The Liverpool Standard and General Commercial Advertiser.
Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1836-10-28 00:00:00

CT. 48 is. 6
4 4:

The RECORDER summed up the evidenr;e, and at the request
of the eourisel fur the prosecution th-e witness from the bank. of
Ireland was re-called. He explained that notwithstanding
There was the acrd Dublin" upon the counterfeit plate wluch
Vas not ui.ou the genuine plate, }et the counterfeit plate iv ant
produce an limitation of a gepuiue note. The word "
Duuiiu
mils printed. with type upon the genuine note.
The July found.the prisoner grainy.
He was tried -on two other similar Indictments, and sentenced
upail. the second indictment to seven sears tr.rnsportation.
The court sat again yesterday mottling for a :hort time. The
cases, however, possessed little interest, and were merely cases,
the
particnlars r f which have appeared at full length in our
police reports. The court, was adjourned at noon, until this
fflorninr at nitre o'clock, when the Post-office explosion case
mill come un.

„,, , • CO OF ASSA.—Tueseev.
, i hts court wagURT held in the Nisi PiGE us Court, at the Sessions% eouse, before .iVilliatu Wallace Currie, Esq., Mayor, and
Charles Crumptuu, Esq., Assessor.
Penny v. WILLIAMS.
Me RusterON aeared as counsel for the plaintiff, who is a
Joiner, carrying on business in Camden-street. Liverpool. He
aeught to recover front the defendant, a beershop.keeper, the
tshutetzfei£o74lllsts..s:lpd.rl
,ett
for work and materials used in the fitting up
The, jury! found a verdict in /favour
-of the plaiutiff for the sum claimed.
1:1,1 show V. SCHOLEs.
wThis action Was brought to recover 116Ibs. weight of pork,
ad l'Y the plaintiff to the defendant. The question in dispute, whether the price agreed upou was 4d. or sid. a lb. The
Jury returned a verdict for the* plaintiff for £2 3s. rid.
LuSSELI. v. HiLAIIINGWAY.
An undefended action
on a bill of exchange. Verdict for the
Plaintiff £l'olo3.
W R
oot.nIGHT AND ANOTHER V. AWLINS.
etMr. VEISABLES appeared for the plaintiff, and Mr. Colrtee-
for the defendant The action was brought:by Messrs.
'he !right and Chidson,•silk ineicers, of 80ld-street, against
defendant, a gentleman residing in Liverpool,. to recover
payment for certain articles furnished for the defendant's father's
1
thee namet
funeral. The order was given by Mr. Rankin, in March, 1831,
late Mr. Rawlins. There
s no evidence to prove i hat the defenhdant was an executor of
father, a of) thliee executois of tile
plaintiffs consented to be nensuited.
AI
AssAULT BY A POLICE INSPECTO4.—SMITH V. LYONS.
Mr. EIENDERsON d the leadins. The action was
brought by the planniff(welle p
tu recover damages from the defendant
an en assault committed by him upon the plaintiff's wife. he
"vine seized her, and dragged her along the streets to Bride-
Mr.well,
Vesieeees stated the plaintiff's case. The plaintiff kept
~eo.ok shop in the neighbourhood of the theatre. On the 15th
iior fa.sornolooautothedhe
juo•neenst,oatiotds7 carry souse supper to the house of
p?'"'eatrol'oirn(
a.ce:Naydhoilige she was ':tiasuliiceg wtehuetrewtihtenditeofetohiebtsotrteoeitmtoe
to the evidence of a witness named Mullin,
Private watchmen.) said to her, "You will know me when you
te,eoe aleagaie.,,
a Mrs. Smith said, "I have known you before.”
n u fur the
thewrshib LYone denied the assertion, which she reiterated, and
,defendant then said, " I will make you madain keep better
r.i,:itel.ik,,e." future ;" to which she rejoined, "You can do as
Lyons to this answered, " Will you be insolent ma-
h_ ..? and on her saying that she had usd any insolence,
4:i(liti, threatened to take her to Bridewell; ;ands she immediately
' You dare not." Lyons then crossed the.street, and talc-
aw hold of her, pushed her before him to Bridewell, where she
aanchtttsgosu
was decd
all night, and discharged at the Police-office in the
Cluefreni"
the
et to
g. • It was fur this assault and imprisonment that the
recover damages.
11151:lc:le
e Learned ASSESSOIi- said, that under the present form of
tooMor. plaintiff could not recover damages for any
en,J_ltrY done to the wife • he could only recover mere nominal
'flees for the loss of 'her services during the time she was
imprisoned.
-.14 (Attala, the defendant's counsel, consented to the
. e atuent .Tea,
the 'record, and it was accordingly altered so as
"Inake the plaintiff and his wife jointly interested in the issue.
w•Gt eke
Grieves, a bridewell turnkey, (one of the plaintiff's
thieniesses d
5 is ) -Inner' that on the night of the 14th, or morning of
13 • -I" of September',Smith was brought to the Town
aordideivell by anspector Lyons. She passed the night there,
peigieoet.oon.bed. -
'eh_ was accommodated with the best room in the building,
. to ere were no other prisoners in the room. Urs. Smith refused
Next morning witness walked with her to the
ei._, 'nee; she followed the rest of the prisoners. She was
,w,etenarged at lialf-past eleven o'clock. The charge against her
, 5 being disorderly in Marble-street, Whitechapel, at two
cnclock in the morning. In answer to a question from the
urt, the witness said that Lyons appeared to support his
"arge at the Police-office the next day. The case was fully
goue into.
iiipliain IV,
client Mr. Rust-11'0N on behalf of the defendant, submitted that his
leril was justified under the provisions of the sth and of
in the conduct he had pursued towards the slain-
ke .wife. The 51st section of that act provides that persons
hour of
ceok-shops should not have their shops open after the
ee., t midnight, Or before five o'clock in the morning. The
`ht section gave constables the power of apprehending tran-
Prilit'offenders using obScene, abusive, or indecent language,
teertsens carrying
ee vided they-did not know the parties. And by the 77th sec-
. tnotiri" in
'.'_ll of the same act, it was enacted that all actions against
the provisions of the act into execution, should
the. county,. and that notice should be given one
t., th before the action was brought. In support of this posi-
t,''' he quoted the cose of Theobael v. Crickinore, reported in
period 911 could not be
eeltl'newell and Alderson, page 227, in which it was held that an
brought against a constable after a given
. for breaking open the front door of a house, in order to
fines distress warrant. The learned counsel also relied
r°l 1 the case of Bareuger and Penis, Ist vol. Meeson and
le:lesbY, Page 208.
urned a s . .
A• the ssessott considered that this was a case to go to the
Jury,
. Nlr
le,. •• Rest-tanN then said that if that was the opinion of the
,bBe . sebsoi, it would becomehisduty
1,, rvatious to the jury, wile ivoUld bear in mind the fact of
ieteruns keeping cook-shops being prohibited front .keeping
T1,,i.1 houses. open aftt4-the hour ofetwelve o'clock at night.
we:a plaintiffs were clearly acting, at the time ehe assault
atecominiited, lit open violation of that rule. Should they be
llleion that the inspector had acted in a manner unauthor-
s. Y the act, ehey would not forget that he had acted with
seineg,niar care towards Mrs.. Smith, he having provided fur her
,11 9est accommodation which the place afforded. In con-
e.eit,'s'°n. the learned counsel said that while the town council
II „ resolved to enforce the laws for the protection of the pub-
:t? veace of the town, and to defend their officers in the execu-
mill of their duty they were determined nut to defend those
Tier 8 if hey exceede'd the bounds of their authority,
of'V'YENABLES' elainaing his right to reply, in consequence
t-:;:iefe‘nd' r sCounCil having prodaced the Bridewell journal
alOn :.;:nee,acnun6tended that the defendants had not made out
and
as
er to the case. Mrs. Smith. was not unknown to him,
NH 8 regarded the cook-shop, if any offence had been corn-
the
e,soi!.. food
I, riell, the husband was the responsible party, and might have
(tehe-1 B'lltlnOned before 'the magistrates the next day ; but he
sciefte"rned counsel) had Nato learn that it was an offence to_
at *any hour of the night or day, the intention of -
Pro i';'' being the prevention of the practice of harbouring un-
tie)
br eharacterrapcin the preneises, and so long as persons were
e.:B affered to enter or be served on the premises, no offence
B,etttutntnitted. With regard to the question whether Mrs.
(stay" had acted in a disorrderly manner in the street, he had
called to ask the jitry was she disorderly ? if so, why not have
his ed the policeman who' came up when the defendant, struck
,ii_ostiek On the pavement. 11 it was proved that she had been
but ilerlyt he was content to let the defendant have the verdict;
the 1 itbe jury were convinced that she was not, he hoped the
eeiv Ptaintiffs 'would have the benefit of that decision, and 'T-
ie: er thee hands of the jury compensation in damages for the
41`,!,Y defendant had inflicted upon them.
iri.t",° Learned ASsESSOR summed up. the evidence, declar-
auth:t the defendant was not justified in his conduct by any
allientrUY given him under the provisions of the act of pasha-
le, 119‘der which he had received his appointment.
"Jury returued a verdict for the plaintiffs. Damages £5.
This The . . bleu:eget. v. pool,E.
4iitl,d L.'', an action to recover damages for an assault com-
tiff, 'V the defendant; an inspector of police, upon the plain-
Mr, v
was a "alesi.es, the plaintiff's counsel; stated that his client
ei,ertirTost respectable man, a native el Ireland, who hadi been
/4, WI assaulted by the defendant, an inspector o police,
hieesert, nut aear to defend the action, but,contented
4Pl,e4r ewltn Pleadin,e the general issue. The peamtiff, it would
%era 1 the evidence, had been requested to serve a copy of a
hies `11)°,1 at defendant, and for that purpose had waited upon
'atlietJ,tho police office. The plaintiff served the writ in a
l'eorle-"" secret manner, and did not say anythinglo the de-
salt tht talculated to give bins offence. However, the defend -
e.keeterght proper to push him against the wall, and finally
, d se °dal with reat force from the office.
aolifei;`Pue Robinsogn deposed that he was an extra officer at St.
the pier;' ''arket. In the latter end at September witness saw
laid tiff and defendant at the police office. , The defendant
Ihrou',;',l,(l of the plaintiff with one hand and forced him violently
Naked" the door of -the office with the other. The plaintiff was
fu ftei out of, the room. The defendant is about five feet eight
°t' mange; The Plaintiff "is a weak, sickly, gentlemanly sort
t:ltotot"n every respect." Ile had heen employed in the
Ployeetleleouse some years ago, and since that time had em-
\yet (4 hneself as a collector of rents, and occasionally serving
°file:, llle assault was cominitted at the back of the police
Tee ti4e presence of Mr. Hall, the magistrate.
ili otherwitnesses were called, but they did not appear. •
Ilene: 4ssessou sunmed up observing' that there-was uo eel-
Prove-, °F. the plaintiff - havit:,* given the defendant .the least
The antes,
Jury found for the plaintiff, datnages forty shillings.
This DEB:TEAM C. KENYON.
t°Ver ti an action . brought by a solicitor in London to re-
4efetee Wassum of £2l, the amount of monies recaived by the
tts, ~,Int, a eee I. , „..,t, 0, lb, i ... p ,eeper or pool,' in the name and for the.
ester *.Pialntiff. -The defendant had been employed by Mr.
elin the' of Manchester to serve a writ issued by the plaintiff,
be name of a cliel'it, against a clergyman of this county.
efeto,"olllan immediately paid the debt and costs, but the
egilmr,,,,,...lhieitatn.teegdleacse:aclettiot. pay the same over to the parties for
teitwie esorriteailam submitted the action could not be main-
0111.11.._,,,osatserit
whot)tig ought to 1
ohyaewae
tbeen d bferoodu:eohtt, eoirththeer iin)latihnetiffn aitnti et
he
'gillat suit- The Plaintiff wasenonsuited.
Mr. ;ENABLES , ' A"""" '
ne o vseedr
:. Teo; o
tt the
i‘i defendantstce on a
nt o
affidavit be discharged,
10, i
i i :.
h
SPEED.
Zlit,o- f custody or th
stiated that he WilS arrestedtobteh•
him against the
ee°„roing, when proceeding t this
et hcesuo'rffit (-;'7irattto the sergeant
an '
se;`,lnionnehrought by
plaintiff, entered these
Learned Aam The
_,. ssEssocnt. said, that the law pr
defen,ittlesses when atten leg oteeted suitors courts of justice, and ordered the
oa.ct to be forthwtth discharged.

WEDNESDAY

_ .
1,, .
EIUTCHINSON V. WCORMICK. •
routelnS WaB an action brought to recover the sum of £45, bor-
trd Itv a former partner of the defendant, who is an excava-
-141! f, l'?
the plaintiff for the purpose of paying wages. A
kies,?fl of the name of Stephenson, the. former partner of M Tor-
evid7, was the principal evidence against the defendant. The
liu,i'llee of this witness was severely commented on bv Mr.
t c.','"n, whn appeared for the defendant, and he was sublected
anCrst searching cross-examination. It‘ appeared. that Stephen-
kso ?ud tined in- partnership with Al Col-wick, and had taken
he
the
concern - that they had afterwards quarrelled, and
of d obtained back' £6O out of the LSO. and on a settlement
to V Partnership accounts by arbitration he had had awarded
lenteTThe witnedi, in his cross:examination, repre-
It, h Intaselt as a gentle man living on his own independence.
~,a owever, turned 'out that he had been living on the £l5O
.4t.Qt rdetd l'" h • th t he-had been insolvent, and had only just !loose:[ of twii!at than learned counsel termed) " ins country
The 'the I3oionoli Gaol."
thotwh 44,..ssRsson's, •summing up, said he was afraid that,
i.ettw,;::•,llll.iefStoty restedinntirel , on the credibility of Stephen-
„ eq h,.'tePhenson entirely
a p)attner-Jf 11`Corinick, had bor..
v,"Y1i0,,,t,, -18,,,tn_olley, rep't:‘,eilting that it was for partnership
L'rtate4—t'hiti-urlnickintist pay it. though Stephenson ha9.altry'-
rpos.. e, mi)nev (which was 'what was alleged) to his o rn
"euri 7; loecau.se a 'per- n hid a right in such a case to the, `1011•,-,t;? of both partn-erss,oand 'Stephenson by his insolvency was
The .
Jury
found for the plaintiff, damages £45, wyaer the point

•
O. kw as laid by the Assessor, not placing the slightest
credence on
.ttic.c44idetitTe.

Th.e.AssEssoe said, if he should find he was wrong in point
of law, he should allow the defendant to enter a non-suit.
rucßua, EXECUTOR, &C., V. MASON, EXECUTRIX, &C.
Mr. VENABLES aPpPared for the plaintiff, and stated the
case. John TuckPr, the plaintiff, was the executor of John
Lutierby, deceased, and the defendant, Jane Mason, WAS
the executrix of John Mason, deceased, and the action, was
brought against her as such fur goods furnished to her husband
during his life time. The plea raised in defence was, that -the
administrati ix had not fully administered to the goods and .chat-
tels which came to her hands. The question to try was, whe-
ther or nut the defendant had fully administered? He should
give prima facie evidence that the deceased Mason had left
property to a considerable amount, and amongst the rest one or
two pilot-boats. It would be for the defendant to show that she
had not fully administered. The amount sought fur was
£l5. Its. 9d.

Mr. COTTING 1-1 AAt appeared for the defence.
Mr. John Lease, the collector of the pilot's committee, was
called to prove that the deceased pilot Mason had a share iu
No. 10 pilot-boat, which share was worth £5O. and had since a
share in another boat, the boat being worth £1,200.
Ou being cross-examined, the witness'said the deceased Ma-
son. died very poor. The defendant owed them money, which
had become due since her husdand's death. The privilege of
the pilot-boat was worth £l,OOO.
Mr. David Rowland deposed that the eighth of a pilot-boat,
with the privilege, would be worth about £5OO.
On bein cross-examined, he sail Vie boat was worth about
£BOO, and the privilege £1,600. The eighth of that was £3OO.
• Mr. Cottingham called the'son of the defendant to prove that
his mother had paid a sum of £65, which more than covered the
£5O, value of the boat, which came to her.

The ASSESSOR said the question now was, whether this privi-
lege wits to be taken into account, which was a question of law;
and the jury would give a nominal verdict for the sum sought to
be recovered, reserving the result for his opinion on the point
of law.— 1' erdict accordingly..

YESTERDAY.
MC; ROW L. 13LEMEN TSON

This was an action brought to recover the sum of £2O, the
amount of au attorney's bill, due by the defendant to the
plaintiff.

Mr.. Murphy appeared for the plaintiff, and Mr. Venables for
the defence.

It appeared that the plaintiff was the son-in-law of the defehd-
ant, having married the defendant's daughter against her fa-
ther's, consent. The father was in difficulties, and the son-in-
law, the plaintiff, who was an attorney's. clerk, undertook to
rescue him out of his difficulties. as a friendly act, and in order
to procure a reco-miliation. This was consented to, and in
process of time the defendant got through his diffictilties. The
plaintiff then sent him in a bill for his services and legal'
charges, amounting to £2O, for what the defendant had under-
stood' was a friendly act. The defendant would not pay the
amount, and the plaintiff then 'brought this action to recover it.
The defendant paid £5 inta.court, which he considered a suffi-
cient compensation for any services the plaintiff had done (din
Mr.,Venables for the defence strongly commented on the con-
duct of the plaintiff, and called a witness named Wild to prove
the above facts; the witness, however,-on entering the box, was'
taken suddenly ill, and had to be carried out.
The ASSESSOR, in consequence, proceeded to charge the jury
as the case stood, and they found a verdict for the plaintiff, minus
the £5 paid into court, fur the full amount of his claim.

SPEED V. LANGFORD

Mr. Venables appeared for the plaintiff, and Mr. Cottingharn
for the defendant.

The plaintiff claimed a large sum of money for work and la-
bour done, and for money paid on behalf of the defendant. The
defendant_ pleaded the general issue, and that he had paid a
great part of the sum owing.
Mr. VENABLES, iu opening the case, said that in the year
1835, about the latter end of August, Mr. Langford employed
the plaintiff to sell for him certain skins, who was to allow him
12s. a-week for that, and during the time that the plaintiff was
the defendant's servant he had paid for the defendant various
sums amounting to £250. The present action was brought for
time recovery of a balance of this sum, and for the weekly salary
from August, 1835.
Several witnesses were called to prove the various payments.
After some discussion, on the recommendation of the Assessor,
the counsel agreed to refer the case and all matters of difference
to Mr. Lawrence, for arbitration.

BUIETHERTON AND ANOTHF.O. v. DONALDSON.

This was an action brought to recover the costs of an action
brought to recover an empty barrel which the defendant held
belonging to the plaintiff.
Mr. Harden appeared for the plaintiff, and Mr. Venal)les for
the defence.

Mr. HARDEN, in stating the case, said the circumstances were
these :—About fifteen months ago, the plaintiff supplied the de-
fendant with a small quantity of ale, in a single barrel. The
ale was paid for in two or three months, and nothing was said
about it; but when the plaintiff sent for the barrel, the defen-
dant's wife said " No, tell Mr. Bretherton he must send 30s. for
bad ale before he gets the cask." A number of demands were
made for the cask, but the same answer was invariably returned.
At length the plaintiff thought it his duty to proceed against the
defendant to recover his cask, and a writ .w as taken out against.
the defendant, and the brewer sent along with the attorney's
clerk who. was to serve the writ, to show him where defendant
lived. On arriving at the defendant's residence, the wile of the
defendant, seeing an air of something like law going on, said,
on this application before the serving of the writ, " Oh yes, you
may have your barrel, it is in - the cellar, take it." They wit
the barrel back, but found themselves minus thy expenses of the
proceedings they had taken. For the recovery of those ex-
penses this action had been brought. It was unnecessary to
quote authorities to prove that the plaintiff was entitled to the
costs which he had been subjected to. He called
William Seddon, who proved being in the service of Messrs.
Bretherton, that he had left the ale at the defendant's, and had
repeatedly applied for the cask, but. had not been able to obtain
it. On his cross-examination, he said he got the cask before
the writ was served. There was ale in the cask when he got it
back. It, was customary to allow the publicins to keep the
casks till the ale :was-done. ,Thei e was about eight inches of
ale in the cask when he got it away. The cask was worth 78s.
David Jones, clerk to plaintiff's solicitoe, deposed. to taking
the writ to serve; but got the barrel and did not-serve the writ.

Mr. VENABLES addressed the jury for the defence, ana desig-
nated the action as a most trumpery one, got up to suit the
plaintiff's brother, who acted as his solicitor. He called-wit,
nesses to prove that the custom was to detain casks even longer
than the time which the cask which was the ground of the
present action had been detained, and that the cask was half
full of ale when it had cone back.
The Jury enquired if they could not draw aline between 305.,
toe price of the ale, and tl e price of the cask ?
The ASSESSOR replied that they could nut do this. It would
have been much better if the defendant, when he had incurred
the cost of the writ, which was only 55., had paid it.
-The jury said they were of opinion that the defendant had a
right to detain the cask, and found a verdict accordingly for the
defendant.

The Foreman of the Jury said that, perhaps they would be
stepp►ng out of their province to express an vpiniou about the
action, but it was very strong.
Mr. HARDEN wished to know what it was.

Foreman of the Jury.—" That the action is most discredit-
able."

Mr. HARDEN said the verdict was contrary to the evidence
and gave notice that he should move fur a new trial.

JONES AN-O ANOTHER, V. AULT.
Th 4 was an action brought by the plaintiffs Robert Jones &
Son, Rose-hill, brewers, for the recovery of a balance of £l5
for ale sold to the defendant, who keeps the Duke's Dock tavern,
in June last.

The sale and delivery of the ale was proved. The defence
set up was that the ale was "pricked," and not fit for use.
Witnesses were called to prove this, and also that the ale was
good sound ale. The case occupied some time.
Mr. COTTINGHAM appeared for the plaintiff, Lid Mr. WIL-
KINSON for the defendant.

The•jury found a verdict for. the plaintiff £l5, as well as £lO
paid into court.

- TAYLOR V. MARSH

This was an action brought to recover a balance of £7 al-
leged to be due by the defendant to the plaintiff for work done.
The plaintiff is a master joiner, and was employed by the de-
fendant, who is a timber merchant, to build some houses, the
defendant finding the wood. The billof the plaintiffs amounted
to £3O, but they had received £23 on account, and fur the ba-
lance the action was brought. The plaintiffs had done the work
in a satisfactory manner, and' had been dismissed from their
work without any reason stated.
At this stage of the proceedings, as soon as Mr. VENA [ILES
had opened: the case, an arrangement was come to to refer the
matter to the arbitration of one of the jurors.
- - - -

LATI-I.OM V. BAXTER.

M. VENABIES appeared fur the-plaintiff, and Mr. HARDEN
fur the defendant.
_ _

Mr. VENABCES, in stating the case, said this was an action
brought to recover the value of stone damage mule to the plain-
tiff's cart, by a cart of the defendant's, through the negligence
of her servants. The defendant's servants were driving two
carts near Salthouse Dock, 'each having two horses, when one
of the defendant's men left the carts, and, in consequence, one
of her carts ran against the defendant's cart, and broke the
shafts, damaging it to th-e.-antount. of £2 10s. Ou the accident
taking place, the sou of the plaintiff went and told the defendant
of the accident, and begged her to lend hint a cart until he had
got his repaired. She replied, she would not, that it was the
act of her servants, and she had nothing to do with it, and that
they might do what they pleased with her servants. All the
.plaintiff sought for, was the amount of damage which had been
done to his cart, and, in point of law, the defendant, Mrs.
Baxter, was clearly responsible for the acts of her servants. he
called witnesses to prove the amount of damage, and that the
cart which had run against' the plaintiff's cart, was unattended
by any driver.
Mr. HARDEN, for the defence, contended that where the in-
jured party was guilty of "any degree of negligence, an action
could not be brought. lie called witnesses to prove that the
accident bad occurred as much from the negligence of the plain-
tiff's carter, as from that of the defendant's.
VENABLES replied.
The jury found a verdict for the defendant, there being ne-
gligence nu both sides.
ROTHWELL v. THOMPSON.

Mr. CoTTINGuast and Mr. WILKINSON appeared for the
plaintiff, and Mr. HENDERSON for the defence. •
The plaintiff in this case is a man of property-at Wigan, and
the defendant is a publican in this town. The plaintiff au-
thorized his son-in-law, who was in indifferent circumstances,
to enter into an agreement with the defendant to give up pos-
session of a public-house in Mersey-street, for which the plaintiff
agreed to pay a consideration of £l5O foi the possession and
fixtures, possession to be given up in IQ days from the date of
the :agreement. The plaintiff performed his part of the contract,
but on going to take possession, the landlord, who before had
not been mentioned, refused to allow him to take possession,
unless he would enter into an avjeeinent to leave the house at
at any time, without the usual processor ejectment.' This being
quite' foreign to the agreement, the plaintiff refused to acceed
to it, and brought the present action to recover £5O which had
been paid down when the agreement had been entered into, to-
wards the fixtures, and for £5O which the defendant agreed to
forfeit it he should not perforni hiS part of the agreement.
The parties entered into an arrangement, the deft;ndant to
return the £5O which he had received, and £5 towards the costs,
to the plaintiff.
Verdict accordingly.
This concluded the cause list. An inquiry was afterwards
heard, and the court then broke up about 6 o'clock.

C APTA IN J. E. Go a noN.—Tne marriage between that zealous
Protestant patriot J. E. Gordon, Esq., and Miss Smith, niece
of Lord Carrington, took place in London, on Tuesday. The
_ceremony was performed by an intimate friend of the parties,
the Rev. E. Bickersteth, rector of Watton, of Worcestershire,
and in the
the happy couple
anitnated
language of Hymen's votaries,
%_•%.,ere preparing to leave town to spend the "honey moon.-!.
Captain Gordon had only recently returned from attending the
andgreat Prcitestant meeting at Hereford, where he delivered a Ibug
friends congratulating
ClaarpdtsatonfGthorred:nh him, ex. pressed an opinion that he had
triumphantly exliausteci.The sobject, "Wait a whiff'," 'aid
speech,o4.r,st
hi:set
hi:6,
,I:e. at, :
vlte,hore;
ttc.oo hfeociliu,:s..;ielom:f‘,%,::::C‘,l,lillsvoe
you a much greater treat." Mr I.ll‘Gh e' ieMi'occupi, it up-