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

. .
4,,z,
"Pkrupt was a most interested witness, and on him the whole
of 1 he plaint iirs case depended.
'_.llisft LW; osu IP. summed up at great length and with much
raie, and the jury, after retiring for an hour, found on the 2nd
101 th and' Ilth pleas tbr the plaintiff, and on all the rest for the
tlfendaut..

ROGERSON AND ANOTHER V. ROSCOE—ESCAPE.
Air. Alexander and Mr. Crompton appeared fur the plaintiff,
and Mr Cresswell for the defendant.
ti The declaration stated, that one Charles Gardner was indebt-
ed to the Plaintiffs .and that the.y,sued out a writ in court, and
directed it to the defendant, who is Sergeant at Mace, and that
he arrested Gardners and afterwards let him escape. The de-
fendant pleaded first nut guilty, and, second, that he did not ar-
rest him.
The plaintiffs in this case, Messrs. Rogerson and Minton, are
linen drapers at Liverpool, and the defendant is Sergeant at
Mace fur the Borough. The office of sergeant at mace is simi-
lar to that of sheriff's officer. haviug the same duties, responsibi-
lities, and liabirities. In the month of August last, a person
namerl.Gardner chartered a ship for New York, and ordered a
quantity of goods to the amount of .02 17s. from the plaintiff, to
lie: paid for OD delivery. The goods were delivered but not paid
for, and the plaintiffs beCause anxious for payment, and some
inquiries were :made resarecting Gardner which induced them
to take uut a warrant to arrest him for payment. Mr. Minton
Went with the pincers to Gardner's lodgings, and there request-
ed to see the goods. Gardner showed them a small portion ;
said he could not pay, and offered to return what goods were
there, about third of worth. The plaintiffs said that would not
do, and ordered,the officers to their duty, and he was arrest-
ed. Gardner remained in thc; custody of the officers, and pre-
sently two friends of his came to see hiM and speak of a settle-
"'Bent. Gardner wished to speak with a friend at the door, and
was allowed to do so, and riot returning soon, the of cers.got up
to see after him. and then found that he was gone and he had
never Since been heard Of: The plaintiffs
,having thusl lost their
goods, and the security of Clardner's"person.. had no alternative
but tit come upon' the sergeant at mace, who had •e-uffered the
escape.
Witnesses were called to prove the sale of the goods, and the
amount of the debt. When the defendants- were called on to
produce the warrant,. they. not do this, but produced another;
the warrant was not produced, the defendants saying they could
trot find it, and the plaintiffs were in consequence non-suited.

PAYNE V. NIGHTINGALE AND ANOTHER.
This • was an, action brought by Mr:Payne, who is a boat-
builder at Stratford-on-Avon ; and the delendants,•John Nlght-
ingale and John Banks are assignees of a bankrupt named
klughes, who hired several of the defendant's boats. The bank-
rupt had his own.name put on his boats, and at the time of his
bankruptcy, the boats were sold by his assignees foi- the benefit
0f his creditors; and this action was brought to recover the
boats or their value. A number of witnesses were called to
prove, that it was customary for wharfingers and carriers to
rent boats and paint their own name's on theni, and that they
Would by no means have credit giVen Mein on account.of such
apparent properly, as it was a well understood custom. For
the. defence it was contended, that where a person allowed his
Prourrty to be so used by 'another as if it was his own, on such
Person becoming bankrupt the assignees had a right to sell such
Pf'ipertY as if it were in. reality his own, because the law Ore-
Sniued that by -appareufly•being possessed of such property he
otmoined creit.. • • •
'the Jury found a verdict. for the plaintiff.

(gefiwe'Sii• John Pattesvn.)
Ills Lordship took fiis.seat,itt nine o'clock.

ALLEGED LIWEL-SALMON V. PATTISSON

. .
This was an action brought by the plaintiff. William Salmon,
4o.Etnigration.Agent iti-this town; against Mr. R. Pattisson, to
rocover compensation in damages for an- alleged libel, in the
Publication ofa certain paragraph in the Li vEapool. STANDgILD,
of which the defendant is proprietor,
Mr. Mt annir HARDEN appeared for the plaintiff;
and Mr..WAT.SOR for the defendant.
Mr MuttPli'y opened the pleadings. The plainit's declara-
tioh charged the defendant with' composing and publishing the
following libel in the LivsneooL STAN DA tti) of the sth of De-
veuther last .

"CHEATING EMlGRANTS.—Yesterday, an application was
Inade by Mr. Jones the assistant. emigration agent stationed
here by government to prevent the frauds which are continually
Practised upon emigrants, for a summons, against William
Salmon of the American packet-office. Mr. Jones stated that
representation had been mains to hint y to yung men front
Ireland named James Kennedy and John Aleo Toolmin, that
they came to Liverpool on Friday morning with the intention
of emigrating to America. They were advised by a person
Named Fay, to 'go with.him to the American packet office, which
they did, and made an agreement with the Agent or Broker,
whose name is William Salmon, for a steerage passage to New
Orleans, by the ship " Boeser---Sheerrnan," for which they paid
',tint at the time £8 and they were to be pht on hoard, with their
niStZage. free of expense of water or land carriage. On Saturday
morning they went and called on Mr. Salmon according to
agreement, when they were told to give up their ticket and re-
"tiled another in its place. They were then told.that they must
P33' 7s. for the cartage of their luggage, which being contrary to
their agreement on the first ticket, they remonstrated againt it,
(luring which the boat sailed away, and Mr. Salmon refused to
send them nit board ; and shortly after, the vessel went to sea.
rheY paid to a waterman to he put on board, but could not
lift near the vessel, and had to teturn to Liverpool with them.
Mr. Hall granted a summons against Mr. Salmon, and the case
to to be heard to-day at (o'clock." • .
.To this the defeudauthad offered three pleas :—First, that he
I
not publish the libel. Secondly, that it was a true statement
°J.what took place before the Magistrate, awl that the facts and
'lden in
instances in the libel eutioned, were true, and that the
Pll,'iPtiff did cheat the parties named. And third, that the plain-
I.,,'4Aid-Utosin the eight polinds under false pretences, and there -
e!h(l6fenclant had a iits4rt to publish. To the first plea, the
nl
7al°tilt-Yoined issoe. the second, he demurred in law, that
las no justificetion for 'the defendant to -publish an exports
inquiry before a
stet rlept of what took place itt a preliminary
[rate. To the third plea, the plaintiff repo e ,denying
e'rendant'i statement of. having olitairted the money under
ilse Pretences, upon which issue was joined.
s„' issue
"e is iii law hail, on the preceding evening, been decidheforeed
the Judges, in l'evotir of the defendant, on the ground
i'l,4t the latter Ma only said it. was a true statement, but also
"'flowed it up by Stating that the plaintiff did cheat, and under-
t°ok to prove by his •plea the cheating, whiclathe,plaintiff ought
to have denied.
Mr. Atte Y proceeded to address the jury—The plaintiff in
this case, lie 'said, was Mr. NV ili iain-Salmon, an Eimgraut Agent
and Passenger Broker, in Bath-street, carrying on an extensive
business in arranging for the conveyance of passengers to foreign
countries. Ile was also a dealer in provisions, mid an agent
for Messrs. Robinson, who.lere also Passenger Brokers. The
defendant, Mr. Pattisson, was the proprietor and editor of the
LivenPoot. Sr aNDS no newspaper, published in thistowu. It was
his duty in this situation to see that what passed into his paper
did not contain- any reflection on- Mr. Salmon, calculated to do
him the deep injury that this would, if not vindicated. At one
period it was supposed that the law, in extending the liberty of
the press, wapiti put the mildest construction on the publica-
tion of statements of what had actually taken place. The course
of modern decision had been to put the plainest and most ob-
vious meaning on the words. Premising thus far, he would pro-
ceed to analyze this libel, end would state the circumstances
r kelyto affeet'the character of bii,client. It was quite evident
that' the libel had been published upon an exparte statement and
net after a full' and.searching investigation. He was quite as
great an advocate for the full liberty of the press in all matters
r.elating to subjects: of public discussion as any man. But he
(.1.1(1 complain that an .expaite statement like this should-be pub.
usher',. Ile complained that Mr. .Pattisson had taken upon
uirnself, in the preliminery stage of- such a proceeding, to pre-
judge the matter by prefixing such a head as that of " Cheating
Kinigrants" as though it. were done to express, even before the
Public had an opportunity of reading what was set down, that it
was the conviction of Mr. Pattisson that the plaintiff had been
steating. The jury,-as Englishmen, were advocates for fair play.
They would not say that the prejudging of a case in the man-
wer they had heard possessed'any point of that character of
fair play. The law, though there was some doubt as to how far
the report of a decree in a police court might be a justification
bad, yet deemed that any superadded comment on the part of
the writer or editor was libellous. Mr. Pattisson had not
added any comment, lint he had taken upon himself to pro-
Uounce his opinion definitively that the action was cheating.
He did not come into court to ask them for vindictive damages,
but Only to ask for such reasonable compensation as would
't"nd forth his client to the world at large with his character
fully vindicated. The application in question was made by
a Mr. Jones. The learned
.gentleman here stated the nature
aplication, which appears both in the paragraph,
'aged top be libellous, and in the course of the evidence. Here
was a case copied into a newspaper, on the statements of other
People—yet was this head prefixed at once denominating the
action cheating. The case was brought before Mr. Hall, the
Bripendiary magistrate. There was the complaint of one party
-against another, but a third party interposed, and did that unon
'Which 4he law looked with eminent displeasure. The libel
-stated that the passengers were to be put on hoard " free of
elpense." They would see that the charge rested principally
upon this. He would however prove that Mr. Salmon was in
reality the party sought to be over•reached by the two people,
instead of his having tried to overreach them. The learned
gentleman bore 'recounted the presumed facts, which he ex-
pected to lie established by the evidence of his witnesses, oh
amercing, that any pelSoam-410 would try to overreach Mr. Sal-
, would also be plausible enough to try to fix blame upon
at'ro
iut tHhee7",..0...°11,4 prove, that Mr. Salmon was- never consulted
two by
car the two men were charged, he would bring
unmet by carry"'n: 'would prove that they fairly earned this
Chat the Partiels-7-I..uggage and gqing for straw for the men.
through not
-clerk offerne(Clt pyinegrethkept back from going with the vessel
rgs and that Mr. Sherlock's'
lhe men silo ,t° Pay 2s. fid.out of his own pocket, rather than
.well as thet.ilc)i Miss their passage, he having' previously, as
Pallnen, many times pressed the men to go on
Ward' the boat whia-waS The- libel was most. invidis
ouslv
g„rd'e,tworded; therefore, it was that he had said the law re-
tie libels,shoui( according the plain meaning of the words:
. show by evidence that Mr. Salmon was not at tha
pier when the men were detained. It was sought in show that
the ticket was changed, and Mr. Salmon, with the view of
cheating the emigrants, changed fhe ticket. He would show
he only did his duty in this; that emigrant agents were
'the'employed by charterers of vessels to procure passengers; that
I.h agent first gave a ticket, and that afterwards, on handing
ttre money over to the charterers, the latter gave a ticket, which
'was handed tip the 'passengers, when the first ticket was, of
c:n4rse, token back. 'lbis was .the course
of business. Would
they look at the terms of that libel? It said that his client sub-
tgttuted one ticket for another for the purpose of cheating the
!n nn man. Was it too much, if be showed that a change of
Itsket was the actual course of business, to ask them to send
lortli his client vindicated to the world ? He would suppose any
kthe gentlemen of the jury taking up this newspaper. He
linew very well that persons who had business avocations did
°.l read attentively from tbe commencement of a paper. They
.
y. skimmed over the surface to catch what was interesting.
4,',fr.ese would at once be caught by such a title as that—
hf..4eting Emigrants!" They would look over it and that
Salmon had baf.n doing this, add there was, he believed,
in` one person in fifty who would not, on reading such a thing
. !hat cursory manner, imagine th matter had been adju-
bele!ted upon. How often might these t/erecters of individuals
Anlif4Matised if it were not for an investigation of this nature ?
tot; ,was it not proper therefore that Mr. Pattisson should be
ai_• eu upon to answer for that stigma which he ha cast upon
l'hey might, if they had pleased, have gone
e9list him in another way. They might have proceeded by a
e47.inal prosecution. Mr.-Pattisson had pleaded a justification
ficat!lry now appeared against him, and challenged that justi-
th," rt. 'Flie defendant had had the hardihood-to place upon
re,eord that the Plaintiff had received id from each of the men,
lhtwhich he bad entered into an engagement which he' never
ended to ftilfil. If he proved that-the boat was ready to take
urea ass.
ay, and tnat they were urged to go away, no one
It _ a ay that his client did not intend to fulfil his engagement.
Hs plain as that the sun shone, that if the men had not
ore.(l_ obstinately, they might at that moment have been at New
to hit44B- If the plaiatig lut,oolerl- to prove otherwise, he ought
eanie l'"ooshl. these men. But they were in Ireland. If they
the and moved thsi Salmon had caused their detention,
tr the - •
if it,We' July sti.,,,Thtize Mr. Salmon by their verdict.
Pei ere 011, lerWise, ss.ald have to depend upon merely
lit,„1„, evidence, -1.1,,,:,, were other matters which would he
&At kfoie them. Court of Requests beet:, and the

„ .
eVidence of Mr. • Hall, the stipendiary magistrate, a gentleman
whom he (toe learned counsel) highly respected. A more
upright, or intelligent gentleman, never sat upon a bench.
Did they think, that if Mr. flail bad thought the ease such as
had been represented, that he Would not have put it fur indict-
ment at the sessions: But no such thing. Mr. Hall did nut
decide upon it, but endeavoured to reconcile the matter by
suggesting that Mr. Salmon shtmld return the money. In the
Court of Requests' to which the matter was afterwards taken,
the parties obtained a decree against Mr. Salmon for £B. But,
if Mr. Salmon had caused the detention by the charge for
porterage, which the men refused to'pay, did they not think that
the decree would have been given for the 7s. also? One word
with regard to the words ” free of all expenses." Mr. Salmon
agresd to pay the cartage, if it did not exceed a certain amount.
Mr. Salmon never could have meantto pa' all the expenses that
might be incurred by these individuals. This they would see when
they *considered the smallness of the sum paid. The only question
remaining was that of damages. He did not want any severe
damages, but, as he had before stated, his'client wished his cha-
racter to be fully vindicated against the charge of obtaining
money under false pretences. He would be content that they
should tell Mr. Pat tisson by their verdict that he was not to make
his newspaper a vehicle for slander. There were persons who
showed their greatness of mind by laughing at the imputations
cast against them in newspapers. Mr: Salmon, however, was
a man in humble circumstances. II is character was all be bad
to depend on; all that he had estimable; all that he held dear
were to be nurtured by that character. Again he said he asked
not .for vindicative damages, but for such damages as should
show to thd world that Mr. Salmon had been ill used. The
issues for the jury to try 'were whether the defendant (lid pub-
lish the libel, or whether the plaintiff had obtained ES under
false pretences. . .
The.learned counsel for the plaintiff proceeded to call his
witnesses.

William Horner stated that he was clerk with James and
William Robinson, late Robinson Brothers. They kept the
American. Packet Officce. He remembered on the sth of De-
cember last going to the shop of Mr. Pattisson and purchasing
a copy of the Standard newspaper. (Paper produced.) He
marked it. (The paper was handed into the coart.)

Cross-examined. b,y Mr. WaTsort.—Mr. Salmon was clerk to
Mr. Robinson. Was not a crimp, nor did he know what a
crimp was.- Witness did not ply at the Irish steam vesseli to
look out for emigrants. People came to the office or their own
accord. Mr. Salmon had no people to run after passengers,
but Messrs. Robinson had : they usually came to the office and
said- that they wanted a passage. He did not know of any
cheating that took place.
Mr. WATsoN.—Have you ever had any complaint .against
you? Witness: no; had not heard of any complaints of Mr.
Salmon cheating. Had heard people had asked for money
back from him. Knew Mr. Low, a lieutenant in the
navy, by sight. He did not know of any sharp look out that
was kept by Lieut. Lowe or Mr. Jones alter him. He did not
know what Lieut. Love's business was.. He believed he was
government
placed here by tohear any complaints that might
be lodged. He did nut see the two men alluded to, but he was
on the Pier Head and saw the Roger Sherman sail. The bag-
gage of the two men was, at first, on board the steam-packet,
and it was carried to the Pier Head. Ile bought the news-
paper on the fifth of December. He did not carry any letter
from Mr. Salmon to the newspaper to be inserted. He -did not
take au v letter from Mr. Salmon to the Stfindend.office with a
request that it might be published. He had heard from Mr.
Salmon that be had,published,a letter in his justification. He
had never heard Mr. Salmon say that he-had written anything
attacking Lieut. Lowe. He saw a person named Higgins at
the Pier Head. Higgins was in the store that morning
John Grierson stated that he was.a clerk with W. and J.
Robinson. Mr. Salmon had been in their company. His
business was to engage passengers for any vessel that Messrs.
Robinson might have. (A paper was here handed up. to the
witness.)• That was an authority from Mr. Robinson to Mr.
Salmon to book 'passengers •by the Roger Sherman. Mr. Sal-
mon had an office iu Bath-street. It was common among emi-
gration agents to give tickets out of the ticket-book, and after-
wards, wheu the money was paid to the charterers of the vessel,
to get a ticket from theme which was given to the passenger,
and the fist ticket taken back.
Cross-examined by Mr. WATSON.
. .

The witness here, iii reply to some questions of the learned
counsel, repeated the course of business. Could not say that he
had ever heard any complaint against Mr. Salmon. He had
heard people complain.
George Sherlock stated that he was a passenger broker and
emigrant agent. In November last, he chartered a vessel for
New Orleans, called the Roger Sherman. He entered into an
arrangement with Messrs. Robinson,. brokers, .for booking
passengers by this vessel. He was acquainted with Mr. Salmon,
the plaintiff. Mr. Salmon was employed by Messrs. Robinson
Brothers to book passengers. He recollected, on the ist of
December last, Mr. Salmon ailing at his office and paying
seven pounds. He gave him five shillings back. Mr. Salmon
paid that for the passage of two men by the Roger Sherman.
He gave him a ticket out of his book, which had included in it
the names of both men, Kennedy and M'Farlane. That ticket
would entitle them to a passage by . the Roger Sherman, and
was also a receipt for the cash. - He would, however, have ac-
cepted Salmon's ticket. The snore regular course was, for the
charterer to give a ticket. His own boat was there for the pur-
pose of carrying any men on board that day. Ile sent a clerk
named Duffey to superintend the embarkation on the afternoon
of the Ist of December. The vessel did not sailas was expected.
She did not ia,il until Saturday. If the men had then gone on
board there was a birth for them.
Cross-examined by Mr. WATSON.—The Roger Sherman was
about 510 tons register. There were about twenty passengers
on board, but there was accommodation for thirty. Had been
an emigration agent eight or ten dears. Mr. Salmon was a
clerk for several years, and an agent two or three. When Mr.
Salmon paid him the £7 he returned him 55., because he coin-,
plained.that he was not making much money and times were
hard, and he gave it to him as a gratuity. He should think
about ten thousand emigrants sailed annually from this port.
He could not judge accurately. He did not tnean to all parts.
His business was confined to the States, and to the States he
alluded. He knew Lieut. Lowe and Mr. Jones. They were
appointed here to see, emigrants righted. They had not'been
troublesome to him. Less so than to any man in Liverpool,
They had not troubled him at all. He conducted his business
in such a manner,as to be independent of them.
Thomas Fay, stated that he kept a lodging and boarding
house. Heremeinbered that he took two men to the plaintiff's
office in Bath-streettheir names were Kennedy and McFar-.
lane. Theienanaes were put down in a book.
By Mr. WATSON.—There was a ticket written out and they
got it. "jig,,
As it appeared that this ticket had been destroyed, it became
necessary to prove that such was the case.
Thos. Bruton called.—Witness stated that he was a porter.
On Saturday' morning the 2d December, Mr. SherloCk gave
him a ticket. Ile gave that ticket to the passengers, Kennedy
and McFarlane, and got back from them the ticket which had
been first given to them. He took it back to Mr. Salmon, who
tore it to pieceS, and threw it down in Dennison-street. There
was no writing on the back of that ticket which he brought back
(a ticket produced and handed up to witness). That was like
the ticket, but it was riot it:

Cross-examined by Mr. WazsoN. Ile was a lodging-house-
keeper as well as a porter, but did not take emigrants exclu-
sively as lodgers. He was not in the employ of Mr. Salmon.
He was a porter, hut Mr. Salmon never employed him. He
knew how to read and write a'little. The names of Kennedy
and McFarlane were on the ticket. They were on the pier
Head of the Princess. Dock when he went.—The boat was at
the out-side steps, as soon as he got the other ticket he went to
Salmon's office, in Dennison-street, which was a public
thoroughfare. .He gave this ticket to Mr. Salmon in the street.
Upon his oath he saw Mr. Salmon destroy the ticket, and
thtow it down in the street. He could not say how many
pieces Mr. Salmon tore it into, but he was certain that he did
tear it, and throw it upon the pavement, it might have been
trodden upon by the passengers, hut he could not say it was. He
(witness) went away and Mr. Salmon stayed behind. He was
not there when the -boat went. He was not there at the inves
tigation before Mr. Hall, nor at the court of requests. He was
otherwise engaged. He did not read the tickets which he go
from the men. He could not say that IL contained the wordst
"Free from cartage-and all other expences."
By Mr. MURPHY.—PIies for hire for any one.
Thomas Fay recalled.—He took the two men into the office
as before stated, and a negotiation took place. He saw a ticket
written by Mr. Salmon's clerk, Walter Mac Intyre, but he (lid
not read it, Mr. Salmon said that he would get the luggage
carried for them as the cartage would not be more than nine-
pence or a -shilling. Mt. Salmon also said that he'had a boat
in his employ, and he would send them from the Pier-head.
Their luggage had to be brought from the Clarence Dock.
They were to get it themselves, for he (Mr. Salmon) would
have nothing to do with porterage. The men said they were
going to America to earn money by their labour, *and they
Would be their oven porters. He had three shillings and six-
pence, that was, the Men had paid £8 for their passage, and he
received seven shillings for his coMpanion and himself-of which
,
his share was three shillings and sixpence.
Cross-examined by Mr. WATSON.—He was paid the three
shillings and sixpence for bringing the passengers to Mr. Sal.
mon.. They gave him the seven shillings for catching the men.
,Ele kept a lodging-house, and went catching men besides. He
caught men for W,and J. Robinson and others. Was not before
Mr. Hall nor at the Court of Requests.

•
Mr. WATSON proceeded to crosS-examine the witness at some
length, respecting his having been at a certain public-house in
Waterloo-road recently, in company with the plaintiff, but
nothing material Was elicited.
Walter APlntyre stated that he was formerly in the employ
of Messrs. Robinson, but he was not so at present. He recol-
lected two persons named Kennedy and M.Farlane coming to
him about a passage by the
,Roger Sherman, New Orleans.
They were brought by the last witness' Fay. They were to pay
£4 each. They said their baggage was in the steam-boat at
the Clarence Dock, and they had arrived that morning from
Ireland. After the passage were taken, Mr. Salmon said; that
probably the 'vesSel • would sail that evening, and they might
have to go on board at three o'clock, but as he was not the
charterer of the ship he would go down to Mr. Sherlock and get
the ticket, and see what time theboat was to leave. Mr. Sal-
men had a bad leg, and he requested him (witness) to take
them to Sherlock, pay the money, and get the tickets. There
was nothing more said, but that Mr. Salmon said, " He would
pay for a cart to carry the luggage from the Clarence Dock to
the Pier Head, which would not be more than ninepence
or a shilling—more than that he would • not pay." He told
them that they would not surely be above their own business.
That they might be their own masters, They said, certainly
not. They were going to emigrate to look for work, Mr, Sal-
mon said they were positively to have their luggage ready; as
carters are paid for lops of time for waiting, and he would not
be answerable for more than 9d. to Is. Ile (witness) wrote the
ticket; there was nothing. in the ticket about being " free of
all expense." They were to have the luggage there before them
on deck. He expected the vessel to sail that afternoon. Their
luggage was taken first to Mr. Salmon's store ; it was after-
wards ascertained that the vessel would not sail till the follow-
ing morning, and Mr. Salmon allowed the luggage to be lett
there, and said he would not charge any thing for it.
Cross-examined by Mr. WATSON.—He attended before Mr.
Hall, and the Court of Requests. He was etainined. He vas
not in Mr. Salmon's employ now. He left because business
was dull. He kept a lodging house. He did not ply on the
pier-head. The men did not want to go on board that night.
The examination before Mr. Hall took place on the Tuesday
following. Mr. Jones was there. Mr. Jones, he believed, was
appointed to prevent frauds upon emigrants. Mac Farlane, and
the other men were there. Mr. Salmon was also there, with
Mr. Davenport, his attorney. Mr. Salmon, he dare say, heard
every word the young men said. Witness did not write a copy
of the original ticket. He did notswear before the magistrates
that he had written a copy of that ticket. He wrote a copy
which was produced before Mr. Hall. He wrote that copy on
the Monday following, from the check 'book. Did not see the
original ticket again. He beard it was destroyed. Mr. Salmon
told him it was either mislaid (Sr 'destroyed. He said he could
not find it. Mr. Hall did not take down the examination in
writing.
Mr. WATsoN.—Did not Mr. Hall ask you if you had de-
stroyed the ticket ?
Witness.—Can't remember. •
Mr. WA:rs,iis: —Did not Mr. Hall' ask
you if yOn suede a
copy of the ticket ?
Witne.s.—l think not.
Mr. \V smoN.—,Did nut Mr. Hall say these words ? " Then