The Liverpool Standard and General Commercial Advertiser.
Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1843-04-11 00:00:00

lith i•tt i.

~1~i~4•~~.i~

doh
there Stiff fey person at the titue and if in the tecuit, the
jury should be of opinion that the offence substantially im-
puted to the prisoner at the Isar Wa6 made out, they would
hay.r no difficulty in finding him guilty on that count. Sub-
stantially, the charge igainst him was that of setting fire to
his house, with intent to defraud the insurance company,
He (the leaaned Judge) could not attach any blame to the
learned Counsel for his opening statement. He could not
recollect a single expression which laid him (Mr. Adolphus)
open to the severe censure which had been passed upon him.
llis statement was most distinct and clear, though there were
some things, perhaps, which had not been proved to the extent
he had opened. The question was, however, whether enough
had been proved to justify the jury in finding a verdict against
the prisoner. The case for the prosecution depended mainly
on the evidence of four or five persons, the shop boy, the
old woman, and the police-officers; and it would be for
the jury to say whether they could see that the fire was
the result of accident, either from the paper with which
the boy lighted the candle, from the flying out of a hot
coal from the fire which had been left in the grate, or, as
was represented as the most probable, front a draft of
wind, caused by the prisoner opening the door of the
shop, drawing one of the suspended shawls against the
gas light which was left burning, and which was without
the protection of an argand burner. The testimony of the
police-officers certainly varied very much, and their whole
statement was very much confused ; but some of them had
confidently deposed that they saw goods burning in two
places on the floor. The observations made by the learned
counsel as to the time selected by the prisoner for the
alleged offence were quite true; but at the same time
it was quite true that persons who had fraudulent and 1
wicked intentions did not always pursue the wisest course.
Arranged as the goods were, he might have thought it very
difficult to put the fire out. The motive attributed to the
prisoner was that, being in embarrassed circumstances, he
wished to get clear of his difficulties by setting fire to his
stock, and receiving payment from the insurance company.
There was no doubt that the prisoner was embarrassed, and
that an insolvent man was much more likely to commit this
crime than one in good circumstances. There was certainly
no distinct proof, though there was some, and the stock had
been over-valued. But still it was possible that the prisoner
might have set his place on fire, although he had that stock on
hand, in order that he might get money for it from the
office. As to the goods which had been brought in just be-
fore the tire, that circumstances, although favourable to the
prisoner, if the other evidence could not be explained except
on the supposition that the prisoner set the shop on fire,
he explained by supposing, that he brought in those showy
articles to lead to the inference that he could not have de-
stroyed the place, because it was well filled. After a few
further general observations, his Lordship proceeded to read
and comment on the evidence.

The jury retired. They returned in a few minutes with
a verdict of not guilty. The result was hailed with loud
applause by the spectators, and the officers of the court
endeavoured in vain, for a few moments, to curb this mani-
festation of feeling. As soon as the crowd outside learned
the verdict they also cheered. The prisoner was at once
discharged.
The court adjourned at six o'clock.
The trial of Patrick Doran, for arson, will come on this
morning.

[We -are authorised to state that the above prosecution
of Henry was not instituted by the Phoenix Fire-office, nor
conducted in any respect under the directions of that
company.]

CROWN COURT,

-YE STE RD AT

(Before Mr. Sergeant STARKIE, in the Grand Jury-room.)
The learned Sergeant took his seat at twelve o'clock, and
the business of the Court immediately commenced.
HIGIIWAY ROBBERY.

William Hargreaves, a young man of 22 years of age,
stood charged with having, at Manchester, violently assaulted
one Emanuel Leach, and with having robbed him of sixpence.
It appeared, by the evidence for the prosecution, that, on
the night of the 17th December, at about twelve o'clock, the
prosecutor, and a man named Williamson, were passing along
Back Garden-street, Manchester, when the prisoner and a
companion came up and severally attacked prosecutor and
his friend. Prisoner struck and kicked him violently, cutting
him over the eye and throwing him down. When the pro-
secutor was on the ground, prisoner attempted to take his
watch, but, from its being entangled, did not succeed. He
then took sixpence from out of his trousers pockets, which
sixpence he had received shortly before from Williamson, in
repayment of the like sum lent to him. After the scuffle a
cap was found in the street by the police-officer, which, on
the prisoner being apprehended so late as the 16th March,
he acknowledged to be his. The prisoner denied the rob-
bery, and said that he himself had been first attacked by the
prosecutor, and that he was kicked. and abused, and merely
stood on his own defence. He called several witnesses, one
of whom said he saw the scuffle ; that the prosecutor was
very drunk and abusive ; that he nearly choked the prisoner ;
and that another man, and not the prisoner, kicked the
prosecutor.
The prisoner was found guilty. He was not before known
to the police, and a witness gave him a good character from
his infancy. His mother, a widow, was also heard. She
said he was a good, industrious lad, arid had long been the
main support of herself and several other of her children.
He had never been in a court of justice before.
The learned JUDGE said the offence was a serious one, and
the legislature had recently enacted that it should be punished
with transportation for life, or at the least for fifteen years.
He was accordingly sentenced to be transported for the latter
term. The prisoner and his mother cried bitterly on hearing
the sentence.
Mr. BURKE conducted the prosecution. The prisoner,
whose mother was poor, had no counsel.
ATTEMPTED RAPE AND ROBBERY—MISDEMEANOUR.
William Thimble', aged 24, was charged with having, at
Warrington, feloniously assaulted Mary O'Brien, with intent
to violate her person, and also with having stolen from her
one ring, her property.
On the prisoner being brought up, the prosecutrix, who
had left the court some time before, as was stated, to suckle
her child, was sent for, but could nowhere be found. Nearly
an hour elapsed before she made her appearance.
It will be remembered, that for the offence charged two
men, named Jones, were tried and convicted at the last as-
sizes, and another, named Mulvey, was also implicated, but
the prisoner was not then in custody. As the principal de-
tails of the case were then given, we need not here repeat
them at length. It appears that, on the 24th of July, the
prosecutrix, the wife of Michael O'Brien, went to a place
called Arkley Meadows, near I,Varrington, near which a re-
gatta was to take place on the following day. She went into
one of the booths pitched there, and the prisoners accosted
her and sat with her. They had some drink.
They left the
tent nearly together, and a series of
gross assaults upon her
person took place, one of the Jones's being the principal
aggressor, while the prisoner held one of her hands, and
another also held her. Jones did not succeed in his purpose
in consequence of her struggles ; Mulvey
was equally unsue-
cessful, and she got away from them and ran into a ditch, her
clothes being nearly torn from her back. She lost the ring
in the struggle before stated, but could not say whether the
prisoner or Mulvey took it, though both bad hold of her.
She afterwards was so alarmed by them that she ran into the
river Mersey, which was close by, and was picked up by the
crew of a boat that happened to be passing at the time.
She was then insensible, and was taken to the house of Mr.
Jones, Superintendent of Police, Warrington, where atten-
tion was paid to her and she recovered. Tire prisoner ab-
sconded immediately after the assault, and was apprehended
in March last, in Cheshire, by the Deputy Constable of
Knutsford. Mr. Burke stated the case to the Jury, and the
principal facts were proved in evidence.
The jury found the prisoner guilty.
The learned JUDGE said the prisoner had been guilty of a
most wilful assault, and endeavour to assist others in the
commission of a felonious connection with an unprotected
female. His companions in the offence had been convicted
of the common assault, and sentenced to 18 months' impri-
sonment and hard labour; and as he (the prisoner) was
equally guilty, he must suffer the same punishment-18
months' imprisonment in Kirkdale Gaol, and hard labour.
BURGLARY.
HandiCrOft pleaded guilty to a burglary, of no very
aggravated character ; and not being before known to the po-
lice, he was sentenced to be imprisoned and kept to hard
labour for nine calendar months.
William Willis, a boy, pleaded guilty to a charge of bur-
glary. He had not before been in custody, and had no com-
panions in the crime which he acknowledged. Having been
two months in gaol, he was sentenced to be imprisoned and
kept to hard labour for ten months.
James Irving, 17, Henry Taylor, 16, and John Randall,
17, were charged with having, on the 21st of March, at two
in the morning, feloniously entered the house of Walter
Miller, hair-dresser, Itanelagh-street, in this borough, and
having stolen therefrom money and other articles, of the value
of 1.10. All the prisoners pleaded guilty. Irving had been
employed in the house as a painter. His Lordship said it
was shocking to see persons so young brought no on so
serious a charge. He had endeavoured to reconcile his mind
to a lenient sentence, in the hope that the prisoners would,
from the mercy shown them, amend their future conduct.
He then sentenced each of them to imprisonment, and to be
kept to hard labour, for twelve calendar months.
HIGHWAY ROBBERY.
John Nicholson, a young man, and Elizabeth Mack, a
young woman respectably dressed, were indicted for having,
on the 31st August last, assaulted one Patrick Kelly, in
Lace's-street, and robbing him of two half-c:owns, two shil-
lings, and a sixpence, his property. The prosecutor, an ill-
looking Irish labourer, said the female came up to him and
held his arms, while the male rifled his pocket of the mo-
ney. He did not, however, follow them after losing his
money, but went home to his lodgings. The prisoners said
there was no truth in the prosecutor's story, that he was
beating the girl himself, and that he (the male prisoner)
merely went up to protect her. The female callad Police-
officer Lynch, who said lie saw her crying in the street soon
rfter the alleged robbery. She had her apron to her mouth,
and said she had been struok. The other prisoner took
hold of her arm, arid went to her home with her in
Lace's-street, in company with another man, who joined them,
and whose face he did not see, but who looked like the pro-
secutor, from his size. The prosecutor took the officer who
apprehended them direct to the cellar where the female
lived, next morning. She was in bed and undressed. He
said he had watched her go into the cellar only a quarter of
an hour before.

The Learned JUDGE in summing up remarked that it was
strange the prosecutor had not looked further after his money
or the prisoners, until next day. The prisoners were not
defended.

The jury, after consulting for about twenty minutes, found
both prisoners guilty ! Both had been before convicted of
felony; the male prisoner several times, the female once.
Nicholson was sentenced to be transported for ten years, and
Mack to be imprisoned and kept to hard labour for two years.
MANSLAUGHTER.
Moses Doyle, a boy, was indicted for having at Liverpool,
on the 18th of February, wounded one John Wilkinson with
a gimblet in the eye, by which the brain was so injured, that
he lingered until the 23d of the same month, when he died.
Y ,
nail
The case was fully detailed in our publication at the time, as
bth the collar,
the facts came out at the coroner's inquest. The following
are the principal facts :—The deceased, a blacksmith, went
into a smithy in Marlborough-street, next door to l'is own,
and asked the prisoner, whom be sometimes employed, for
the key of his own smithy. Prisoner said he had not g
and
of it.
then
e tookfae
eh.ol dnoi
e is of tphrebnoeyr
en lifted a
hammer and threw it at the deceased, and struck him on the
struck cdkec himea deceased
o
arm. Deceased again got hold of him, and threw him down
across the smithy fire on the floor, and again struck him with
violence. The buy got up. and a man seeing the affray
ran between them, more to save the boy than the man.
As soon as he had done so, the prisoner struck deceased over
witness's shoulder with something which inflicted the wound
in the eye and brain, of which -deceased afterwards died.
The witness afterwards found a gimblet, which
was partly
stained with blood.
The prisoner said, in his defence, that when he lay on his
back on the fire, the deceased struck him on the face, and
gave him a black eye, so that he could not see by it ; and
that it was then that he got hold of the gimblet, not knowing
what it was.

The learned JUDGE explained the law as it relates to cul-
pable manslaughter and justifiable homicide.
The jury found the prisoner guilty of manslaughter.
The Junr; v; said the jury could not do otherwise from the
evidence. Great and unjustifiable violence had, however, been
used towards the prisoner by the deceased; and he trusted the
unfortunate position in which the prisoner stood—lie having,
by resorting to too violent means, deprived a fellow-creature
of life,would prevent him from so dangerous a resort in
future—which waa only to be justified in one who was in danger
of his life. Under all the circumbtanceu Of the case, the ben'

(4404 ili.4.:;i'i.',4, :Ai44.1.4.4.1i10:14iiii ill giaiti4.

tiot/te UpeNttiiiii rdr Ont.
Ridith lierinott itds lndletet ht tAtrpool,
stablocu, rut, and wounded in the nevi: one Cleorge idly},
porter, with intent to murder him, to maim or disable
to do him grievous bodily harm, &c. &c. This case, too,
has recently been before the public. The cut, inflicted with
an open clasp-knife, was proved, hut was not of a dangerous
character. The prisoner said he had previously been robbed
in the house, and had been knocked down and abused by the
prosecutor. When apprehended in the street by the police,
he was found to he bleeding. The prosecutor admitted,
though reluctantly, that he had struck the prisoner. The
probability was that the prisoner was severely struck.
The JUDGE laid down the law as related to the several
counts of the indictment, throwing out of the question the
first and most penal one, and rather inclining to that for the
assault.
The jury returned a verdict of not guilty. The prisoner
was accordingly discharged.
SENTENCES.
George Royle, Thomas Main, and John Lingard, before
convicted of burglariously entering the house of a Mrs.
Greaves, and stealing therefrom a quantity of property, were
brought up for sentence.
The Judge said to Lingard—" You have been found guilty
upon very clear evidence of breaking into the house of Mar-
garet Greaves, and robbing her of considerable property.
She had employed you, and she reposed such confidence in
you that you almost lived under her roof. You ought, in
gratitude for the employment she gave you, rather to have
given her protection, than plundered her house. The
sentence of the law, provided for this offence, therefore, is,
that you be transported beyond the seas for the term of ten
years. You Wilkin and Royle, though you participated in
this offence with him, were not so culpable. Yon were
strangers to the prosecutrix, and did not betray her confi-
dence. The sentence upon each of you is, that you be each
imprisoned and kept to hard labour at Kirkdale for the term
of two years."
The Court then adjourned at seven o'clock.

NISI PRIUS COURT.—YESTEILDAY.
(Before Mr. Justice COLTM AN and a Special Jury.)
GOVERNOR AND COMPANY OF THE BANK OF IRELAND
D. ARCHER AND ANOTHER.—This was an action Oil a Bill of
Exchequer for £832. 10s., drawn by Messrs. Joseph and
Christopher Schroeder upon the defendants and accepted by
them. 'rhe declaration contained five counts, merely varying
the nature of the demand. The plaintiffs were represented
by Mr. Knowles and Mr. Crompton; the defendants by
Mr. Wortley and Mr. Watson.
Mr. KNOWLES said, rhis was an action in which the plain-
tiff's sought to recover a sum of about £B5O, which they
alleged to be due to them upon various grounds, which it
would be his business to prove; but in order to make the
jury understand the way in which this action had arisen, he
must go into detail of certain transactions between the plain-
tiffs, the defendants, and the firm of Messrs. J. and C.
Schroeder, who carried on business as corn dealers at Water-
ford, in Ireland. The defendants, Messrs. Archer and
Daly, were commission merchants at Liverpool ; and in the
early part of last year, 1842, they were instructed by Messrs.
Schroeder to procure a quantity of Indian corn, which they
did upon their giving their acceptances in the usual way. It
amounted to £1,625. ss. 4d., which Messrs. Schroeder paid for
by their own acceptance. It was agreed that the defendants
were to be kept out of cash advance—that was to say, Messrs.
Schroeder should give them sufficient money to pay their
own acceptance; and as they had corn in hand, they were to
accept the drafts of Messrs. Schroeder. On the 6th of
April, Messrs. Schroeder drew upon the defendants a bill for
£B5O. ris. 4d., being rather more than half of the invoice
price of the corn : they discounted that bill with the Water-
ford branch of the Bank of Ireland, and the proceeds,
amounting to £847. 14s. 3d., were remitted to the defend-
ants. This bill went through the bank ; it was presented to
the defendants in the usual course, and they accepted it. A
similar course was pursued with regard to the balance,
£770 ; a bill was drawn, the proceeds were remitted to
the defendants, and they accepted it. The position of the
parties at this period was this—the defendants had re-
ceived from Messrs. Schroeder sufficient to enable them
to take up their own acceptances ; but, then, they had
also the whole amount of Indian corn on hand. In
course of time the first of these acceptances became due—
namely, on the Bth or 9th of July. Shortly before it became
due Messrs. Schroeder were reminded that it would have to
be provided for, as the Indian corn had not been sold, and
the defendants were to be kept out of cash advances; there-
fore, on the Bth of July Messrs. Schroeder drew another bill
upon the defendants, which was discounted in the usual way,
and the proceeds, £846 12s. 3d., were remitted in the usual
way. The other bill of £770 did not require to be renewed,
because by the time it became due the defendants had sold
corn for it, so that it was not the subject of controversy : the
only bill, therefore, that remained between the parties was
that of £B5O drawn on the Bth of July, and which would be-
come due on the 11th of October following. As early as the
26th of September, Mr. Denis Daly, one of the defendants,
was in Ireland; he called at the counting-house of Messrs.
Schroeder in Waterford ; and what took place there would be
exceedingly material, because all the points in the case would
depend perhaps upon it. At that time it was apparent that
the corn speculation of Messrs. Schroeder would turn out un-
profitable, for Mr. Daly produced an account current, from
which he pointed out that considerable loss would be incurred;
and he requested Messrs. Schroeder to advance a certain
amount in cash, and renew the bill which would fall due in
October for the balance, whatever the balance might be.
Mr. Schroeder objected to this, and said it would be better to
renew for the whole of the bill—saying, " I will draw up for
the whole amount, and send the bill to be accepted, and
when you have accepted it I will procure cash for it and re-
mit the cash to you, so that you can take up the bill for £850."
This, the jury would observe, was not the course adopted
upon the former occasion : upon the former occasions Messrs.
Schroeder had procured the cash before the bills were ac-
cepted. Mr. Daly objected to this mode on the ground that
it would look odd to the bank in Liverpool, and be said to
Mr. Schroeder, " Send the bill to the bank in the usual
course, and 1 will advise nay partner to what has been done."
He (the learned counsel) should have to refer again to this
conversation before he had done, in order to point out what
he conceived to be its legal bearing. Upon the faith of this
assurance, that this bill would be taken care of in the same way
as the other bilk, Messrs. Schroeder drew a bill for £85210x.
—the bill mentioned in the declaration. That bill was dis-
counted by the plaintiffs in the same way as the others ; and
it would be found that the proceeds, amounting to £847,
were remitted to the defendants, and got into their posses-
sion. This bill passed through the bank like the others ; it
was presented for acceptance in the same way as the other
bills had been; and the jury would find that before the bill
had been accepted—and on the very day when the proceeds
came into the bands of the defendants—the following letter
was written to Messrs. Schroeder :
" Liverpool, Ist October, 1842.
" Gentlemen,—Your favour inclosing the bill for £847
is received, and passed to your credit. Your draft upon us
for £852 10s. shall be duly honoured. We have no enquiry
for India corn. * * " Pro. ARCHIIR, DALY & CO.
" P. T. FORAZat."
This letter (the learned counsel continued) was signed by a
gentleman of the name of Forrest, who, as he should show,
was, at that time, a confidential clerk of the defendants. It
was right, however, to tnention—because representing, as he
did, the Bank of Ireland, he meant to keep nothing back—
that after this letter had been put into the post, probably on
the same day, another letter was written by one of the de-
fendants to Messrs. Schroeder, which was certainly some-
what at variance with the terms of the letter just received ;
and no doubt his learned friend would contend that that
letter nullified the operation of the other. He (Mr. Knowles)
thought, in point of law, it did not, but that would be for
his Lordship to decide. After this bill had been protested
for non.acceptance, and the whole matter had been made
known to Messrs. Schroeder, Mr. Denis Daly, with whom
Mr. Schroeder bad had the conversation of the 26th of July,
again presented himself at their counting-house in Water-
ford ; and it would seem from what occurred then that Mr.
Daly had not been made acquainted correctly with what
had taken place on this side of the water, because Mr.
Schroeder placed before him the letters from the defendants,
and he seemed to be surprised ; and he (Mr. Knowles) must
say, also a little ashamed of the conduct of his partner on
this side of the water. When reminded of the conversation
on the 26th September he admitted that such a conversation
had taken place, and that the proceeds had been remitted
upon a distinct understanding that the bill was to be treated
as the other bills had been. It was material to remember
too, that the letter of Mr. Forrest, in which he said " Your
draft shall be duly honoured," was laid before Mr. Daly,
and Mr. Daly, at that time, neither by word or deed, thought
of repudiating the authority of Forrest. In the end no settle-
ment was obtained. Messrs. Schroeder eventually com-
pounded with their creditors ; and the Bank had now no
resource to look to, but the defendants, for the amount of
the
,b 11. First of all they declared upon this bill of exchange,
and said the defendants had accepted it, and he would ex-
plain the grounds upon which he should contend that the
act of defendants amounted to an acceptance. He need not
tell the jury that a bill drawn in Ireland upon parties in
England did not require acceptance in writing : it must be a
verbal acceptance—nay more, there must be an acceptance
by the conduct of the parties, if the conduct of the parties
distinctly led to an inference that they accepted the bill.
They must also perhaps be aware that the law requiring the
acceptance of a bill of exchange to be in writing was not of
more than 20 years standing : formerly a verbal acceptance
was sufficient, and it was so treated, and there was no magic
in the written word " accepted," or any thing else which
gave the notion that the bill would be paid when due. Hav-
ing said this much in explanation of what an acceptance was,
he would call attention to what occurred, to show that that
was in point of law an acceptance to the bill, on the 26th of
September, when Mr. Denis Daly held the conversation
with Mr. Schroeder. The learned counsel contended from
the circumstances which then took place, that they would,
in point of lam, amount to an acceptance, provided the bill
was then in existence ; but, he continued, inasmuch as the
bill was not drawn then his learned friend (Mr. Wortley)
would contend that there could have been no acceptance; he
would, in fact, evade that conversation altogether by saying
that a bill could not be accepted before it was in existence.
Now whether this was so or not was a moot point in our law ;
jihad more than once been incidentally discussed, but it had
never received any authoritative decision. In America, for
instance, as he knew from a learned work by Judge Storey,
the question was decided ; the courts there, held that a bill
might be accepted before it was drawn. In this country,
however, the law was not settled • therefore, if his case rested
merely upon the conversation referred to, there would still
be a question whether there could be an acceptance of a bill
before the bill was in existence. But besides what occurred
on the 26th September, he should contend there was a direct
acceptance of this bill by the letter written on the Ist of Oc-
tober, from the terms of which letter he should also contend
that Mr. Forrest, as the agent of the defendants, had clearly
authority to accept. This letter was laid before Mr. Daly
at the subsequent interview with Mr. Schroeder, in Ireland,
and lie did not for one moment affect to say that Forrest had
no authority. He should also contend, on the other counts,
whatever might become of the acceptance, that still Mr.
Schroeder was made an agent of the defendants to procure
the money which was remitted to them. Therefore they
were liable as for money had and received for the use of the
plaintiffs. On one or other ground, he contended, there
could be no doubt of the defendant's liability to pay this
money.
The letters referred to and the bills were then put in and
read ; after which Mr. Jacob Schroeder was called, and he
deposed, in considerable detail, to the circumstances as
opened by Mr. Knowles. In his cross-examination by Mr.
Wortley, the witness said his firm, through the badness of
the corn trade, had been obliged to compound. They paid
their creditors one shilling in the pound, and a considerable
balance was yet due from the firm to the defendants.
Mr. Henry 1). Grant, manager of the Bank of Ireland at
Waterford, produced the bill in question.
Mr. Charles John Tyzack, corn-broker in Liverpool,
proved the handwriting of Mr. Forrest to the letter of the
Ist October.
The JUDGE asked Mr. Knowles whether he should prove
any authority in Forrest to accept?
Mr. KNOWLES replied, he should rely at present upon the
letter of October Ist, which had not been repudiated.
The JUDGE said that would not be sufficient; especially
as a letter had been received from the partner of Mr. Daly
the same day, which did not mention the bill.
Mr. KNOWLES admitted that, but observed that Mr. For-
rest's letter was written before that of the partner.
The JUDGE.—Yes; but the party cannot be bound with-
out distinct proof of authority. If that were so, a man might
be committed to an indefinite extent by his clerk.
KNowLas thought the phrase of the letter shewed
authority.

The J-unos held that that was not sufficient; but,:at the
request of Mr. Knowles, he took a note of the point.
Mr. KNOW-LE s said he would, then, endeavour to strengthen
the cane by calling Mr. Forrest.

.~~i~~l~;~s~

!i;

t4l6tPi' ari titicittigh7 ih;tAtiii i&-iisiZoloTail 'fa
the tteNndantS t and that hi' had ho nsthnrit t 0 do sd:
Cross-examined.--The Messrs. Schroeder hots' os'red the
defendants a general balance of £S99 ; but had still some
corn in hand. They had refused to accept the composition.
Mr. KNoVhEs said this was the case for the plaintiffs.
Mr. WORTLEY contended that no case bad been made out
to go before the jury. _

Mr. KNOWLES replied that he had proved sufficient to go
to the jury on the question—whether Schroeder had not gone
to the bank, and got the bills renewed and discounted as the
agent of the defendants.

-Mr. Grant was recalled on this point, and he said he
thought he should not have renewed the bills or discounted
any if Schroeder was only the agent of the defendants; but
the question did not come before him in that shape.
After some discussion upon this point, and au ineffectual
effort to turn the question into a special case,
The JUDGE said he should hold that an acceptance of the
hill before the bill was drawn was not law ; and the questions
under the second count, whether Schroeders' were agents of
the defendants in procuring this bill to be discounted by the
Bank of Ireland, must be left to the jury.
Mr. WORTLEY then addressed the jury upon the part of
the defendants. He said he was exceedingly glad to have the
opportunity of saying a word upon the case, because he should
he extremely sorry if the apparently candid but bitter and
pointed observations of his learned friend should have any
impression upon their minds without an opportunity on his
part of removing them. He had the honour to appear for
the defendants, who were merchants of high standing ; and
upon their behalf he was undoubtedly jealous of their
mercantile reputation. He should be sorry if, while they
were standing upon the strict letter of the law of the country
in vindicating their rights, they were neglectful of the claims
of honour and good faith. It would be a woeful day for this
country if it should ever happen that the merchants of Eng-
land, or any considerable body of them, should become men
of the description which his learned friend had been instructed
to give of the defendants ; but i❑ the present case there was
not the slightest pretence for the charge ; and the imputation
was as uncalled for as it was unfounded. After some further
observations vindicatory of the character of the defendants,
in which he stated he could, if permitted, chew that honour
and good faith had been really on their side, the learned
counsel addressed himself to the allegatio❑ on the part of the
plaintiffs, that Schroeder was the agent of the defendants for
the purpose of obtaining the discount of the bill from the Bank
of Ireland. He contended that all the circumstances, and par-
ticularly the reply of Mr. Grant, when he was recalled,
sheaved that this could not have been the case ; and that it
was only after the composition of Messrs. Schroeder for
Is. in the pound, that the bank thought of this expedient to
save themselves.

The JUDGE, told the jury the only question for their deci-
sion was whether Schroeder had promised the bank with the
authority of the defendants; and he pointed out the evidence
on this part of the case.

The jUry immediately returned a verdict for the defendants

LIABILITY OF AN ASSIGNEE

' FLEMING AND OTHERS v. DAVIDSON.—This (a special
' jury case) was an action to recover the sum of £271 163. 3d.
for goods sold and delivered, and on an account stated. Mr.
Martin and Mr. Watson conducted the case for the plain-
' tiffs ; Mr. Knowles and Mr. Crompton that of the defendant.
On the part of the plaintiffs it was shewn, through the me-
dium of admissions and witnesses, that the plaietiffs are car-
pet manufacturers at Glasgow, trading under the name of the
Port Eglington Spinning Company, and the defendant is the
registered officer of the Commercial Bank of Manchester, a
concern which is now only beit, carried on for the purpose
of winding up its affairs. The defendant is also the assignee
of the estate of Alfred Webb, who carried on business hi Li-
verpool as a carpet dealer. In December, 1841, Mr. Webb
gave an order to Mr. Taplin, the agent to, and traveller for,
the plaintiffs, for four bales of carpets, to be manufactured
according to a specified pattern, to betaken into stock ou the
Ist of February following, and paid for by a four months'
bill, or if he paid in cash, there was to be a deduction of two
and a half per cent. The carpets were put in course of manu-
facture, and Mr. Webb was believed to be perfectly solvent ;
but, at that time, namely, at the end of November, or the
beginning of December, Mr. Webb, who had been largely
connected with the bank, had contracted a debt with them to
the amount of upwards of £13,000. This was unknown to
the agent of the plaintiffs. On the 13th of December
notics was given to Mr. Webb by the batik to pay the
money ; but as he did not, twenty-one days after-
wards, on the 18th of January, a fiat was issued against him
by the defendant, on behalf of the bank. No step, however,
was taken under the fiat till ti ,e ''lst of January, on which day
the adjudication took place; but in the inte,val between the
Bth and 21st, namety, on the __Eh, the four bales of carpets
were sent off by the plaintiffs by sea from Glasgow. On the
21st, before the adjudication had taken place, the carpets
were taken from the dock quay to the bankrupt's premises,
and delivered to his shopman, a person named Taylor. Tay.
for had them conveyed to the stables of Mr. Bretherton,
and, upon the day following, the bankrupt had them con-
veyed to Blackburn, where they were not found till the
month of August. The plaintiffs had received no notice of
the fiat, and, therefore, it was contended, that the defendant
should either return the goods or pay for them.
Mr. KNOWLES contended that no case had been proved.
This was really one of the most extraordinary cases he had
ever heard of. The goods had been sent iu pursuance of a
contract before the bankruptcy; they were delivered before
bankruptcy; and, consequently, the assignee seized them.
It was an every day case.
The JUDGE did not think it was an every day case. It
seemed to him, under the circumstances which had been
proved, that the plaintiff was not entitled to recover ; but, at
the same time, he would give leave to move.
The plaintiff was then nonsuited, his Lordship certifying
that the case was a proper one for a special jury.
FEMING AND OTHERS V. DAVIDSON.—This was the last
.case only in a different shape, the declaration being here in
trover. The result was the same.

JURYMEN TINED.
The case of Hemingway v. Hamilton and others, was next
in order, and a common jury was called. Some delay
occurred in obtaining the requisite number, but eventually
eleven gentlemen were collected together. There appearing
little or no chance of the twelfth making his appearance,
Mr. MARTIN, who represented the plaintiff, said, he had
no objectirn to proceed with the trial with eleven jurymen.
The JUDGE said, the attendance of jurymen must be
secured, and he could not assent. His lordship then directed
the list to be called over, with the exception of those who
were serving in the Crown Court and in the Grand Jury-room.
Mr. Forrest and Mr. Carson (under-sheriff) called over
the list, when the following not appearing, the JUDGE directed
them to be fined £5 each,—Samuel Bowers, George Benyon,
Francis Bretherton, Richard Cope, John Crossley, Richard
Cummins, Walter Clarke, Joseph Crossland, Joseph Dawson,
Edward Eady, John Frazer, Nathaniel Howard, William
Heath, Thomas Jackson, James Lister, James Leigh, Robert
Owen, Thomas Owen, George Robinson, Michael Trueman,
John Tomlinson, Samuel Williamson, and Peter Wheedle.—
After some further delay, Mr. James Leigh made his appear-
ance. He was sworn a juryman, and so the twelve were
made up. Before the case commenced Mr. Samuel William-
son came into court, and applied for the fine upon him to be
removed, alleging that lie had been only in the next room,
but he had not heard his name called out.—The JUDGE:
Very well; you have but just saved yourself.

HEMINGWAY V. HAMILTON AND OTHERS.
Mr. Martin and Mr. Hill appeared for the plaintiff; and
Mr. Knowles and Mr. Crompton for the defendants. The
plaintiff is Captain Hemingway, and the defendants are
Messrs. Hamilton, Jackson, and Co., of this town, mer-
chants. The pleadings were voluminous and discursive.
Mr. MARTIN in stating the case said, the plaintiff, Capt.
Hemingway, was a person who had long been engaged in the
African trade. Previous to the year 1836, in which the ground
of the present action took place, he was engaged in trading
between the coast of Africa and Liverpool, taking out goods
there, and bringing produce home. At present he was in
the trade as a merchant. In the year 1836 he entered into
a contract with the defendants, who were most extensively
engaged in the trade, to command a vessel called the Earl
Grey. The agreement was, that he should bring home 550
tons of palm oil, for which he was to receive £lOOO, and in
the event of his obtaing more oil than 550 tons, he was to
receive a commission of £6 per cent, upon the overplus, six
months and 30 days, after the arrival of the oil in Liverpool.
This contract was completed on the 2d January, 1836, and
the plaintiff sailed immediately afterwards in the Earl Grey.
The African trade was carried on entirely by barter—the
particular mode of which the learned counsel described
in detail. The plaintiff arrived in the River Bonny,
and he commenced trading with the natives. He was
furnished with two vessels called tenders, the William
and the Pantaloon, to enable him to carry on his trade
the more successfully. The plaintiff succeded in making one
of the most successful voyages ever made to to the coast of
Africa, for he produced to his employers a profit very little
short of £15,000 or £16,000. He purchased from the natives
upwards of 200 tons of oil over and above the 550 tons, and
the William was the first vessel despatched home ; she was
nearly full, and she arrived safely. The Pantaloon then
remained at Bonny, with the Earl Grey. The Earl Grey
next sailed, full of oil, leaving there the Pantaloon also full,
with the exception of about 30 puncheons, which bad not
arrived from the interior, and Captain Peel, who commanded
her, was directed by the plaintiff to receive the 30 puncheons
and return home immediately. The question for the decision
of the jury arose with reference to the Pantaloon. The
defendants settled all their accounts with the plaintiff; he
received his commission for all the oil above 550 tons which
the Earl Grey and the William had brought; and the Pan-
taloon was supposed to be lost. The defendants, indeed,
were so much pleased with the plaintiff's exertions, that, in
order to show their sense of his services, they presented a
piece of plate to Mrs. Hemingway. Captain Peel, who com-
manded the Pantaloon, was directed by the plaintiff to return
directly, but, it seemed, that he neglected this order, for,
instead of returning direct to England, he went from the
Bonny to the Cameroons, a river west of the Bonny. The
Pantaloon was there lost ; and up to the end of last year,
1842, the plaintiff had no reason to suppose but that with the
Pantaloon her cargo was lost, and that it had never reached
the hands of the defendants. During last year, however,
the plaintiff was again in Africa, and at Cameroons he saw
Lloyd's agent, from whom he learned that although the
Pantaloon had been lost, her cargo had been saved by Cap-
tain Lilly, the agent at that plaee for the defendants. He, there-
fore, undertook to demonstrate to the jury that the o;I was
saved, and sent to England by Captain Lilly, on board the
Daedalus and the Anne ; and if he did this he should be enti-
tled to the commission of £6 per cent. upon the quantity
which the defendants had thus received.
Thomas Sheridan Reed, Ralph Dawson, and Edward Ha-
nrilton, parties who were at Bonny and the Cameroons at the
time, were then called. Dawson proved the wreck of the
Pantaloon on the Cameroons, about eighteen miles from land.
In answer to Mr. Knowles, he said that in case of a wreck
upon that coast it was extremely dangerous to attempt to
save anything. Hamilton proved that a great number of
puncheons of oil were recovered from her, that they had the
brand of the Earl Grey upon them, and they were shipped in
the Daedalus and the Anne.
Thomas Henry Lester and William Henry Darby, two
clerks from the house of Messrs. Nicholas Waterhouse and
Sons, defendants' brokers, proved the arrival of the Daedalus
and Anne. The Anne arrived a few days before the 4th Oct.
]836; the Daedalus a few days before the 16th January
1837. The oil belonged to the defendants.
This was the plaintiff's case

Mr. KNOWL;S then submitted that the plaintiff had him-
self shewn the defendants to be entitled to a verdict upon the
statute of limitations. The Anne had been proved to arrive
in Liverpool some few days before the 4th October, and
the Daedalus a few days before the 16th January. The
action was brought on the 30th of January, therefore the
arrival by the Daedalus was clearly within the statute ; and
he contended, on the construction of the agreement, that
the same must apply to the arrival by the Anne.
Mr. MARTIN said his learned friend was wrong on both
points.

The JUDGE suggested that the better course would be to
ascertain the damages. His view of the case was, that as to
one of the vessels, at least, the Anne, the plaintiff was in
time with his action. As to the other vessel, there might be
some difference.

Mr. MARTIN, in reply, repeated that his learned friend was
wrong; and he contended, from the language of the agree-
ment, that the six years would not begin to accrue till after
the sale of the oil. The particulars put in showed that the
oil by the William and the Earl Grey was not sold till ten
months after their arrival ; and it was quite clear that some
time would elapse afterwards before the oil by the Anne and
the Daedalus was sold. The statute of limitations was, there-
fore, out of the question, and he was sorry his learned friend
had been instructed to resort to it.
The JUDGE said that the first branch of the agreement
contained no re;eronce to not proceeds I fiat the best course