The Liverpool Standard and General Commercial Advertiser.
Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1840-04-14 00:00:00

BURGLARY.

Pierce Rigby; aged about 22, was charged with haying, on
the 25th of August, 1836, broken into the shop of Elizabeth
Barnes, in the township of Windle.
Mr. Wilkins appeared for the prosecution, and Mr. Mur-
phy for the defence.
The prisoner, it appeared, had been seen by David Low,
assisting a man named, Harrison to take down the shutters
of- Mrs. Barnes's shop. They broke the window, and took
out three or four pies and some bread. Harrison was tried,
convicted, and transported for the offence some time ago.
The prisoner, Rigby, was apprehended on Monday last ; and
as a bill was formerly found against him, it was determined
he should be tried at the present assizes.
The JUDGE remarked on the circumstance of Low having
witnessed the robbery without having gone anything to pre-
vent it. There were two other indictments against the pri-
soner for manslaughter, in having by his negligent manage-
ment of the engine of a coal-pit, caused two persons to fall
down the shaft, whereby they were killed. His lordship
observed that, according to the depositions, it did not appear
that the alleged manslaughters were more than accidental.
It was, however, strange that he should have been for some
time aler the burglary was committed working at a coal-pit
within two miles of the spot, and not have been taken.
The jury found the prisoner Guilty; and as, by the law as
it existed in 1836, the offence was capital, judgment of death
was recorded against the prisoner. Mr. Murphy stated that
he had witnesses to his character, who had been in court all
day, but were not now present. His lordship said he should
not transport the prisoner; he should hear what might be
said as to his character, and decide upon the punishment.

INDICTMENT FOR PERJURY.-QUEEN V. SMITH.
The prosecutor in this case was Mr. George Meldon, and
the defendant, Mr. Christopher Smith, both of Chorlton-
up9n-Medlock.

Mr. Brandt and Mr. Murphy appeared for the prosecu-
tion ; Mr. Wilkins and Mr. Monk for the defence.
Mr. BRANDT said the charge was one of wilful and cor-
rupt perjury against the defendant, formed on a written affi-
davit signed by him, and made with the view of procuring
the prosecutor's arrest by a creditor on the ground that he
was going to run the country. The progicutor was an old
man, 75 years of age, and the defendant was his nephew.
The affidavit alleged that the prosecutor had stated on the
3d June last, that he was going to quit England. The pro-
secutor was called, and he stated that he had not left his
home on the 3d of June, and called his daughters to prove
that he had not, on that day, when the defendant and he had
a quarrel at his house, said anything about quitting England.
The defendant called witnesses who swore that they had seen
the prosecutor at the public-house kept by the defendant,
and that he stated that he wai going to Sydney, where his
son was now living.
His LORDSHIP stopped the case, as the corroborated evi-
dence required by law, to establish a case of perjury, had not
been proved. The jury found a verdict of Not Guilty.

NISI PRIUS COURT.—FRIDAY.
(Before Mr. Justice ERSKINE and a Special Jury.)
DOE DEM. SEGAR V. WARING.

This was a cause in which the validity of a will made by a
deceased lady in the neighbourhood of Ormskirk, was dis-
putt.d by her surviving sister. Messrs. Cresswell, Alexander,
Wightnum and League appeared for the plaintiff; and for
the defendant Sir W. Follett (who came down on a special
retainer), Mr. Watson, and the Hon. J. S. Wortley.
After a long consultation between the learned counsel,
Sir ti` ieetam PoLLETT rose to address the court and jury.
In this case he had the honour to appear before them as
counsel for the defendant, Mr. Robert Waring, of Ormskirk,
in this county. If this cause had gone on, and the jury had
been called upon to investigate the evidence, it would still have
been his duty to address them first for defendant, be-
cause be should have admitted at once the title of the heir
at law, for whom his learned friend Mr. Cresswell appeared,
although he insisted the defendant had a right to the estate
under a will devising that estate to Mr. Robert Waring. But
he was happy now to say that an inquiry, which might have
lasted some time, and have occupied the jury in that box
some hours, was not likely, now, to be necessary ; and he
had risen for the purpose of telling them what was the nature
of the case in which they had succeeded in making this
arrangement. The action was brought by Miss Segar, an
elderly unmarried lady, now considerably advanced in years,
for the purpose of recovering a small estate devised by her
sister, the late Mrs. Molyneux, to the defendant Mr. Robert
Waring. Mr. Robt. Waring and his father were attorneys at
Ormskirk, and he believed he might say that Mr. Waring the
father, and Mr. Robt. Waring the son, were persons of the
highest character in the neighbourhood, and that they both
stood very high in the profession. The case was of far more
importance to Mr. Robert Waring, from some. supposed
charge made against him because Mrs. Molyneux had cho-
sen to devise to him a considerable part of her property,
than from the value of the property itself. The property
was not very considerable. The estates in question were
small: but Mr. Waring could not bear in a state where any-
thying like suspicion rested upon him with regard to the will
of the testatrix. It was understood upon the part of the
plaintiff, Mrs. Segar, that she, being disappointed at not
receiving so large a bequest under the will of her sister as
she expected, thought fit to institute legal proceedings for
the purpose of. ascertaining whether or not, at the time the
will was executed, Mrs. Molyneux was competent to execute
it. Under the will, Mrs. Molyneux had devised her estates
in this way : a small portion of land was left to Mrs. Segar ;
another estate, which was the subject matter of this action,
to the defendant, Mr. Robert Waring; another estate to a
brother of his; another to a third brother; the sum of £l,OOO
to the Liverpool Blue Coat Hospital; £2,000 to Miss Jane
Segar; another legacy to Mr. Lax, a medical man who had
attended her for a great number of years ; and another to Mr.
Boyer, the agent and manager of the property of Lord Skel-
mersdale. The deceased lady had a personal estate amount-
ing to between £4,000 and £5,000. The residue of the pro-
perty she left to her executors, Mr. Boyer and Mr. Robert
Waring, not for their own advantage, but in trust to be dis-
tributed to the poor of the parish of Ormskirk. The part of the
will quarrelled with by Mrs. Segar, was the part relating to Mr.
Robt. Waring. With Mr. Waring's family Mrs. Molyneux was
on terms of the greatest intimacy ; his father had managed her
property for many years, and through his management it had
considerably accumulated. The greater part of it, however,
she lia,tl derived under the will of her late aunt, Mrs. Crane;
and as he (the learned counsel) had already stated, for a con-
siderable period she derived accumulations by savings made
during the time it was under the management of Mr. Waring.
The .• . .
re111?!;9"Prio abonteautat. .
Attere the death of Mr.
William Waring, Mrs. Molyneux was on terms of intimacy
with Mr. Robert Waring, but with her own sister, Mrs.
Segar, she was, unfortunately, not on terms. She had de-
vised no property which she received from her father's
family ; the property which she had from her father was left
to her for life, and at her death it went to Mrs. Segar. So
Mrs. Segar derived all the property of her father, and she
had a considerable income herself. There was every reason
to suppose that Mrs. Molyneux would have selected some
person—indeed, if the case had gone on, he should have been
able to prove that she had repeatedly said it was not her in-
tention to leave the property to her sister, but to other persons;
and she had left it in the way described. Hislearned friend (Mr.
Cresswell) had been instructed by Mrs. Waring to contest
the competency and the capability of the testatrix to make
this will ; but he (Sir Wm. Follett) believed there would now
be no attempt to dispute the will upon that ground. He (Sir
Wm. Follett) ought, however, to state, that Mr. Waring.
feeling the position in which Mrs. Segar was placed, as being
sister and heir-at-law to the deceased, held her justified in
making inquiries into the validity of the will, and in insti-
tuting these proceedings. Mr. Waring was anxious that no
expense should fall upon her, therefore, and had consented
that the matter should be disposed of as if it had been in
another court. If it had been litigated before the ecclesias-
tical courts, and in due course taken before the Privy Coun-
cil, the costs would come out of the estate, and not from the
parties proceeding. Mr. Waring, however, wished that no
expense should fall upon Mrs. Segar he consented that
she should be at no expense at all. Of course he did not
mean to call upon the parties interested in the charitable
part of the property to take any part of the costs ; but as for
that part of the property which had been given to the benefi-
cial interest of Mr. Waring and his family, he was satisfied
She matter should be disposed of exactly as in the Ecclesias-
tical Courts.

Mr. CRESSWELL said he appeared for the plaintiff. Un-
doubtedly he had no desire to say one syllable reflecting at
all upon the character of Mr. Waring. His learned friend
had already stated some circumstances which had induced
`the plaintiff to institute this investigation ; and there were
one or two others which he (Mr. Cresswell) desired to state
on behalf of that lady. .Mrs. Segar and her sister un-
fortunately were not on familiar or intimate terms for
some time before Mrs. Molynenx's death. Mrs. Molyneux
was a person of great eccentricity ; _she was very singular
in some of her habits, and among others, she had a con-
stant desire to maintain a delusion in the minds of those
about her, as to the parties who were ultimately to benefit
by the disposal of her property. -It was true she stated
sometimes that she did not Mean to leave her sister anything;
but she had, quite as frequblitly; and in the presence of quite
as respectable persons, stated that she did not mean Mr.
Waring to have it. He (Mr. etesswell) believed, from its
being known that Mr. Waring was Mrs. Molyneux's confi-
dential adviser, that rumours had spread that he would be-
nefit by her property, though, as if for the purpose of keeping
people in the dark, she continually stated that Mr. Waring
should never have a farthing. The lady died. The will was
made out long before her death, and it was natural, under
these circumstances, that rumour should be busy. We
all knew that when a rumour was once started, and fa-
miliarly repeated, it acquired many additions and exag-
gerations, till a suspicion, entirely unfounded, attach-
ed where it ought not.. Thus. it was Mrs. Segar was
lead to institute this inquiry. Persons came.forward to give
information of this or that, which was very much the crea-
tion of their own brain, so parties were frequently misled,
and they fell into a false position. It was only after a
scrupulous and accurate investigation of the evidence which
was to have been brought before the jury in explanation and
in proof of the case; when this mass of evidence was placed
before him, being a grave case, on the one hand imputing to
a respectable gentleman misconduct in the preparation of a
will ; and on the other hand, the consideration that an
elderly lady was not to be benefitted by the property of her
deceased sister; he investigated it with great care, and ex-
ercising the best judgment he could upon it, andi having
formed his own opinion, he had requested Mrs. Segar to
allow her counsel tojudge for her. He would at once say he had
no ground forestablishing acharge ofanything like misconduct
against Mr. Waring, and having that feeling he considered
that to obtain a verdict would be out of the question. A
communication therefore had been brought about between
his learned friend and himself, and they had come to this
conclusion, with which he hoped Mrs. Segar would be satis-
tied. A verdict therefore would now pass for the defendant.
The JUDGE said it must be satisfactory to the jury, that
it)haer itri
ecst: use
Nothing had
fairer
mannerre so creditable to h
than
thestatementst
madee
by the learned counsel, and the jury therefore could have no
difficulty in giving a verdict for the defendant.
A verdict was then returned for the defendant.

DRANCKER ,AND ANOTDED V. •MOLTNEUX.
This was an action in which Mr. Thomas Brander, the
younger, and Mr. Thomas Martin, the assignees of the es-
tate and effects of Mr. Charles Hunaberston and Mr. Samuel
Frodsham, sought to recover from the defendant, Mr. Ed-
mund Molyneux, the value (about £3000) of 304 bales of
Uplands cotton, alleged to have been converted and disposed
of by the defendant.
an(c,;(sel for the plaintiffs, Mr. Alexander, Mr. Wightman,
Armstrong, and Mr. Crompton.
M ALEX t
was an action Mr. Cowling; for the defendant, Mr. Cresswell, Mr.
t i
ostatedil
i.h the
of
NDE
that this . - whichfa ettisi e
assigneesthe
s case.
of
He
Messrs.said
Humberston and Frodsham, commission merchants, lately
carrying
cot
on business i
value of 304 bales of in
Liverpool,
sought to recover the
cotton, , taken by the defendant and con-
verted to his own use.
believed that there would be no
difference as to the value of the cotton, and that the only
question would be whether th
ha hoped that he should be able to
was a lawful one, and
In 1835, Messrs. Humberston ailed For prove that it was not.
Frodsham who had since
become bankrupts, had a vessel named
made several voyages to America, and
Diamond, which
during the time a
mortgage was made to the present 'defend
securing to him £5OOO, and entitling him
mnt on the vessel,
a
seize the vessel and sell it. The circumstancest any
time to
which gave
rise to the present auction arose in 1837. There
was a Mr.
Thomas Baynes IVlolyneux residing at Charleston, with whom
w
Messrs. Humberston, Frodsham, and Co., were in the habit
of dealing. Ile made a purchase for them and sent it to this
country, and the action arose nut of this purchase. On the
31st October, 1836, Mr. John Toole, the captain of the Dia-
mond, received instructions to proceed to Charleston, and
take on board a" cargo of cotton, At the same time instruc-

tidos were sent to Mr. T. Y 3, Molyneux, at Charleston, di-
reefing him to purchwi a quantity of cotton for the Liver-
pool firm, and stating the prices. If cotton of a certain
quality could be obtained at a certain price, 300 bales were
to be shipped; if not,' 100 were to be left entirely to Mr.
Molyneux 's own choice. In the April of the following
year, Captain Toole went to Charleston and received from.
Mr. Molyneux 304 bales of cotton. Four bills of lading were
prepared, and they were to the order of the Liverpool house,
or their assignees. On the 13th of June, 1837, the vessel
arrived in Liverpool. On the preceding day, the 12th,
Messrs. Humberston and Frodsham had become bankrupts.
The Diamond, as he had stated. arrived on the 13th-; on
the 14th, the defendant, Mr. Edmund- Molyneux, went
on board the vessel, and fixed a notice on the mast, intima-
ting that the vessel was his property, and warning any per-
son from interfering with it. Within an hour after, the pro-
visional assignee under the commission of bankruptcy went
on board, and gave notice that the cargo belonged to the assig-
nees, and forbidding any one to touch it. There were, there-
fore, two claims ; that of the assignees, because they consi-
dered that the property of the cargo was vested in the assig-
nees, from the time of its being placed on board, and the
defendant claimed as the mortgagee of the ship. Toole, the
captain, was at a loss what to do, but, having got professional
assistance, he determined to disregard both' notices ; to get
the cargo landed and sold; and pay over the proceeds to some
person who might be fixed upon. This intention the captain
was -hindered from carrying into effect by the defendant, who,
on the 28th, sent a large posse of people on board the ship.
The cargo was afterwards discharged, on an understanding
that the same should be disposed of, the proceeds to be de-
tained, and await the ultimate determination of the court.
After having been a long time before the courts, the case had
at last come there, and a most important one it was, from the
value of the property at stake. There were two seizures by
the defendant, the first of which took place on the 14th, when
he claimed as mortgagee, and the second on the 28th; when
he claimed as the agent of Mr. Thomas B. Molyneux, of
Charleston. He first claimed as the owner of the vessel ;
and then he represented himself as the agent of Mr. T. B.
Molyneux. The defence he had now set up was, that he had
a right to stop the cargo, beeause it was goods in transitu,
and the property had not been in the bankrupt's possession ;
and he said that, in defiance of the vessel being in the pos-
session of the captain by themselves, of the vessel being their
own, subject, of course, to the mortgage, and of the bills of
lading being in their name. He (the learned counsel) thought
that the inference which the jury would draw from the facts
which would be laid before them would be, that the moment
the goods were delivered on board the vessel they became
the property of the Liverpool house, and that there could be
no stoppage in transitu. Mr. Alexander then noticed the
several pleas on the record, one of which afterwards gave rise
to a very long discussion.
Evidence and documents in proof of the facts were adduced..
Mr. CRESSWELL in the course of the examination, raised
several technical objections, which lie requested his lordship
to enter on his notes.

The plaintiffs case having ended.
Mr. CRESSWELL submitted that the plaintiffs must either
be nonsuited, or a verdict given for the defendant. The plain--
tiffs declared in trover for certain cotton. The defendant
justified with respect to, 304 bales, which he admitted to have
been placed on board of Toole's ship, and that certain cir-
cumstances existed with reference to those 304 bales which
made out a. justification. The plaintiffs admitted, that as to
those 30,1 bales placed on board of Toole's ship, they had no
answer, but said that they claimed in respect of other 304
bales. He (the learned counsel) therefore apprehended that
the plaintiffs were bound to prove 304 bales to which those
circumstances were applicable, and 304 other bales different
from those. That they had not done ; they had merely proved
one lot of 304 bales consigned to Humberston and Froclsham,
by Toole's ship.. He therefore contended that before the
plaintiffs could recover on their new assignment, they must
exhaust their plea, and then recover the surplus, just as in a
common action for assault and battery. It had been con-
tended on the other side, that although the cotton was the
same in both cases, the circumstances were different. The
truth was, that the plea applied to cotton ; whether the cir-
cumstances did or did not was'another thing. If they meant
to say that the circumstances did not apply, they should have
traversed. The question was this : was that plea of conver-
sion (the 4th) pointed to this cotton? If it was, than there
was an end of the case. If it were said that it was not, to
what other cotton did it apply? There was no evidence. from
beginning to end, of other cotton. They must make that out ;
it was not enough for them to say, " the circumstances in
your plea do not apply to this cotton," because they had not
traversed the circumstances. But the fact was that the plea
(the fourth) must apply to the 304 bales of cotton brought
over in Toole's ship, and which the defendant pleaded that
he had converted under circumstances which justified him,
and that plea had been admitted by the plaintiffs. It could
apply to none other, because none other had been proved.
He contended, therefore, that unless a different lCt was
proved, the plaintiffs must be nonsuited.
Mr. ALEXANDER, Mr. WIGHTMAN, and Mr. COWLING
opposed this view of the case. They contended that though
the 'defendant had put in a plea that a lot of 304 bales had
been legally converted by him, and that plea had been ad-
mitted, there was a lot of 304 bales which were under dif-
ferent circumstances to those which had justifiably been
stopped in transitu by him—a lot which the plaintiff alleged
he had no right to stop in transitu, and that he was bound
to show that it was subject to stoppage. The conversion of
which they spoke, was a conversion different to that acknow-
ledged to have been justified. The cotton might be the
same, but the circumstances were different, and they were
not . bound to show a different lot. They cited, as a prece-
dent,•the case of Bolton and Sherman.

The learned JUDGE—Then it a question whether_ you
are to prove a negative or they an affirmative. You say that
it lies on them to show that the ownership did not belong to
the bankrupts. _
_ _

Mr. COWLING did not care in whom the legal ownership
was vested. He claimed from actual possession, and con-
tended that as soon as the goods were placed on board the
vessel, the bankrupts were in possession. In the first place,
the defendant claimed as the mortgagee of the vessel, and of
the conversion which took place under that claim, they did
not complain ; but he afterwards claimed as the agent of Mr.
T. B. Molyneux, and they did complain of the conversion
which took place under that claim.

His LORDSHIP' without giving any opinion, overruled the
objection of Mr. Cresswell, that the point may be argued at
length before the higher court.
Mr. CRESSWELL then addressed the jury for the defen-
dant. The Messrs. Humberston and Frodsharn sent a vessel
to Charleston (to which vessel they had appointed their eayn
captain),- sor them nail bales of cotton, and to
draw on them for the amount. He shipped the cotton, and
drew on them for the amount •, but before the bills were paid
and the cotton had arrived, Messrs. Humberston and Frod-
sham had become insolvent. Clearly, therefore, the law
gave the original vendor of the goods the right to stop them
in transitu. But then Humberston and Frodsharn said,
with reference to that, we have made out that the ship was
ours, and the delivery to our captain, on the other side
of the Atlantic, was a delivery to us, so as to stop that
right of stoppage in transitu. But it had been shown in
evidence that there was another person who was part owner
of the vessel, [Mr. Taggart, a partner with Messrs. Hum-
berston and Frodsham, in a ship-building concern, carried
on in the Isle of Man], and they were bound to account to
him for the freight. There was the plainest proof of
that : in their own bills of lading they were bound to pay
freight-9-16ths of a penny sterling. If the ship were their
own, and they had not to account for any freight, would
they have put thatsinto the bill of lading?" But if the ship
were under mortgage, and the mortgagee got possession of
it before the goods were delivered, could Humberston and
Frodsham, as against the mortgagee, who on taking posses-
sion was entitled to all the freight, have brought that bill of
lading, and asked to have the goods delivered up without
paying freight ? He apprehended not, because it was strictly
the law that if any person became the endorsee of a bill of
lading, and claimed under it, he made him responsible for
the freight expressed in it. The mortgagee, then, had a clear
right to take possession of the ship • and how could Messrs.
Humberston Frodsharn claim the cargo without paying
the freight expressed in the bill of lading? Mr. Edmund
Molyneux took possession immediately after arrival, as mort-
gagee, and before the messenger of the bankrupts went on
board, and he kept possession from that time. The assignees,
on the other hand, preferred their claim ; but on the 28th of
the month, Mr. Molyneux said, " No ; I hold this cargo for
Mr. T. B. Molyneux, because he is an unpaid vendor."
Every act done for the benefit of another party, if afteruards
ratified, was as good in law as if it had been previously men-
tioned ; and did any one doubt that that act received the
sanction of Mr. T. B. Molyneux? The question for the jury
narrowed itself into this—were not the goods brought home
on freight, and not in the absolute possession of the Messrs.
Humberston and Frodsharn—were they not undelivered, and
actually stopped in transitu by Mr. Edmund Molyneux, and
by the ultimate sanction of Mr. T. B. Molyneux ? Those
were the only two questions of fact in the case, and he felt
confident that they would he decided in favour of the defend-
ant, and he expected that they should turn out to be equally
right on the question of law.
His LORDSHIP then summed up. He said that the plain-
tiffs, as assignees of Charles Humberston and Samuel Frod-
sham, complained of Mr. Edmund Molyneux, in an action
of trover, for the purpose of recovering the value of certain
bales of cotton, alleged to be their property, as the assignees
of Messrs. Humberston and Frodsham, and wrongfully con-
verted to his own use by the defendant. The defendant first
pleaded that he was not guilty, and by that plea put in issue
only the fact of conversion. He admitted that the property
did belong to the plaintiffs, and that if the goods were con-
verted at all, they were wrongfully converted by him. Now,
inasmuch as it appeared that the 304 bales of cotton had been
consigned, by bill of lading, to Messrs. Humberston and
Frodsham ; that they were in the possession of Toole, the
captain appointed by them; and that afterwards Mr. E.
Molyfieux took possession of them, and refused to deliver
them up, and actually disposed of them, that was a conver-
sion, leaving, of course, untouched the question as to whose
property the goods were, and the right to take possession.
On that plea, therefore, the verdict must be for the plain-
tiffs. The second plea was, that the plaintiffs were not the
assignees of Messrs. Humberston and Frodsham ; but the
jury had heard the evidence on that point, and he believed
there was no contention about any fact proved in evidence.
There had been a dispute as-to. the substitution of one peti-
tioning creditor for another, but there was nu. dispute as to
the plaintiffs being the assignees of the bankrupts, and there-
fore on that plea the jury would find also for the plaintiff 4.
Then there was a third plea, in which the defendant said
that the plaintiffs were not possessed of the goods as of their
own proper persons. The counsel for the defence con-
tended that the verdict on this plea should be for him, as it
appeared by the evidence that, although the captain of the
ship had been appointed by the bankrupts, and he had re-
ceived the goods for them, Mr. Edmund Molyneux, as the
mortgagee, took possession of the ship for himself, and of the
cargo for Mr. T. B. Molyneux, who, it was alleged, was the
consigner of the cotton, and consigned it to the bankrupts,
subject to the payment of freight, but that it did not reach
atahe ga
ei
he had
dds of the
of
marr.i
right
tmt
Edmund
owners,uddo
Molyneux,,
aoap ipide(i liittahtieni`difehtr:ea.
u2TrdB,ai
turß,t
through
If ot lsyeneme
ttiehxdo,
tono himt
e (the
outlt eoi learned
ioemada,case
judge),
which
becausehwoto%hruee
lvdue
captain
1,)
ttahi na justifyt thewt takos defendantjauprpyoii had
the verdicta
Messrs. Humberston and Frodsham, and was, thnieltreget bneyg,
them.th e i
tfhechloagtttoihgoehddedsnleiolv,ivteverierlyrpe,yoptnthuo.ortretielilliefeaoisfrre(e)dau, grtbeti e
garahs.
tTastoppage of delivery to
gone.facts u Thennd
er w Caine
hithech the
defendant
ni issue, us
sought
ugWhhti which
y
. B.
jaursotsiefyo
tuhtaot
in
plea
wasthefourthMoly-
neux,
and consigned by him to the bankrupts, and by him
shipped on board the vessel of Captain Toole Ldthey
were to be paid for by a draft on Humberston
and Co. ; that no payment had been made ; and that, while
Frodsham,hie
in the possession of Toole, and before they reached the 'lwa hands
of Hurnberston, Frodsham, and Co., they were stoppedlnbys
the defendant, as the owner of the ship, by a stoppage
transitu. Now, here the plaintiff might have, taken one, of
in
two courses; either he might have denied the facts stated in
the plea, or, as he had done, he might have admitted all the
facts as true, but said that they were no answer to his claim,
inasmuch as the action was not brought for the value of the
304 bales of cotton in the plea, but for the value of 304 bales
which the defendant had converted under other circumstances
hadthan t those.a ke
taken
place, On tahnis the
d which jury h ur
would h eparrodb the
abl discussionyru)
t end
therewh
• i c I i;
eit v
iddeepaecne,hdecsantoiaree
ito nh
aad pbocion of l
been admitted
a
by the
n any
counselparticular
for
the
plaintiff that there was, in point of fact, no other lot of cot-
ton, only that thoie hales were placed under different cir-
cumstances. Now, it appeared to him that they were bound
to prove that there were other bales of cotton converted by
else.
tßh.emd eofieynadeaunxt,
at hn adnt
ht
!lot si et
was
ai
not
ho
tweenroeu
enough
ho ntsoi ganheodwbtyh
airtrh.
same 304 bales were converted by the defendant under diffe-
rent circumstances, and without the justification alleged in

that plea. If it were so, they ought ttve traversed this
plea. The only question for the jury, eiis plea, was whe
ther, in point of fact, there were othesl bales converted
by the defendant than the 304 bales sic(' by Mr. T. B.
Molyneux, on board of the vessel in wssion of Captain
Toole, and consigned to Mcssrs. Huirston, and Frod-.
sham. If the jury were satisfied that to were not, and it
seemed to.be admitted that there ware then the verdict
on that issue must be for the defendant,
• The jury retired to consider their ver, but during their
absence the parties agreed to take the 'diet thus--on the
first, second, and third issues, for plair—fourth, for the
defendant.

LIABILITY OF INNKEEPEUS.—COON V. CARTER.
This was an action brought by Mr.'illiam Cookson, a
manufacturer., of waistcoat pieces, carig on business in
Kendal, against Jane Carter, the keepef the King's Arms
inn, in Old John's-lane, to recover thillue of a bag, said
to have been lost from the pre►nises of tlefendant, through
the negligence of herself and serval The defendant
pleaded not guilty
Mr. WATSON stated the ease for the intiff The plain-.
tiff was in the habit of travelling throughe country for or-
ders, taking with him a variety of speoms in a bag. On
the 6th of January last, he came to Limo!, and put at the
house of the defendant. )n the eve of the 9th, after
having been out seeking orders, he retied to the inn, de-
positing his travelling bag in the cornmeal-room, where he
himself sat down. Shortly after, a tas.and woman came
into the commercial-room, and the plaiff, not liking their
company, went into the news-room. N'tm the disagreeable
personS had gone, he returned into acommercial-room,
and ascertained that his hag had gone on the place where.
he had deposited it. It could not be, frid, and, no doubt,
had been taken by those two persons. ie value of the bag
was estimated at £42. 12s. 6d. Mr. 'itson said that as a
plea of not guilty had been entered, all it he should, by the
rules of pleading, have to prove, was, tt the hag had been
lost, and to call evidence to show the tile of the property
lost. He also wished to ask for damag for the loss of busi-
ness which had resulted to the plaintiff consequence of the
loss of his specimens ; but, on his lordip representing that
that was quite a novel claim to make i an innkeeper, Mr.
Watson abandoned it.

Richard Browne, who was, at the tie mentioned, boots
at the King's Arms, stated that he sav,he plaintiff's bag in
the commercial-room about seven o'cl:k on the evening of
the 9th of January.

Mr. William Charles Stripe, tailor mt draper, White-
chapel, proved that about five o clock c the same evening
Mr. Cookson called at his shop, havi; then with him his
hag of specimens, and that on the folloing morning, when
he again called according to appointmet he was without it.
Witnesses were called to show the v.the of the specimens,
which was estimated at a much lower amount than that
claimed.

Mr. CRESSWELL, who appeared for the defence, said that
though an innkeeper was undoebtedly lable for the loss of
any of his guests' property, when that bss was owing either
to his own negligence or that of his ervants, he was not
liable when the loss resulted from the bait of the guest him-
self; and that, he contended, was the case in the present
instance. On the evening mentioned, Mr. Cookson saw a -
man and a woman, or a gentleman ant a lady, or whatever
other title might be more suitable, n.ndiag in the passage,
and they asked him the way into the louse, he showed them
into the commercial-room, and then plitely requested them
to take a seat near the fire. They, hwever, refused, and
presently after the old gentleman (theplaintiff). went out of
the travellers'-room into the news-roan ; laughing at what
he conceived to he a very merry occurence ;—he had seen
the man chuck the woman under the ©iii, and toying with
her. lie told the. company in the net-room what he had
witnessed, and added, " I have come of of the traveller's-
room, for fear of spoiling good sport." lie was asked what
he meant, when lie told of his having itroduced a man and
woman, who seemed to him at first to bather and daughter,
into the commercial-room; but he har]now found out that
hiS first idea was incorrect, as he had sen the old man chuck
the young woman under the chin, ail --. When Mr.
Ford, a person who assisted in the mangemerf. of the inn,
heard Cookson speak in that light =mix of the two persons,
he went, as a necessary precaution, intothe room, but found
two very respectable looking person;; nt at all answering the
description given by the plaintiff. He (dr. Cresswell) would
also prove that when the bag was lost, ;ookson said, " Oh,
it is no matter ; when she (taking it foi granted that the fe-
male was the thief) finds what is in thebag, she will he dis-
appointed. She has got a few thing that, if she makes
patchwork of, they willnot cover a chair;- they are not Worth
25." .The plaintamight, undoubtedly,have meant that they
would not he worth 2s. to her ; but sfll the way in which
he spoke, showed that the estimate tint day- upon the lost
specimens, was a most extravagant one.
Mr. Ford, the manager referred to, was called, and testified
to the facts opened by Mr. Cr-eswel. He also deposed,
that on the evening named he saw Nr. Cookson enter the
house, and that he had not-then his lag with him. When
the plaintiff mentioned his loss, witness asked him whether
he had brought his bag in. The plaintiff hesitated, but at
last said that he had.

Other witnesses were called. His Lonns II IP then summed
up, and the jury found for the plaintiffs—damages, twenty
shillings.
The court rose at seven o'clock. .

, .
• Once or twice during the afternoon there was extreme dif-
ficulty, and at length an impossibility,in raising a jury. The
following gentlemen; who had been called over in the•early
part of the afternoon, and again in the evening, and who did
not • answer on either occasion, were ordered by his lordship
to be fined :—MessrF. William. Carter, John Eaton, Ben-
jamin Fletcher, John Grantham, John Harrison, . Henry
Higson, Lister, JameS Nasmyth,
.John Pilling, Daniel
K. 'leak-, Peter Saville,,Daniel Waterhouse, and John Ware,
ham. The'list of absentees would nodouk have been found
much greater, had not Mr. Sergeant Atcherley entered into
conversation with his lordship with respect to a case which
he wished to have tried that night,
.but stating that it seemed
to him needless to attempt getting a jury. During•the con-
versation, the jury which had retired came in, and. they were
empanelled to try the case, though sorely against their in-
clination.

CROWN COURT.—SATURDAY.
Mr. Justice Coleridge, who had dotted the scarlet and
ermine in favour of his black silk gown and short wig, took
his seat a few minutes after nine o'clock. His lordship looked
considerably the worse for his labours in Liverpool, which
have, undoubtedly, been very severe. -
"
sIiiNEY PLUNKETT.

His LORDSHT p asked if the above-named parties were in
court, and, shaving:been answered in the affirmative, he or-
dered that they: should stand. up. •
The defendants, .who were sitting on two of the sfeits op-
posite to his lordship, usually occupied by counsel, immedi-
ately arose.
His Loumfiiitv, addressing the prisoners, said :—EdWard
Sydney, Plunkett and Henry Cash, you are now to receive
the sentence of the_court for the offenees of which the jury
who tried you have, .after a very long investigation and the
examination of ,many witnesses, found: you guilty. You,
Edwa.ed Sydney-Plunkett, have bien convicted of having par-
ticipated in.the-rescue of a fellow-officer, named Prase'', from
a sheriff's officer of the county,- and of an assault on Mrs.
Burgoyne ; and you, 'Henry Cash, have been convicted, by
the same jury, of an assault only on the person of John Bur-
goyne. His lordship proceeded to say, that, had this been.
a case of mere assault, and had the verdict been to that effect,
he should still have regretted that gentlemen of their station
and profession should so far have forgotten themselves, under
whatever circumstances of annoyance, as to have committed
such an assault. He could not but think., and the feelings of
all gentlemen, he was sure, would go with him, that even an
insult from persons in the station of the parties assaulted
should have passed without any such notice as had been taken
of it, as the line of conduct which had been adopted supposed
a sort of equality which did not exist. Though Mr. Plunkett
had disclaimed the kick; he had not disclaimed the use of im-
proper language ; and be (the learned Judge) greatly re-
gretted, that the defendants had so far forgotten themselves.
He said nothing of the person assaulted by Mr. Plunkett
being a woman, because he entirely acquitted him of any un-
manly feeling in the action ; and he believed that he did not
kick at her with the intention of doing her any bodily injury.
He regretted that this was not the only circumstance in the
case of Mr. Plunkett, for he had been found guilty of an of-
fence which, committed by any person, the law regarded as one
of great magnitude, but, committed by a soldier, it was greatly
aggravated. He had always considered theprofession of a soldier
as one of the most honourable, but it was only honourable inits
combination with the character of citizen. A soldier never
drew his sword with propriety unless in defence of the liber-
ties of his country or in support of its laws, and he never
bore it honourably unless he bore it among his countrymen
as a fellow-citizen. It was a melancholy state of society
when it was otherwise, but what could be expec,ed, if
soldiers found, in their officers, an incentive to break the
laws? He had, in the course of this trial, heard of one cir-
cumstance, which he noticed with great pain. It was, that
one of the soldiers had said, that the magistrates held their
places only by the support of the military. He thanked God
it was not so, and he hoped it never would be so ; but that
soldiers should speak thus, when they were led by their
officers to violate the laws, was not much to be wondered at.
It was the interference of the soldiery with the civil power
that gave this case its peculiar features of aggravation. He
always regretted exceedingly when the sentence of the law
was likely to be attended by any collateral effect, and he
should be very sorry if, in this case, the sentences which he
felt it his duty to pass were attended by any other conse-
quence than the punishment inflicted by their fulfilment.
He should deal with them as if there were to be no ulterior
result, and, so far as he had any power or influence, he
should use it that such might be the case, as he should con-
ceive the ends of justice fully answered. His lordship passed
sentence as follows :—The sentence of the law on you,
Edward Sydney Plunkett, is, that, for this offence, you be
imprisoned in the Castle of Lancaster for a period of twelve
calendar months ; that, at-the expiration of that period, you
enter into recognizances, 'yourself in five hundred pounds,
and two sureties' in one hundred pounds each, that you be of
good behaviour and keep the peace towards all her Majesty's
subjects for the space of two years. The sentence upon you,
Henry Cash, is, that you be imprisoned in the Castle of Lan-
caster for a period of three calendar months ; that, at the
expiration of that period, you enter into recognizances, your-
self in three hundred pounds and two sureties in one hundred
pounds each, that you be of good behaviour, &c. for the space
of two years.

During the delivery of the above address and sentence,
Mr. Cash stood looking fixedly at the Judge, with a smile
on his face. Mr. Plunkett, who is a gentlemanly-looking
young man, hung down his head, and appeared ashamed
and dejected. The parties were immediately beckoned by
Mr. Amos, who was in the dock, and they walked reluc-
tantly into his custody.
Immediately after sentence being passed upon Mr. Plun-
kett and Mr. Cash, his LORDSHIP addressing the bar and
auditory said, in effect—l wish to take this opportunity to
remove an erroneous impression, which, I regret, has gone
abroad, with reference to some remarks that fell from me re-
garding the prosecution, at an early period of the assizes, of
two men—l. believe Larkin. Lee and William Pearce. I
must have been greatjy misunderstood in what I stated on
that occasion, if it could be so construed as to imply that I
meant to cast any reflection, with respect to the commitment
of the parties, upon the magistrate who sent them for trial.
On the contrary, I now distinctly state that I had not even
the magistrate in my mind at the time. I certainly did make
some strong remarks with reference to the manner in which
one one of the prisoners had been dealt with, but I alluded
solely to those who conducted the prosecution. A charge of
uttering forged notes had been brought against that man, and
when it was found that it could not be sustained before the
Grand Jury, it was intended that he should be used as an
innocent witness against the other prisoner, Lee, after he,
(Pearce) had been detained in gaol from the month of
August. This I considered reprehensible, and Ido not with-
draw any observation I then made respecting the course
taken by the attorneys for the prosecution ; but I repeat that
I disclaim having imputed any blame to the committing
magistrate, who acted only on the evidence brought before
him.