The Liverpool Standard and General Commercial Advertiser.
Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1835-08-25 00:00:00

untenable; it was his duty to have told these six poor men of
their danger, and not have led them oliudtv into it. At this
time of day, it was going too far. Although the Prothonotary
had struck a la?ge overcharge front the bill, yet he had still
arrested them.

The jury returned a verdict for the defendant.
WELCH AND A.NOTHEI: V. POWELL.
This was an action brought by the plaintiffs, Messrs. Welch
and Sells, to recover £3O I h. from the defendant.,

Mr. ALEXANDER and Dr. 13nowN appeared for the former;
and Sergeant ATCRERLEY and Mr. SPARKLE, K. C., for the
defence.

Mr. ALEXAN nee. stated the case, to the effect, that the plain-
tiffs, Messrs. Welch and Sells, pu'rchased some cotton from the
defendant, Mr. Powell, which amounted to £3O 145., fur which
ho paid in ready cash. About a fortnight afterwards, when the
cotton was nearly all worked up, a search was made for it by the
police officers, as it turned out to have been stolen from the
warehouse of Messrs. Bower and Son, Liverpool, by a man
named Williams, who keeps a marine store at the last named
place. By this Williams, the cotton had been sold to the de-
fendant, and he and the defendant had been since tried at the
sessions--the former for having stolen, the latter for having re-
ceived it, knowing it to have been stolen. At this trial, Williams
was convicted and Powell acquitted. What remained of the
cotton was found in possession of the plaintiffs ; therefore,
Messrs. Bower and Son, the original owners of the cotton,
claimed restitution of it at their hands, but, as they could not
return what had been used, they paid to Messrs. Bower and Son
the suns of £30145., its value, and then applied to Mr. Powell
for tilt payment, wich he refused, and inconsequence the pre-
sent action was brought to enforce recovery thereof.
James Welch, the son of the plaintiff, proved the purchase
of the cotton by his father from the defendant, and the search
for it by the officers about a fortnight afterwards, at which time
there were not above two or three pounds of it left unworked.
James Maghill, clerk to Messrs. Bower and Son, proved the
theft of the cotton, the trial of Williams for the offence, and the
statement of the defendant to Mr. Thomas, the deputy con-
, stable of Manchester, that lie did not reurenther to have pur-
chased atly such cotton, and, subsequently, that he sold it to
Mess's. Welch and Sells.
Samuel Macniel, warehouseman to Messrs. Bower and Son,
was called to corroborate the evidence of the theft.
John Wybergh, clerk to a solicitor of Liverpool, produced a
copy of the record of the conviction of Williams.
Mr. Edward Bent, the plaintiff's attorney, proved that he had
paid £3O 14s. on account of plaintiff, on the 3d of July last, to
Mr. Kershaw, Messrs. Bower and Son's attorney. Previous to
this he had called on the defendant, who said that he had
already suffered enough, and that he did not think himself
liable. He admitted having received the money from ilesSri.
Welch and Sells, in payinent for the cotton.
Mr. Slrgeant ATCHERLZY said, that the questien for the con-
sideration.of the jury was, whether they were satisfied that Mr.
Powell had received the goods from Williams, knowing that he
had no property in them. .
Dr. BROWN replied, and endeavoured to put the case in point
of view, that the defendant had no property in the cotton at. the
time when he sold it to the plaintiffs.
The j u ry' returned a verdict for the plaintiff.
The leatued Judge quitted the court shortly after .three
'o'clock, and set off, in the evening, for Loudon.
(Before Lord ABINGER, Lord Chief Baron of the Exchequer.)
The court was occupied from nine o'clock till nearly twelve,
with the trial of a cause, (Button v. Buckton and another,
assignees,) involving a long and tedious investigation into the
affairs of a bankrupt, named Mason, lately carrying on business
in Yorkshire, as a farmer. It possessed not a single particle of
interest to any but the parties, and terminated in a verdict for
the plaintiff.

BREACH OF PROMISE OF MARRIAGE.-ENIPB V. HARGBEAIiES.

This was an action to recover aa;;ge:i;bieachof promise
of Marriage. It was expected to be one of rather a curious and
interesting description, inasmuch as it was understood to com-
bine both matters of love and matters of money,-the defendant
having pleaded,. in addition to the general issue, a set-off
against the contingent damages, in the shape of money ad-
vanced by him to the plaintiff. Before, however, the case had
been described or the parties' so much as named,
Mr. Calssw FAA., for the plaintiff, rose and said that as the
advance of money was pleaded, and as a number of letters,
written only for perusal, and not intended to meet the public
eye, would have to be produced, he thought it would be better
for both parties to refer the accounts and all matters and differ-
ences between them to arbitration.

Mr ALEXANDRN, for the defendant, said it certainly would be
a very painful thing to have to enter into a series of accounts
joined with an action for breach of promise of marriage; and
he quite agreed with his learned friend that a reference was
the best and most proper course that could be adopted.
His LORDSHIP said that this arrangement showed a very
good and proper feeling in the parties.
It was then agreed that the matter should be referred, a result
which seemed to occasion considerable disappointment in a
crowded court, especially among the ladies, some of whom, in
our immediate neighbourhood, asked, with a very disconsolate
air, " Is it all over ?"
POLICY OF INSURANCE.--GREENWELL AND ANOTHER C. NICHOL-