The Liverpool Standard and General Commercial Advertiser.
Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1841-04-16 00:00:00

THEATRE ROYAL,

The.
w young prima donna, Miss Delcy, whose first appear-
ance e noticed in our last, has proved a loadstone to the
iron-hearted public, by drawing excellent houses. Miss
Delcy has excited much attention in the musical world, and
the amateurs of this town have had their anticipations raised
by the reports of her excellence, that have reached them.
Their expectations have been quite realized, and we can
safely pronounce her as the most successful debutante that
has appeared since the time of Miss Inverarity, whose pro-
mise of excellence was quite equal to Miss Deley's. Taking
into consideration her extreme youth, and want of experience,
bright hopes may be indulged in, that she will achieve the
very highest step in the professional ladder, which many es-
say to climb, but few surmount. Nature has commenced a
goodly work, which science has continued, but which time
only can complete. Miss Delcy's voice is of a fine quality, full
and round in tone, and of good compass. Her execution is
brilliant and effective, without appearing forced or strained ;
her style is chaste, without that extreme mannerism per-
vading more or less in artists of every degree. In person,
Miss Delcy is petite, her face is pretty and expressive, her
eye brilliant; and her carriage graceful. Her knowledge of
music is great, she shews excellent tuition ; but to compare

her with Mrs. Wood or Miss Sherriff would be unfair ; they
have reached that summit which Miss Delcy must climb—
that she will do so and maintain her position, there can be
no doubt of, if health and strength permit. Miss Delcy has

faults—and who is without them—all of which a further in-

tiinacy with her art will cure. " Cinderella" was delight-
fully done ; Miss Delcy's Cinderella was tasteful, natural, and
unforced. Her " Now with grief.' was a delicious effort of
skill. The other parts in this qpera are too well known in
Liverpool to need comment. We ought not, however, to
avoid noticing two features in it, the first, Mr. George Horn-
castle's playing Baron Pompolino, and secondly, the intro-
duction by Mr. Templeton of " I love her, how I love her."

The former was inimitable, and deserved the highest praise ;
the latter was a sample of bad taste. It is most vile to introduce
ajulgar clap-trap gallery ballad into an opera of high pre-
tensions, and ought to be reformed altogether. Although
the song was encored, it was in our opinion undeserved, for
Mr. Templeton did not sing—but shouted—it ; a habit, by
the way, we have noticed during his present engagement.
On Wednesday Bellini's exquisite opera of " Sonnambula"
was performed. Miss Delcy, as Amina, fully sustained the
favour won by her in Cinderella. Without the passionate
fervour of Miss Sherriff, or the vigour of Mrs. Wood, Miss
Delcy seemed to take a line of her own, bringing out the
Character by simplicity and artlessness most touching and
winning. She occasionally electrified the audience by
startling effects, shewing plainly what she will do when time
has matured her powers. One drawback is, that Miss Delcy
does not clearly enunciate her words—she is all tone : this
we particularly remarked' in Amina. Some pretend to like
it ; we cannot say we " follow on the same side." Mr. Tem-
pleton does not sing Elvino so well as he was wont ; he
has lost a great deal of that purity of manner which he once
possessed. His " All is lost now" was very clever and beau-
tiful, and was encored; but we have heard him sing it in-
finitely better. The effect of it was much marred by the
absurdity of the audience, in encoring and applauding before
it was half over : really the frequenters of the Theatre-Royal
have heard " Sonnambula" often enough to know better.
Mr. George Horncastle dressed, acted, and sang the Count
Rodolpho excellently. He sang the scene, " When I view
these scenes," very well. We like him in it as well as
any one we have seen. Mr. Eaton, as Alessio, made his
' first bow before a Liverpool audience on this occasion ; he
possesses much humour, and reminds us strongly of Buck-
stone in voice and manner. He played Alessio well, but
dressed it most ridiculously arid injudiciously. He wore a
monstrous tall straw hat, like a Kentuckian's, and a dress
which was more fitting for au amphitheatrical buffoon or a
Chinese morris dancer. The eye must be pleased ; the
" monstrosity" of the dress may make the unskilful laugh,
but it will cause " the judicious to grieve." Miss E. Honner
played Lisa very prettily, but it was evident that she has not
the power to sing the difficult songs in the part as they ought
to be sung. Miss Honner tried to do herbest. We have heard
her sing ballads, and think she will step upon " Kate Kear-
ney's" heels in warbling them. This is not said in dispa-
ragement ; Miss Honner is a great acquisition to the theatre.
The songs of Lisa are difficult, and require a voice of no or-
dinary compass. Taken altogether, " Sonnambula" was
capitally done, and will prove a treat to all who listen to it.
An excellent farce, called " Lodgings for Single Gentlemen,',
has been produced, in which Mrs. Clarke, as an inquisitive
and meddling landlady, kept the house in a continuous and
positive roar of laughtei. Mr. Holl's Captain Postlethwaile
was very good, and full of vivacity. This evening " Son-
nambula" will be repeated.

EXTRAORDINARY ACCIDENT AT SEA.—On Thursday last,
during the passage of the John Bull, steamer, from Ham-
burg to London, an accident of a most singular nature hap-
pened to a young man, named Clark, an apprentice on board,.
who is nearly out of his time. Clark was sent into the main
chains, some hours after the vessel left Hamburgh, for the
purpose of heaving the lead. He was on the larboard side
of the vessel, and had been engaged for some time in taking
soundings, when he was suddenly missed by the mate, who
was at the wheel, and who heard a noise resembling that of
a man splashing 'his hands and feet in the water. The vessel
was immediately stopped, and backed a-stern, the boat
lowered, and the men who rowed it looked about for nearly
20 minutes, but without being able to find him. The boat
returned to the steamer, and was hoisted up, and the vessel
proceeded on her voyage, every one supposing he was lost.
Directly afterwards some of the men went to the side of the
vessel, and hauled in the lead line, and to their greatt surprise
pulled up the body of Clark, who had been for nearly 20
minutes in the water suspended by the line, which had made
a complete hitch-knot round his kneck. Captain Corbin, the
commanderof the ship, Mr. Gibbs, the mate, and all the hands
that could be spared, lost no time in using every means in
their power to save him. He was conveyed to the fore-cabin,
stripped, and placed in a hoe-bath, water having been pro-
cured from the boilers for the purpose. Captain C. and his
mate applied the means recommended by the Royal Humane
Society for saving life, but. it was long before the young man
exhibited the least signs of animation. Ihe Captain and his
men would not despair, they continued their exertions, and
exactly one hour after the sufferer was taken out of the water
he began to show some signs of lite. Stimulants were then
judiciously supplied to him, and he soon afterwards became
conscious of his situation. His neck and throat were much
swollen, and inquiries were made of the passengers on board
for leeches, and at last a man agreed to supply a few from a
case in his possession, on being paid 2s. 6d. for them. There
was no time to resist such a demand, the necessity for the
leeches was urgent, and the money was paid. The swelling
was soon reduced by the application of the leeches, and by the
time the vessel reached London the young man appeared to
be out of immediate danger. He is now doing well. It ap-
pears that when he fell overboard his head was kept above
water while the ship was moving, and he was dragged through
the sea with it, but when the vessel stopped he hunk and re-
mained suspended under water with the rope round his neck.
Perhaps a more singular occurrence never happened. The
passenger who exacted 2s. 6d. for his leeches was very pro-
perly served by Captain Corbin, who made him pay 10s.
freight for the case of leeches, which would have been passed
among his luggage in the usual manner, but for the hard
bargain he drove while a fellow-creature was suffering.

SOUTH LANCASHIRE SPRING ASSIZES

CROWN COURT.—TUESDAY.
DARNED AND OTHERS v. HAMILTON.
The plaintiffs in this action, which was tried before a spe-

cial juiy, were Mr. Israel Barned. Mr. Lewin Mozley, Sir
.
Elias Joseph Mozley, and Mr. Charles Moziey, bankers, o

this town ; the defendant Mr. John J. Hamilton, mereht;nt.

also of this town

Mr. Knowles and Mr. Crompton appeared for the plain-
tiffs, and Mr. Cresswell and Mr. Martin for the defence.

The action was brought to recover from the defendant the
sum of £1,337, the loss 'sustained on the resale of 200 quarter
shares in the Grand Junction Railway, which had been con-
tracted for by him. The defendant pleaded that he had not
promised as alleged ; that the company did not make and
create the new hares in manner alleged ; that the plaintiffs
did not offer to sell and deliver and cause the shares to be
transferred ; and that he (the defendant) was induced to en-
ter into the agreement by fraud.
Mr. KNOWLES detailed the features of the case to the jury
with much precision and perspicuity. On behalf of the
plaintiffs it was alleged, that though the Grand Junction
Railway was formed at what was considered a cheap rate,
yet, in consequence of the expence of the formation hav-
ing exceeded the original estimate, a debt had been incur-
red, to liquidate which, an act of parliament was obtained
for the purpose of raising funds, by the creation of addi-
tional shares. On the 20th May, 1840, a resolution was
passed confirming a report of the chairman, and ordering a
summary to be prepared for the creation of such shares, it
being notified; that the dividend on the new shares would be
the same as on the old. The directors lost no time in giving
notice to the stock exchange in this town of the intention.
The measure only .wanted the confirmation of the proprietors,
and were immediately to bear the same rate of interest as
the others. The new shares, which were quarter, or £25
shares, immediately became the subject of traffic in the share
market. Mr. Hamilton, it was believed, thought it would
be a good time to speculate. He was a holder of some of
the old shares, and would, therefore, become entitled to an
allotment. n the 25th May, he called upon Mr. Read, a
sharebroker, of this town, and asked him if there were any of
the new Grand Junction quarter shares in the market. Mr.
Read told him that there had been fifty of them offered that
day at £35 pershare. Mr, Hamilton was anxious that the
purchase should be made at that rate, but was informed that
the stock exchange was closed. Mr. Read went over, how-
ever, to the office of. Messrs. King and Son, sharebrokers,
and purchased the fifty shares which had been mentioned at
£35 per share. Mr. Hamilton expressed very great anxiety
that one hundred more shares should be purchased at the
earliest opportunity • and accordingly one hundred more
shares were purchased first thing next morning at the same
rate. On the 26th or 27th May, Mr. Hamilton again called
and ordered Mr. Read to purchase for him 350 more shares
the same price. Mr. Read thought it his duty to remonstrate
with Mr. Hamilton •, and he told him that he thought
he was going rather deep. Mr. Hamilton replied that he
should stand to lose £2,000 to £3,000; but if the shares
got up, as he, anticipated, he should get a considerable
profit, perhaps Mice as, much as he had mentioned. Mr. R.
said, as the order was so large, he would be obliged to Mr.

Hamilton, if he would give hive a written direction to pur-
chase. Mr. Hamilton was greatly offended at this request,
and he asked Mr. Read if he could not trust him. Mr. Read

bought, as the order was so large, it should be given in writ-
rig; and, after some demur, this was complied with. Mr.

camilton gave an order, signed with his name, to purchase

. .
350 shares; the order to remain in force till countermanded.
Mr. Read went to Messrs. Reynolds-and Son's office, and

round that they had some shares to dispose of.

Messrs

Reynolds and Son were the brokers for Messrs. Barned and
Mozley. Mr. Reynolds had deemed it his duty, when the
new shares were about to come into the market, to call upon
Messrs. Barned and Mozley, and to ask them if they would
be buyers or sellers. They told him that they would be pur-
chasers at £3O, and sellers at £35. Mr. Read at once pur-

chased from Messrs. Reynolds 100 shares at £35. He then
offered to purchase another 100 shares if Messrs. Reynolds
would take a lower price. The latter said they did not think
a lower price would be taken, but they would consult with
the holders. Mr. Read said, " I will take another 100 shares
at £34 155." Mr. Reynolds consulted with Messrs. Barned
and Mozley, and they agreed to accept the offer. Bought
and sold notes were exchanged between Mr. Read and Mr.
Reynolds in the usual Manner. About the middle of July,
the market began to change, and Mr. Hamilton, it was pre-
sumed, became alarmed. He went to Mr. Read, and asked
him if he could get rid of some of the shares for him. Mr.
Read said it was a large number to bring into the market,
and there would be some difficulty, as there were no buyers.
Mr. Hamilton requested him to try if he could induce the
parties from whom the purchase was made to take them back,
or to rescind the bargain. This, of course, could not be ef-
fected. Mr. Hamilton at that time made no pretence of
fraud, but attributed his desire to annul the bargain to the
falling state of the market, and to theprospect of ultimate
loss. On the sth of August Mr. Read received a letter from
Mr. Hamilton, saying that he had just heard the intention in
creating the new shares was expressly to lower the dividend :
if that proved correct, he should consider all the contracts for
the shares which he had bought void. Mr. Read wrote back
to Mr. Hamilton expressing his surprise, as at the time the
shares were purchased nothing whatever had been said touch-
ing the dividend : it was a matter of uncertainty what the
dividend would be, and it could not be ascertained whether
it would be less than seven per cent. at the end of the then
next half-year; nor could the contract be cancelled without
the consent of the parties from whom the purchase had been
made. On the 24th of August Mr. Hamilton again wrote to
Mr. Read, referring to his former letter, and stating that a
misrepresentation had been made respecting the dividend at
the time when the shares were sold, which was the reason

why he considered the contract null and void. On the 20th
of October, at the office of Mr. Mallaby, the defendant's
solicitor, a personal tender was made of the shares. and a
declaration made that the plaintiffs were ready to transfer.
The defendant said he would not take the shares, and that he
had been imposed upon at the time of the sale. The present
action only related to the 200 shares belonging to Messrs.
Mozley, which were purchased for £6975.
Mr. Read was called, and he detailed the circumstances
leading to and arising upon the transaction, in substance as
above stated.

Mr. William Reynolds, jun., sharebroker, proved that Mr.
Lewin Mozley told him that he was at liberty either to buy
at £3O or sell their shares at £35, that he sold Mr. Read
100 shares at £35, and submitted to Mr. Mozley the offer to
purchase 100 more for £34 10s., which was agreed to. The
shares were purchased for Mr. Hamilton, say 100 at £35,
and 100 at £3l 10s., amountinr, to £6,975. They were, after
the tender, sold at an average of £2B 13s. per share, amount-

ing on the whole to £5,63f 55., exhibiting a difference of

£1,337 15s

On cross-examination by Mr. CRESSWELL, Mr. Reynolds
stated that the prices of shares, as indicated by actual trans-

actions, ranged, on the 21st of August, from £3O to £3O 55.,
on the 22d from £3O ss. to £3O 10s. Mr. Cresswell cross-
examined Mr. Reynolds. with the view of showing that the
shares were not a joint property, but nothing to that effect
was elicited, Mr. Reynolds stating that he communicated
with Mr. Lewin Mozley -on behalf of the firm.
Mr. Thomas Goalan, a clerk in the Grand Junction Rail-
way-office, produced a book of the minutes of the meeting of
proprietors, and turned to that of a general special meeting
of the 10th of August. The minutes of this meeting were
read, from which, it appeared, that a dividend of £7 percent.
-had been declared, and a further bonus of 15s. per share out
of the clear profits of the undertaking, and that 17,627 new
shares of £25 each were created, all of which were to be re-
gularly numbered, &c., and be apportioned amongst the pro-
prietors. The bonus was made out of the surplus, which was
not carried forward to the next half year, in order that the
new propri should not participate in that accumulated fund.
On cross-examination by Mr. CRESSWELL, Mr. Goalan
said, Mr. Lewin Mozley was one of the directors of the com-
pany. He could not say that he was present at that meet-
ing. A certain sum was always carried forward, which would
form a part of the dividend of the next half year. On this
occasion there was a deviation from the usual practice. This
was the only occasion on which a bonus had been declared.
The dividend at the end of the next half year, was £1 12s. 6d.
per quarter share, or 61 per cent. If the money distributed
by the bonus had been reserved ; if the bonus had not been
declared, the dividend would have been about one per cent.
more.
By Mr. KNOWLES.—The dividend was the same on all the
shares: it was declared in February, 1841.
Mr. John Swift, clerk to the Grand Junction Company,
said, Mr. Hamilton had some shares, and consequently had
some of the new shares allotted to him.
By Mr. CRESSWELL.—Mr. Lewin Mozley had thirty-nine
£:00 shares, sixty £5O shares, and eighty £25 shares. Mr.
Barned had three £5O shares, Mr. Elias Joseph Mosley had
nine £lOO shares, eight £5O shares, and forty-eight £25
shares. Mr. Charles Mosley had ten £lOO shares, thirty
£5O shares, and eighty-eight £25 shares.
A note was put in from /Mr. Mallaby, expressing regret
that after all the trouble that he had taken, the affair should
have to come to a law-suit, ard expressing a desire that the
tender should not be made.
Mr. CRESSWELL addressed the jury for the defence. His
remarks were first directed to the bonus which had been
made, which had the effect, he said, of depriving the purcha-
sers of new shares of a share of the profits of the concern
which they had a right to expect. Messrs. Barnard and Co.
he said, had acted a little on the sly, for the public knew no-
thing of the resolution passed by the directors, the object of
which was to bring down the shares from £35 to £3O. Mr.
Hamilton, he thought, had been hardly used in the transac-
tion. As he, (the learned counsel,) however, did not get the
broker, Mr. Read, to give the evidence which he expected,
he was therefore driven to say, as a lawyer, that he had no
answer to the case, and, therefore, the question would be one
of damages merely. In justice, he thought Mr. Hamilton
ought not to pay any damages. The jury, however, would
fix the damages according to the circumstances of the trans-
action. There was a repudiation of the bargain on the Ist of
August, and another more distinctly expressed on the 24th.
In the first letter written, Mr. Hamilton said, be had heard
for the first time that the real intention in creating the new
shares was expressly to lower the dividend. If this prayed
correct, he would consider the bargain as null and void.
Now this did prove correct, so that the repudiation ought to
be considered to have taken place at the time. On the 24th,
the directors having divided the bonus which would have
kept up the value of the shares, Mr. Hamilton declared that
he considered the contract null and void. On the 24th the
shares were at £3O ]os. to £3l 10s., and on the 24th and
26th they were at £3l 15s. to £32 10s. He thought, as they
would not probably be sold at once on the 24th, with a rising
market, but would probably be kept a day or two, they
might therefore take them' at £39 as sold on the 26th.
His LORDSHIP said he thought the lowest price on any
one day ought to be chosen, as such a large parcel of shares
would probably not be easily sold at the highest price.
Mr. CRESSWELL would take them at £3l 155., which
would make them £Q,350, a difference under the amount
claimed of £7OO, reducing the loss to £625. That, he
thought, would be the true measure of the damages.
His LORDSHIP put the case briefly to the jury, remarking-
slightly on the amount of damagestilLant NNt-hoeul
jdurpyrotbhaobulgyh
t meetthe
the case according to the period w
repudiation occurred:
The jury retired, and, after an absence of about half an
hour, returned into court, and delivered in a verdict for the
plaintiff—damages, £1,337 15s.

FOULDS V. WILLOUGHBY.
The plaintiff in this case is Mr. Alderman Foulds, residing
in Ray-street, in this town, and the defendant, Mr. Wil-
loughby, the proprietor of the Birkenhead Hotel and ferry.
The action was brought to recover the sum of £42, the value
of two horses which were alleged to 'lave been illegally sold
by the defendant.
Mr. Watson and Mr. Atherton appeared for the plaintiff,
and Mr. Cresswell and Mr. Martin for the defendant.
On behalf of the plaintiff it was set forth, that Mr. Foulds
was bringing over two horses from the fair at Birkenhead,
in October last, and that when be had got them on board the:
packet they were forcibly taken from, him, driven on shore,
and retained by Mr. Willoughby, and ultimately sold.
In defence it was alleged that the plaintiff was intoxicated,
and that he behaved very indecorously on board the packet.
The jury retired at a quarter-past five o'clock. They re-
turned in ten minutes, and delivered a verdict for the plain-
t;~ damages, for the horses, and £2 for the saddle and
bridle—total, zf.:4o.

OCCLESHAW V. MAGRATLI.
In this case the plaintiff, a shopkeeper at Standish, near
Wigan, sought to recover a sum of £26 and odd, being a ba-
lance of amount for board, lodging, and attendance given and
supplied to the defendant, who was represented as formerly
having been an officer in the army (he having lost an arm in
the service of his country), but at the time he occupied the
lodgings in question, reduced to comparatively humble cir
cumstances, and he accepted a small clerkship at a colliecolliery..The defendant had paid the sum of £l7 into court, as being;
sufficient to cover all the value he had received, but the:
plaintiff not content with this amount, prosecuted the pre—

Rent action. 'No agreement between the pas tieA appeared in
evidence.

Mr. WATSON appeared for the plaintiff, and Mr. MURPHY
for defendant.
The witnesses of the former represented the lodgings and
attendance as worth considerably more, during the period
alluded to, than the weekly sum which the amount tendered
would cover. Those on the other side, on the contrary,
placed a much smaller value upon the lodgings and services
rendered, stating that the house, which was small, was at
first in an unfinished state, and that when it was afterwards
made rather more comfortable, the greater portion of the
furniture, bedding, &c., was provided by the defendant: Mr.
Magrath had a wife and several children, hut these were
waited upon by his own servants. The plaintiff claimed com-
pensation for the occasional services of Mrs. Occleshaw in
domestic matters ; but this, it was contended in the defence.
was given optionally and gratuitously, and that the defendant
had given more than an equivalent in the suppiy of coals to
the plaintiff's family. The charge made was 18s. a week for
nine weeks, and 265. a week for twenty-eight weeks, and the
amount admitted to be reasonable, and which it was con-
tended by Mr. Murphy was ample, was 12s. Gd., making the
debt only £l6. 4s. Gd., which was tendered in November
last. The final balance sought for, taking into account the
-£l7. paid into court, was £9. 12s. 6d. The examination of
the witnesses excited some merriment in the court, but the
case did not present any features of general interest. The
witnesses variously estimated the value of the rooms occu-
pied at from 6s. a week up to 2 Is.
The learned JUDGE, in summing up, dwelt upon.the eat' a-
ordinary fact that, so far as the evidence went, the plaintiff
had taken the defendant and his family into his house with-
out making any agreement as to the amount to be paid.
The Jury immediately returned a verdict for the defendant.
PARTNERS (HP CASE.—BORROWING MONEY.—BOULT AND

ANOTHER V. HOLLINS

This was an action of very considerable importance to the
commercial community, inasmuch as it involved the decision
of the liability of one partner in a firm to debts or engage-
ments contracted, under certain circumstances, by a co-
partner, without the express consent of the former, and also
other matters connected with partnerships.
Mr. KNOWLES, in stating the case to the jury, said,', that
the plaintiffs were Messrs. Boult and Addison, stock and
sharebrokers, and the defendant was Mr. Francis Hollins,
late of the firm of Booth and Hollins, cotton-brokers—both
of this town. The action was brought to recover an amount
of a little more than £BOO, a balance claimed by the plain-
tiffs on a loan of money of within a trifle of £l,OOO. The
whole amount was included in one item only, being the
balance of the sum lent.

Mr. Boult, of the one firm and Mr. Booth, and Mr. Hol-
lins, of the other, were on the most intimate and friendly
terms, but between Boult and Booth alone should he be en-•
abled to show had the transaction which gave rise to the ac-
tion taken place. The concurrent circumstances, however,
would, he trusted, sufficiently show the liability of the de-
fendant, the partner of Mr. Booth. In the mouth of Octo-
ber, 1839, Booth and Hollins experienced, some pecuniary
difficulties, and after borrowing several sums from other par-
ties, and having a bill to retire in London, Mr. Booth applied
to Mr. Boult for a loan of £lOOO. That sum was, by the
cashkeeper of the firm to which he belonged, paid to Mr.
Boult on the 11th Oct., 1839, and on the same day paid by
Mr. Boult to Mr. Booth, us a matter of accommodation
granted through the intimacy of the parties, and he trusted
he should show, though not by direct evidence, that it was
borrowed with the authority of the defendant Mr. Hollins,
Mr. Booth's partner. Booth and Book were alone present
when the agreement to lend it was come to. To the first ap-
plication made for the loan Mr. Boult demurred ; but it
would appear, from circumstances, that Boult had afterwards
consulted Mr. Hollins on the subject, and that the latter had
sanctioned the borrowing. The money, almost as soon as
received, was paid into the Albion Bank, in Castle-street,
the hankers of Booth and Hollins, together with an addi-
tional £5O, and it was placed in the bank books to the credit
of Booth and Hollins, for the purpose before mentioned.
Boult and Co.'s cashkeeper, on that day, paid to Mr. Boult,
who paid it over to Mr. Booth, precisely £lOOO, as directed
by Boult,—namely, £915 in Bank of England notes, a bank
post bill for £B3 16s Ild, and one sovereign three shillings
and a penny, making the sum cf £lOOO. The identical mo-
ney was paid into the bank, with the exception'of the minor
item of £1 3s Id (which Boult had forgotten to pay to Mr.
Booth, but had returned to his cashkeeper the same after-
noon); and to this was added the additional £5O from Booth
and Hollins's own resources. As the bill to be retired was
to be taken up by the latter firm, the defendant had of course
the benefit of the money as a partner; and as Booth had left,
the country, he was consequently liable to the balance sought,
some amounts having since been received, making the diffe •
rence between the sum lent and that now claimed, including
interest thereon. The learned counsel then called a number
of witnesses.

John Smith, cash-keeper at Boult and Addison's, proved
the payment of the thousand pounds to Mr. Boult, to be
lent by him to Mr. Booth, and described the kind of money.
Mr. Boult the same afternoon returned the £1 3s. hi., which
he had omitted to pay to Booth, thereby making the sum
lent £998 16s. 11d. Booth-and Co. were indebted to Boult
and Co. at the time. Witness identified a cash-book of
the defendants, in which (as it afterwards appeared) the
£998 16s. 11d. was entered as received by the firm from Boult
and Co. On cross-examination, he stated that Boult and
Booth were not brothers-in-law, though Booth and Boult's
brother Charles were. Booth had since gone to New South
Wales. The money was paid on the 18th of October. He
did not know that on the previous Monday Booth and Hol-
lins had dissolved partnership.
Charles Boult, brother of Boult the plaintiff, proved that
on the 22d of October Hollins expressly admitted that the
loanwas for the benefit of the firm, and that he (Hollins)
was liable to it; but witness could not prove that Hollins
had, previously to the loan, expressly 'sanctioned it, that
sanction being stated to have been given in a conversation
between the plaintiff Boult and the defendant Hollins, and
and therefore not admissible in evidence.
Mr. Coppock, the attorney of the defendant, gave evidence
of admissions by Mr. Boult that the money was lent after
the dissolution of partnership, and absolving defendant
from all liability.
After the examination of several other witnesses, the
learned JUDGE summed up, laying down the law as to liabi-
lities of parties in such cases. If Booth borrowed the money
after the dissolution of partnership, without the express
authority of his late partner, that partner was not liable.
The jury retired for a short time, and on their return gave
4% verdict fur the defendant.

The only other case which remained to be tried was Ellis
Tay.lor and others, which was an action for an excessive
distraThe details were perfectly uninteresting. With
this Case finished the spring assizes.

MEETING OF THE DOCK COMMITTEE.

The bock Committee held their meeting yesterday, when
there were present Messrs. Bcnn, Horsfall,Barclay,T._,Holt,
Ntiddleton, Quayle, Aiken, Booth, Mellor, G. Holt, Evans,
Ripley, Smith, Holmes
Tobin, Chapman,Holmes, Moon, and Sands.
Air. Beim presided.
The Finance Committee requested authority to print a
series of questions to be put to the harbour and dock mas-
ters, and also for the use of the members of the general
Committee, relative to the management of the docks.—
Ordered.
On the recommendation of the Harbour Master's Com-
mittee, two persons were appointed dock-gatemen, in the
place of two deceased, since the last meeting. In the same
report, was a recommendation that in future the candidates
for such situations be required to produce, from the surgeon
to the docks, a certificate of the state of their health. Ano-
ther recommendation was, that the dock-gatemen be required
to live as near as possible to the docks to which they were
appointed. It was stated that one of the men lived in Tox-
teth-park, nearly three miles from his station. The recom-
mendations of the committee were confirmed.
The master of King's Dock applied for an increase of
salary. It was stated that at present he had £250 and a
house. A short discussion took place, at the end of which
it was resolved that the applicant should be informed that
the committee could not assent to the application, and that
if he were dissatisfied, his resignation would be accepted.
Mr. TOBIN then, according to notice, brought forward the
subject of an increase to the salary of the North Harbour
Master. He had only the same salary as the master of
Prince's Dock, £3OO, and it was not sufficient, compared
with his labour, which extended northward, from the south
end of Prince's Dock. He had in fact more to do than
any master of any of the docks ; and therefore he (Mr.
Tobin) moved, that the sa!ary of the north harbour master
be increased to £4OO per annum.
Mr. Rtres.sr said the office of harbour master was a su-
perior station, and it ought to be better paid than a dock
master.
Mr. AIKEN expressed a similar opinion.
Mr. CHAPMAN said, as the business of the docks in-
creased, the harbour master would be much more wanted.
Mr. BooTH expressed himself in favour of the proposed
increase.
The motion was then put and carried unanimously.
The CHAIRMAN said the next business was the considera-
tion of a petition which had been received from the flattnen
on the River Weaver, complaining of the port regulations
which compelled them, to the injury of their health, to watch
on board their vessels during the night tides, and praying for
an exemption from them. This petition was signed by 186
flatmen.
Mr. CHAPMAN said, if flatmen weae exempted, ships
would ask for the same thing. The petition was then referred
to the Sub-committee of 1,1, orks (we believe).
Messrs. Chapman and Willis's letter, referred to last
week, respecting the equalization of the dock dues on tonnage
and goods, was next read, as well as a letter from the Ship-
owners' Association, signed by their chairman, Mr. Hender-
son, praying for the dues upon tonnage to be reduced to the
same rate as those on goods.
Mr. CHAPMAN then said, if the introduction of this topic
would be likely to interfere with the passing of the dock bill
he would let it drop • but he believed the committee had full
power to make the change which he proposed. It was clear
that a reduction in the amount of dues had been made under
the old measurement, but shipowners had not had the benefit
•of that reduction in consequence of an act of parliament
having passed which altered the mode of measurement.
Perhaps Mr. Horsfall, as he was in the committee at the
reduction, could throw some light upon the intention with
'which it was made, by stating whether it was bona fide in-
tended that shipowners as well as goods should have the
benefit of it.
Mr. EVANS thought the subject could not be entertained.
Mr. HORSFALL said the matter was not, as Mr. Chapman
had now put it, in a shape that he felt at liberty to answer
the question.
Mr. Co ADMAN said he wanted to know whether, in the
Teduction which was made, it was intended that shipping
should pay 0000 a-year more than goods, and whether the
Intention of the committee had not been entirely frustrated
by the act of parliament?
Mr. ArxiN said, if any change were made the committee
might get into difficulty. There were many vessels, for in-
stance, where the tonnage under the new system was less than
under the old.
• Mr. HoRss•ALL said it certainly was intended that the re-
duction should be both upon shipping an . goods. Mr. Hors-
fall then referred to an article in the Liverpool Courier of
Wednesday, and said it was calculated to produceiehoped there
erroneous
I
impressions with regard to the committee.
would at all times b a sufficient sense of justice in the com-
mittee to remedy any defect or injustice
Mr. CHAPMAN repeated that he would withdraw the topic
if it were likely to embarrass the dock bill.
Mr. HORSFALL said a clause to effect what Mr. Chapman
wanted could not be introduced, inasmuch as no clause in a
private bill could override the law of the land.
Mr. SANDS said he understood it was the original wish of
the committee to effect a reduction on the dues on tonnage.
Mr. HORSFALLsaid the committee had this remedy, that
they could adjust the rates ; therefore, although the act of
Parliament might have began the work of injustice upon in-
. dividuals, the committee could remedy it. The course he
suggested to Mr. Chapman was a reference to the Finance
Committee, to enquire as to the alleged inequality of the
_rates, and to determine whether it was of such a character as
to justify the interference of the general committee.
Mr. EvANs strongly opposed the idea of a reference, and
• defended the present arrangement ; but said this matter
• would have received attention if the committee had not had
• so Much upon their hands.
Mr. CHAPMAN, seconded by Mr. SANDS, then moved a
:resolution to this effect.
Mr. Ripley, Mr. Aiken, Mr. Horsfall, Mr. Evans, Mr.
-.Mellor, Mr. Tobin, and Mr. Chapman, having spoken on the
unotion, a division took place, when the numbers were—
For the motion
Against it 14

Majority against the motion.. 10
The committee then separated,