The Liverpool Standard and General Commercial Advertiser.
Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1833-08-23 00:00:00

HOUSE OF_ COMMONS, TUESDAY, AUGUST 20.

The Speaker took the chair at the usual hour.

The SOLICITOR-GENERAL brought up the resolutions of the
committee on the Chancery Officers' Compensation, which was
ordered to be an instruction to the committee on the bill.

TRIAL OF OFFENCES (IRELAND) BILL.
Lord ALTHORP moved' the order of the day for the further
consideration of the Trial of Offences (Ireland) Bill.
Mr. LITTLETON moved that the amendments be read a se-
cond time.
The bill with the amendments were ordered to be engrossed
and read a third time on Wednesday.

WAYS AND MEANS.

On the motion of Lord Althorp, the report of the committee
ou ways and means was brought up and agreed to.
Mr. C. Woon brought up toe report of the committee on the
Bank Notes (Stamp Duties) Composition Bill, which was
agreed to, and then ordered to be read a third time on Wed-
nesday night.

CHOLERA PREVENTION BILL.

The house wentiiitOCOmrnitieeCon-ihi;i;iii; and certain ver-
bal amendments were agreed to; after which the report was
received, and ordered to he read a third time on Wednesday.

APPROPRIATION BILL.

Mr. S. RICE brought in the Appropriation Bill, which was
read a first time, and ordered to be read a second time on
Thursday.
Tithes Stay of Suits' Bill was read a second time, and or-
dered to be committed on Wednesday.
A messenger from the East India House brought up a return
of all pensions granted to the officers and other persons in the
commercial marine service, which was ordered to be printed.—
Adjourned at a few minutes past three o'clock.

The Speaker resumed the chair shortly after five o'clock.
A message from the Lords announced that they had agreed
to the Lunacy Commissioners Bill without amendment, and to
the East India Charter Bill, and Grand Juries (Ireland) Bill,
with amendments.

Mr. W. PETER postponed till next session, on account of the
late period of the year, the thin attendance of members, and the
non-p,ublication of necessary evidence, his motions relative to
the Larl of Warwick and the borough of Warwick.
TITHES (IRELAND) BILL.
The order of the day on this bill having been read, ou the
motion of Mr. Littleton,
Mr. P. THOMSON brought up the report.
Sir E. KNATCLIBULL protested against the bill.- '
Mr. LYNCH supported it. This measure was the price paid
for peace iu Ireland ; and the advance of money under it would
prevent the expenditure of double the sum. he would support
the bill on the mere necessity of the case.
Mr. COBBETT thought that if money was not sent to Ireland
they must send bayonets, and he would much prefer the former.
He should like to hear that the tithe collection were altogether
given up, for then he should have some hope that the shedding
of blood on that account would be put an end to. They had
heard from the Secretary for Ireland, a few days ago, of a me-
morial from the clergy of a whole diocess, stating that they
could not collect a single shilling of tithe, except by military
force. This, at the end of 2111) years from the tune when the
attempt was first made to force on the people of Ireland a reli-
gion which they did not desire, ought to be a good lesson as to
the folly of persisting in a muse which had such results.
The amendments were agreed to, and the bill ordered to be
read a third time to-morrow.
On the motion of Mr. S. Rice, the Tea Duties Bill went
through committee, and the report was ordered to be received
on Thursday.

JURIES (IRELAND) BILL.

Mr. LITTLETON moved the second 'reading of this bill.
Mr. SIIAw had no objection to the principle of assimilating
the law of England and Ireland on this question, but he con.
sidered the mode of doing it was absurd.
The SOLICITOR-GENERAL supported the bill, the object of
which was to oblige the sheriff to select juries fairly and im-
partially.
Mr: Serjeant PERRIN took the same view of the bill. It
would secure the selection of a better class of jurors, and a more
impartial mode of selection.

SALE OF BEER LICENSES BILL.
On the motion that the Sale of Beer Licenses Bill be now
read a second time,
Mr. WA itti turrox said the bill was one which seriously affected
the industrious classes of ibe community, and others whom hon.
members would have no opportunity of consulting upon a mea-
sure introduced at so late a period of the present session. The
bill, it was true, came down from a select committee of the
house, but the report of that committee strongly induced him to
think that it was highly desirable to defer this bill until the next
session of Parliament, for it was at complete variance in many
points with the provisions contained in the bill now under con-
sideration, particularly as regarded the hours at which the beer-
shops should be kept open, and other police regulations detailed
in the report. The advanced period of the session made it im-
possible that these
.points could be provided for in the bill, and
he was fully of opinion that much benefit would accrue from
deferring legislating on the subject until consideration could be
fully given to all the alterations in the present law which the
select committee had recommended. lie should therefore
move that the bill be read a second time that day six months,
and be did so without wishing to press the house to a division,
but in the hope the noble lord (the Chancellor of the Exchequer)
would see the impracticability of pressing: the bill at present,
and would consent to a postponement.
Mr. RICE confessed he could not answer the complaint of the

honourable member fur Bridport, that the bill had been intro-
duced at so late a period of the present session, but any delay
that had occurred in bringing in the hilt was attributable to the
indisposition of his noble friend the Chancellor of the Exche-
quer shortly after the select committee had made their report.
Athnittinwfutly the late period at which the bill was brought
forward, he must observe that the honourable member thr
Bridport had not dealt fairly with the provisions of this bill, the
objects of which were .founded upon the opinion that it was
better to fix a tax, even such as that which had been depreca-
ted, than to leave the granting of licences to the loose arbitrium
which prevailed at quarter sessions. (Hear, hear.) The bill
had not been introduced on the ground or in consideration of
any pecuniary result to the revenue, though he would admit
• that this point could not ha a matter of indifference. He also
would admit that, with respect to hours and police regulations,
it was desirable that the beer-houses should be placed on the
same footing as the public-houses, and that an uniformity in
this respect should be established. It was for the house to say
what, even at this period of the session, should be done with
this bill; but, whatever might be the fate of the measure, he
was convinced that if the governthent had done nothing with
the report of the select committee when laid on the table, they
would have been open to obloquy; and if, again, the govern-
ment had consented to that which was recommended by many
magistrates for the regulation of the scale upon which houses
should be licensed, the opposition to the measure would have
been still stronger. As he had already said, whatever might be
the late of this bill, he was unwilling that it should gu forth
without the explanation he had offered. (Hear, hear.)
Lord ALTHORP said that since the passing of the act respect•
ing beer-shops lie had not, owing to his occupation with official
business, had an opportunity of acqui:ing practical information
on the subject. lie must say, however, that according to all
the information which had reached him, it was plain that how-
ever the statements might be highly coloured of exaggerated in
some instances, there could be no doubt that universally, in alt
parts of the country, the increase that had taken place in crime
had been attributed to beer-shops. ( Hear.) Under such cir-
cumstances, the question wit's, whether the present system of
beer-shops did not require some alteration and regulation.
During the last two sessions, though great.cOunPlaints had been
made with regard to the effects of the Beer Bid, he (Lord Al-
thorp) had opposed the making any alteration in it, conceiving
that it was dile to it, as an experimental measure, to wait and
see whether the evils which were attributed to the operation of
it might not ultimately disappear. But now that they had had
the benefit of experience on the subject, and that it was found
that those evils, instead of diminishing, had -greatly increased,
it appeared to him that parliament was bound to provide a re-
medy by adopting some measure for the better regulation of
those beer-shops. He greatly regretted that in consequence of
the late period at which the committee that had been appointed
on this subject had made their report, the present measure, of
government had been brought forward at such an advanced
period of the session, that it would be extremely difficult, if not
impossible, should it be opposed, to carry itthrough in the present
session. He was anxious to state the grounds on which he thought
that the yrinciple of this measure should be now affirmed by the
house. 'I he committee took a very correct view as to the remedy for '
the evil which now existed, when 'they proposed that the station '
in society of the persons to whom licences for keeping those
beer-shops were granted should be raised somewhat above its
present level, but the manner in which they recommended the
house to arrive at that desirable end appeared to him to be by
no means a practicable one. They recommended that the
amount of the rate should be made the test for granting or re-
fusing a licence. Now, it was evident that the same amount
of rate in a country district might be much higher in propor-
tion than a similar amount in a town district, and it was also
well known that in different parts of the country the rates were
extremely different. He was persuaded that in a great many
districts the raising the amount of the licence duty would be
attended with the best effects.- He was anxious to see the prin-
ciple of this bill at all events affirmed by the house on the pre-
sent occasion, by its assenting to the second reading of it. lie
should speak hypocritically if. supposing that there was any
opposition to be offered to the measure, he should say that there
was any possibility of passing it this session. -All he desired
was, that the house would affirm the principle of the bill now,
in order that when regulations with regard to beer-shops should
be proposed next session, this decision of the house might be
appealed to in support of them. It • would be the imperative
duty of Parliament to legislate on the subject next session, and
by affirming the principle of this bill now, the house would only
decide that spme alteration in the law was absolutely necessary.
It was on these grounds and for these reasons that he wished
'the house to agree to the second reading of the bill.
• The bill was then read a second time and on the motion of
Lord Althorp it was ordered to be committed on that day month.

ROYAL MARRIAGE ACT.
Colonel WILLIAms, in rising to move for leave to bring in a
bill to repeal the act of 12th Geo. 111., chap. 11., called an act
for the better regulating the future marriages of the royal family,
said that his object was to procure the repeal of an act from
which, as experience had proved, no good, but much mischief,
had followed.
Lord ALTIIORP observed that the hon. gentleman had brought
forward this motion at an extraordinary late period of the ses-
sion, and with more business before the house than it could well
dispose of.
Colonel WILLIAMS said that he had no intention to press the
motion if the noble lord would allow the bill to be introduced
and read a first time.
The SOLICITOR-GENERAL was anxious not to permit the idea
to go abroad that the act in question prevented the marriage of
members of the royal family with English women. That was a
vulgar, but a gross mistake with regard to it. The act provided
that no descendant of George 11. should marry any subject
without the consent of the reigning sovereign, but if that con-
sent were given the marriage would be. valid-. The hon. mem-
ber should he aware that by the common law of England, inde-
pendently of the Marriage Act, the reigning sovereign had al-
ways the right to control the marriages of his children and heirs,
and of the heir presumptive to the throne. The Royal Mar-
riage Act only provided that no descendant of George 11. should
have a right to marry without that consent. The law of England
in that respect appeared to him to be just and salutary.
Col. WILLIAMS said, that under the circumstances, he would
withdraw his motion.—The house then adjourned at nine o'clock.

LANCASTER ASSIZES.

NISI PRIUS COURT.—TUESDAY, Aix. 20.
Before Mr. Barim BOLLAND aria a Special Jury.
LIABILITY.

CROMPTON v. THE OLDHAM GAS COMPANY.—This was an
action brought by the plaintiff, a pawnbroker, in Oldham, to
recover compensation for the injury sustained in consequence of
the Oldham Gas and Water-works Company not having, in
compliance with the Act of Parliamentnnder which the Com-
pany is formed, placed fire-plugs and painted upon the walls
marks to point them out. Ihe ATTORNEY-GENERAL, Mr.
STARKIE, and Mr. TRAFFoRD were for the plaintiff; and Messrs.
Powicic, WIGHTMAN, and DUNDAS for the defendants.
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL stated the case to the jury. This
was an action of very considerable importance, and affected a
principle which may arise in this or any other town. It was,
whether or not a person or set of persons, being by an Act of
Parliament empowered to do many important acts for the sake
of benefitting themselves, they are bound to comply with that
Act of Parliament far as it affects the place over which they
have those powers. Now by the Act of Parliament the Com-
pany have power to do a great many acts, and those acts
were all to be performed in order to enable them to receive dues
and rates for the propagation of water in the town of Oldham,
hnd the question was, whether or no it was incumbent on them •
to have every thing ready for the purpose, among other
things, of the prompt and expeditious extinguishing of fire.—
On the 22d of June,lB2s, an Act of Parliament received the
Royal assent, entituled " An Act for lighting the town of
Oldham, and for the better supplying the town with water."—
The act proceeds to constitute a certain number of individuals
under the name of the Oldham Gas and Water-works Com-
pany, for the purpose of carrying into effect the powers con-
tained in the preamble and title of that act. They had power
to purchase property against the will of the owner, to lay down
drains for the purpose of supplying the town with water, and
were further empowered to take certain rights and dues from
the inhabitants of Oldham—those rights and dues being speci-
fied in the act itself. The 57th clause then proceeds to enact as
follows; " Provided always, and be it further enacted, that it
shall be lawful for any person or persons whomsoever, at all
times to use and employ the water which shall so as aforesaid
be contained in any of the pipes or aqueducts of the said com-
pany, in extinguishing of any lire or fires which may happen at
any house or building within the said town of Oldham and the
neighbourhood, without making any satisfaction or compensa-
tion for the same to the said company. or any peyson or personswhomsoever; and that proper fire-plugs, with painted directions
or marks on the houses and buildings in the said town and
neighbourhood, shall be provided at the expense of the said
company, at proper, distances and in convenient parts of the
said town and neighbourhood ; and when and so soon as any
such fire-plugs shall be finished, the said company shall deliver
a key or keys of such fire-plugs at each and every house or
place in the said town and neighbourhood wherein any engine
shall be kept for the extinguishing of fire." On this clause the
present action was founded; and he should prove that at the
time the plaintiff's premises were on fire there was no water in
the pipe leading along the street called Manchester-street, in
Oldham. The complaint, therefore, against the company was,
that they had neither fireplugs, according. to the intent and
meaning of the act, nor had they any water in the pipes, so that
the engines could play and extinguish the fire in the street in
question. On the 29th June;. insraSt year, the plaintiff had a
house and shop in Manchester-street, Oldham, and carried on
business as a pawnbroker and salesman. About twelve months
before that the plaintiff lost his wife and female servant, and he
had no housekeeper, but a woman came to the house to clean it
and cook for him. On that day; which was a Sunday, the
plaintiff and a person named Campbell, who was his servant,
went out to see some,friends. Campbell returned before it was
dark, let himself in with a key which he had, and examined
the shop, to see if all was safe, according to custom. He,
then, finding his master had not returned, placed a floating-
light or, the table, in some water, and went to bed. His master
returned about ten, awl sat down iu the kitchen, without smelling
the fire; but about eleven o'clock the servant was awoke with
a very strong smell of fire; it increased; he began to feel alarm,
went down stairs and communicated his suspicions to his master,.
who accompanied him into the shop, upon opening the door of
which they were met by a volume of smoke, and then perceived •
that the shop was on fire. The servant ran to the door, gave
the alarm, and immediately a vast number of persons collected
together, anxious to assist in extinguishing the lire. Two engines
were promptlynu the spot, and there was a cry in the crowd tor
the fire-plugs, expecting that would be the most ready, the near-
est, and best supply of water for the purpose; they tried in vain;
they could not get at them; they could not discover them; there
was no direction to point out their situation. There was no
water. There was a small supply of muddy water near, but not
enough to bring the engines freely into play. At length, one of
the servants of the company came up, and, after groping about
sonic time, found the plug, bit there was no water in it, and
before any water could be obtained, it was found necessary to
open a ping 400 or 500 yards off, the result of which was, that
instead of the flames being got under, as they might have been,
they extended and did great injury. The plaintiff, shortly
before, had taken his 'Stisck, and found the value of it to amount
to 1:2b00 on the premises. There was a salvage of .C 200.,
but the house and shop, which did not belong to him, were con-
siderably injured; he therefore claimed for his client the sum of
£2300, the injury sustained by him in consequence of the neg-
ligence of the Company.
Several witnesses were then called to prove the statement of
the learned gentleman, and Mr. Bamford, Agent for the Pro.
tector Fire-office, proved that the plaintiff was insured for
£llOO, which had been paid to him.
Mr. POLLOCK then addressed the jury in a powerful speech
of considerable length for the defendants. After remarking on
the impropriety of Mr. Bamford's.conduct causing to be paid
over to the plaintiff the sum of without obtaining the
necessary information, which was of easy attainment, he ob-
served, that it was for the jury to say whether, instead of his
having obtained all the information he could, and whether by
the examination of Campbell facts had not come out enough to
put the cause out of court. This was a new mode of snaking a
water company insurers without pa}ing them any premium,
but he trusted his clients would be protected from it,. not only
by the law, but also by their verdict. Mr. Crompton had al-
ready received £l4OO, and.the jury would have to say whether
it was not out-and-out beyond what claiissige he had :ustaincd.
From the evidence of the plaintiff's servant, it turned out i n

Au I:ST 23, 1 Sg3.

e 9
cross-examination that he had only traded to a very litnt nof
tat during the two years previous to the fire, and could.!di
man in his conscience say that there was £l6OO worth of
on the premises? His learned friend's complaint wo,iogs,
whereas the Gas-light Company were bound to find firelto
they had neglected to do so. he said, "As you were }On_ it
find plugs, you did not do so ; the house. was burnt down;„,
contained property to the amount of £2500; there was a sinn
of ±:200, and therefore I claim £2300;" but he heard nothing 4.6
the £llOO paid by the fire-office. This was an action
inup.) ff 2
be
case, and if no dainag,e had been ained by the Plati
youd the amount paid by the fire-officsuste, he contended Oil
verdict ought to be for the defendants. Supposing a
time the engines arrived, there had been a plentiful suPrd,,
of water, and they had lad on the premises and goluld
and had succeeded in extinguishing the fire, what
~eue,
have • been the value of the goods, for it was M elaze?
already, that when they arrived the place was in a tof
and were the defendants liable for that ? The
Parliament under which the coin any was framed fur a
purpose of supplying the town of Oldham with water. shall
because it contained a clause enacting that the public
,rril
have it without paying for it, was Mr. Crompton to sa),',u coo
have more, I'll have pay for the damage I've sustained, e
,you have not put plugs down ?" He protested against thestea
bffity of the company under such circumstances- he. r°te
against the action being mmtnenced at the period; it was.. do,
the law he looked for protection from the attempt to gawrdiet
mages from his' clients,: and to the jury he looked for a %..e,roOf
to protect his clients It om such a claim_ The burden of I_l4.
was upon the plaintiff; and could they be satisfied with theateit,
dence which had been offered ? How could they, looking 4cl
say that the plaintiff had suffered one farthing of loss b,)oir
the £1100? He therefore sat down with confidence th3t
verdict would he for the defendants.
The Learned Judge then summed up the case, reserving ir
veral points of law for the consideration of the court above. op•
Th,- Court for a.f:ely

.Je jury retired, and after remaining out of CPI, t tilte
siderabie time, informed his lordship that. they were not
.not,
to agree, on which the parties consented to withdraw "
so that each will have to pay his own costs.
INSURANCE.
„etiOn
VITTERY AND OTHERS V. HOLLAND.—This was an -- „do,
recover the sum of £245 for the freight of a quantity of Of'teriet
board a vessel from Terceira to Liverpool, pursuant to the
of the charter party. rowed
Mr. VEN AISLES opened the pleadings, and Mre.7 es
JONES stated the case to the jury. The plaintiffs, ty4°.fieost id
e'
at Brixton, in Devonshire; were owners of the brig ~"
and the defendant, Mr. Sam. Holland, was a merchant an trans''
in fruit at Liverpool, who had been, for some time before th
action in question, connected with a person named Chaievle
importing fruit from the island of Terceira. fu FebruarYWO
the vessel in question was chartered for the purpose of hr` rt for
fruit from Terceira, of which part was for Challiuor and Pdatovt
the defendant. 'The charter party was originally iuteude 50,
in the names of boa lloiland and Cliallinor, as 11'°:,,cle
from the manner in which it was drawn up, 'but Hoils'io ,
being present at the time it was signed, it was road elatP
name of Challinor alone, and the defence to be set up wa%.ret°
Challinor had since become a bankrupt the plaintitls `s-to
look to his assignees for payment, and the defendant wa Te 9;
free. The charter party bore date on the 3d of FebrtlarYlloo4'
it was made between Thomas Reid, master of the MaYto l'er;
and stipulated that the vessel was to proceed in ballast 00/°,
ceira, to take in a cargo of fruit to be delivered in LiveLlyitt,
the usual rates of freight and primage. The charter Pa' ;AO;
signed by Challinor alone, but it would be observed
original, the name offlolland was intended to stand allteo
that of Challinor, and-the owners of the vessel, who ha,, 1.0';
had several dealings with Holland and Challinor jointl:ireirj
ing upon the honour of a British merchant, did not reVsigse,;
signature of both parties, but thought that if Challiuor.v.
for Holland it would be quite sufficient for their se,cur,!:rl,,o
there were any doubt at this moment as to the due neeeatfror
't
the cargo, or the amount of freight, the plaintiffs i've!",,lor,
moment ready, as they had always been, to let antiits
merchant settle the dispute. The vessel sailed for Terc'ilill°o','
a cargo of fruit, the joint speculation of Holland and Choeio);,
and, both in Liverpool and London, nothing was more ceter,
amongst dealers in fruit than such speculations, the carg.eaP!
divided according to the shares, and the parties being )131.
liable to the owners. of the vessel for the freight. 'Clue
flower sailed for Terceira, and returned with a cargo e.optilij'
but, in the meantime, Challinor, without the slightest 'e',
tion tion on his chaiacter, had become involved in ditlietilt;Oi,c
the plaintiffs, who had a lien on the cargo for the freight' 001:i
amounted to .E 245, besides primage, amounting to 1.'',401„
refused to deliver the goods until they had some sec'',;bo;r
ipiajrneiedi:tt.henfl'wh,readeefichnedfaoniltowHionlgtalnedttweristloiinguaptltiaeincanrgedidt:',o9sl"
of the Mayflower:— V,
11
S ,—Mr. Charles Challinor having contracted with tile' gr
flower to bring a cargo of fruit, I hereby undertake to iieg'
swerable to you for the freight agreed upon by Mr. G°
according to the terms of the charter party.-17aur...,s k,
g'j,
Liverpool, 11th June, 18.31. S ANIL. 1-I°L-.3,3j'ep
On the receipt of this guarantee the fruit was delivered De,
as the freight had not been paid, the present action hate
brought to recover it, though the plaintiffs did not wiskeeig
single shilling more than their due, and were still 'Aieler,A
refer the question to the decision of any merchant or br
to, t 7
Liverpool. The proposition to refer not being acceded o,j
case roceeded The first witness called was
Mr.p Edward. Dashford Glynn, of the firm of John G.),liof,
Co., ship-brokers, at Liverpool. Before Mr. Glynn was,,`-tk srd
to give evidence, Mr. WIGHTMAN, for the defendant, P'f 61)'‘.
ral questions to him, with a view to show that the house °jolt
and Co. were principals in the action, and had givenbet
tions to the plaintiff's attorney; but as it appeared i3c,o
house with which the witness was connected had niere'ioel',
as the agents for the plaintiffs throughout the transact
testimony was deemed admissible, and the examilletloijrl:l:
ceeded. He stated that the firm had acted as agents je
owners of the Mayflower for many years, and had rdalLeaoo,
ings with Holland and Challinor conjointly. After i'Veflillf
to the chartering of the vessel by Challinor, on account`, 01,,
self and Holland, he stated that on the arrival of the 3-L3e6
at Liverpool, before delivering the cargo, he sent the 'fedi;
Thos. Reid, to Holland, to snake 'inquiries about theihef°'ll
and received by the eaptai4. a letter from, Holland, on,"lePti
of which he delivered the cargo. Ile knew the dele[teo
hand-writing, and could swear that that letter was wrr
him. The freight amounted to £245, besides prirnage• eter,';i
Mr. Sergeant JONES here proposed to put in the he'aroo,
Mr. WIGHTMAN,Ipr the defendant, objected to it, on the,fjefl'i,
that, as as it was not stamped, it was not admissible in e,sprell!,r;
After a long argument, his lordship decided that the let,;(111:ii!
not be admitted, and asked the learned sergeant who eiboo'"
the case for the plaintiffs whether he could not go on do 10
Mr. Serjeant JONES,—" Yes, my lord, but we shout" tbe
better with it. (A laugh.) You swear (addressing ~,dOV
ness) that that letter was in the handwriting of the defe'sr
Witness,—" Yes." Mr. Seijeaut Jones,—"And you ovealTio
Mr. Holland is a merchant of Liverpool?" Witness,l oot
Mr. Serjeant Jones,—" I hope that a case like this pt
stopped by an objection about a stamp." gull
Mr. Charles Challinor was then called, but Mr. asv '
objected to his tiring examined, on the grounds that li,e101)!
interested party, that under the 127th section of the va
act, he was still liable to have any future property seinee
assignees, and that if he could saddle this debt on the ugere)
he would release himself from half the responsibility IP
he still stood.—After a long argument, his lordshieot°al
the objection, but took a note of it.—Mr. Challinor toe tteti,tif
0
that in Feb. 1831, he had an adventure to Terceira, 'lO9,
the joint account of himself and Mr. Holland. He, ael
viously had joint speculations with Mr. Holland to til.eeiti,)
of several thousand pounds. The vessel sailed upon t'aorg,,
account. There was a charter party. [Mr. Wigh,W,t;ellZ
called for the production of the charter party, but lir.„.llo'3lt
Jones said that as his learned friend had made so tot%
cantile objections, he would probably object to the chd'aeerq,ill
also, and declined leroducing it.j The voyage was O°T,l
on their joint account. The Mayflower returned front ool'il)
on the Bth June. About the 12th of that month, after or) pi!
had undertaken to give the guarantee, he (Mr. Challicevton,
Holland's assent, tendered Co Mr. Glynn Holland's acoestlt'
for £l4O, and £3O in cash, for primage, &c., as P 3,1,1001.
the balance due under the charter
eparty. Messrs. `-‘l,;th°,i!
Co. declined taking the bill, and it was returned `rsot.'i:
fendant, who remarked on this:that as he was the yet ii"„oir:
guaranted the payment, the plaintiffs might have ta'e:,:ec°l;
By the JUDGE.—There was no dispute about the „Vie
If he had tendered money instead of the bill, the aece'ved,rge.
have been settied so far as the defendant was concer es3yl
he (witness) would have been liable to the other and
He (witness) became a bankrupt in October, 183,1400' (id
twice previously made an arrangement with his creofreoe hie
The LORD CHIEF JUSTICE, in answer to an ohjetiocieA
Mr. WIGHTMAN, Said that the defendant had first le
self liable under a guarantee to a payment for whicolo'!recl
person was previously liable, and then tendered the Li!e(
which he had so become liable. He must theref°,l,ritA,
verdict for the plaintiff for £2/15, the amount claimed/0(n
reserving the points urged by the counsel for the de'_e, co'
Verdict for the plaintiff—damages £245, subject tu tof:
TRESPASS.
WRIGHT v BARKER.—This was an action norm- etkr,
• th
cover damages for a trespass, but in reality to try troelvd
about thirty acres of marsh land, situated near Car
head of Morecambe Bay, lying on the sea shore, and e4r. et",
covered in part by high spring tides. The plaintiff, 'Yost,iO4
Wright, of Liverpool, claimed by purchase from the ,es!,`"l6:4
Mr. Adams, in the year 1828, and several old men, 111,i
the neighboilehood, were called to prove that si"ciou
various owners had grazed the marsh in queitior,l ip, pl
stray cattle, and exercised all the' rights of ownel9,o°
a trial of several hours' duration, the jury found 1.03
tiff, damages one shilling, thus establishing the right- /
WEDNESDAY, AUGUST 2.1. if'. A
EJECTSIk.NT.
.1k,'01170)
V,
MILLINGTON AND ANOTHER V. THONIPSON AN- the t,ar
This was an issue from the Court of Review to trYlivel:oo
of a mortgage deed, between James Hudson, a I)4,ercil
a Messrs. Robert and William Mills 'Millington, „sells
the town of Manchester. , 011;0°1
Messrs. PO LL OCK, ALEXANDER, and BLISS Nc'er-,rs• 's
ld
the plaintiffs, and the A TTORNEY-GENEVAL and 311 tb3t,efti
MAN and BRANDT for the defendants.- It appeare cheut,ioc
son named James Hudson, a calico printer in Md°,l4(ill,i
who printed for the plaintiffs to a considerable 95re
several sums of money advanced to him by the Mego, 01'0'11'
ton to a considerable a mo unt; that, as a securitY
son gave them a mortgage deed of certain premises jeo.',l
1832, Hudson-became bankrupt, and it was eonten“ cotPte/
deed was void in consequence of usury having bee.loitii'M
by the plaintiffs, Messrs. Millington. A regular tliNti)•
action was carried on between Hudson an the gea 0
who advanced him a variety of-sums of nioneY'oot.,i64i
generally indebted to them to a considerable Pier?,
payments made in cash a discount of 5 per ceetlie (oe
1-1- per cent.liremium charged. The case for t ilteol3
was, that before and up to the time of exeon',rolle,y)
interest was charged both en the principal sol,lee 00,
count, and on the premium which was added tociaileeoly
Hudson. A reat number of witnesses were itolftl/4
sides, and the" ause lasted the entire day. Th%ity°
found for the plaintiff, thereby establishing the vat' ijer of
e of' JO
[A press of matter obliges us to omit soul stir
which we had prepared, but which shall aP
next.]

_
.
o°ol'4 it
CORRUPTING UNUSI,A WORDS.--A personverf
pidly does not, most probably, see more than 1,,,50 01,
.010/
portion of the letters, or even of the words, vowfiil7ojogil
a glance he apprehends: this is proved by til„e'll
analyse the orthography of any .new or unto'iTie
occurs. A steam-boat on. Loch Lomond bore t off eo
of -Euphrosyne, which the Highlanders regolartl,; i;el4,if
the Hugh Fraser. A very pious puritan, 1"; t" bis,:o
.44
Holborn, in Cromwell's tinac,, put as a motto s* fi;',ol/
encosnpasseth us." In the coarse of years t osecbijelti
obliterated ; and when it came to be relic its
treacherous recollection of those amongst wh"lt'a
was ren-leinbesed, it was entitled, "The- Goat I'4ol' (e'vrf,
a blazonry being given to suit the motto. In of th.e,J4ol(
a farm, which, hum standing nn the limits . I'o
et
ground of the boar hunt, near StAndrew's9 f tiaaplot
appellation Apri Cursus. This, in proccs (), aco it
corrupted into Upper Gurus; and then, to iitn'opf
its now name, the next farm -lower ttorn the
Nether Gurus.