the Ist of August at two months, drawn by W-
Knowles on himself, and accepted by him, and payable at Mr.
Knowles's bankers in London. He had paid the money to
Mr. Knowles to meet this bill. He after his certificate bad
been obtained, told Mr. Knowles that the assignees would re-
quire the completion of the contracts for the shares. Mr-
Knowles came in a tantarum to his office, and called him a fool
for interfering in the thing,
Cross-examined by Mr. ALEXANDER.—His actual debts
when be failed were about £2OOO, with liabilities to the amount
of £5,000, for which he had received no assets. About £ll.OO
of the liabilities were for advocating the Leigh peerage. About
£BOO was for the law expenses in advocating the Ananndale
peerage, and £405 for advocating the Rutherford peerage. He
said when in Lancaster Castle that he was in debt to the de-
fendant for these shares £lBl ss.
The witness was then examined at great length as to the bill,_
which he persisted was given in payment for the £2 per share
on the 50 shares. It appeared that the bill was dated a month
later than the time the payment was alleged to have been made.
He had no receipt for the money he had advanced to take ell`
the bill, and had not possession of the bill itself. There were
nine calls on the shares, none of which had been met by him or
the assignees. He believed shares were forfeited if the calls
were not paid. His only assets were £l3O for his furniture
which was not paid for, and £350 in a mine, about which there
was a Chancery suit. He had done business up to within
about twelve mouths of the present action with Mr. Knowles-
Robert George Gregson, clerk to Messrs. Brabner and At-
kinson, the plaintiff's attornies, deposed to having tendered to.
Mr. Thompson, the defendant's attorney £5,748 4s. Bd. on the
Ist of July 35 for the shares, which was refused.
John Rutter Chorley, treasurer to the Grand Junction Rail'
way, deposed to the different calls being made.
Cross-examined.—Calls if not paid within a reasonable time
were liable to be forfeited. The whole price for the 75 shares
now would be £17,650 and a fraction.
Mr. Richard Dawson was called to prove the value of the
shares in the market. In July 1835 they were at £l2 ss. pre
mium. At September 1835, at £3O to £3l premium. On the
Ist of January, 1837, they were at £B6 premium, and
January, the present year, they were at £133 premium.
ten._deodi
Mr. ALEXANDER then rose for the defence. He con
that the present action was brought much against the
two of the assignees. That the tender was not made of two
years and a half after the contract had expired when the shares
_d
had greatly risen. That the bankrupt, not having holm!.
his acceptances given in payment for the shares, nor 111.1%13.
paid any of the calls upon the shares, nor claimed the fulfil
ment of the contract when the time arrived that the contract
was at an end, and that it was most urgent now, after the shares
had greatly risen, two years and a half after the contrac7.
make a tender, and endeavour to make the defendant liabie .
an enormous amount for shares which he had long since.s ;ou•
He contended that another action, on similar ground,
£22,000, was pending against Mr. Yates, and that if theys,
ceeded, the money was to go, after paying 20s. in the poinriel
the
his creditors, into the bankrupt's pocket, ands that therefo