The Liverpool Standard and General Commercial Advertiser.
Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1843-04-14 00:00:00

TION OF SMOKE

Mr. C. W. WILLIAMS then came forward, and was re-
ceived with much approbation. lie spoke at considerable
length, and was heard with great attention and frequent ap-
plause; but the subject being of a scientific character, we
only report such parts as have a general or practical bearing.
After a review of the failure of the plans of modern smoke-
burners, from their attention to the mechanical properties of
furnaces, while they neglected the chemical processes carried
on in them, Mr. Williams observed that Mr. Smith's paper
charged him with having broached certain views which were
not only novel, and " totally at variance with generally re-
ceived opinions," but which the public mind would not re-
ceive on Mr. Williams's mere ipso dixit. Among these
views, which Mr. Smith denied, were—lst, that smoke once
formed in a furnace, cannot be afterwards burned ; and, 2nd,
that cold air was preferable to hot air.
Mr. Williams then reviewed Mr. Smith's account of the
effect of applying heat to coal in a furnace and in a retort,
and which he had described as being essentially different in
their effects, whereas all the authorities state that it was the
same.

Mr. Williams observed that Mr. Smith said—" If oxygen
of a high temperature could be supplied to the coal gases,
immediately on their being liberated smoke would certainly
be prevented." This, however, he admitted was imprac-
ticable, and hence erroneously inferred. that " the formation
of smoke cannot be prevented." " Did it not occur to Mr.
Smith," said Mr. Williams, " that if this far-fetched notion
of bringing hot oxygen to the cold gases was impossible, the
bringing cold air to hot gases would produce the same effect?
In proof of this, he quoted Mr. Braude and others, and re.
ferred to the candle and lamp as illustrations of the fact.
In these, the air is cold when applied to the gas, and perfect
combustion follows.
Mr. Smith's paper stated that on the lid being luted on,
a retort, " hydrogen was evolved—that carbon vapour was
evolved, abundantly, and that atmospheric air was resolved
into its constituents." The entire of this,_ Mr. Williams
stated, was contrary to all authority.-Ist. Hydrogen is not
evolved—that gas being evolved only towards the close of the
operation. 2nd.—Carbon vapour is not evolved, and never
could be evolved, as carbon cannot be vapourized even by the
most intense beat. And 3rd.—Atmospheric air is not re-
solved into its elements, for this plain reason, that there is
none of it in the retort at the time.
To make out this case, Mr. Smith alleges that if we allow
the escape of the gases through the luting of the retort, they
are not gases, but " dense smoke." This notion, so contrar
to fact, M r. Williams said was proved to be erroneous by an
experiment which exhibited the gas and smoke in their dis-
tinct characters, and, as an easy test, shewed, that while the
former, though higly coloured, would not soil a piece of
white paper, the latter instantly deposited on it the black
separated carbon. He then placed some pitch hi a small re-
tort, and on introducing into it a piece of red-hot iron, much
Sias was evolved, but which, he said, Mr. Smith had called
dense smoke." On applying a lighted taper to this gas, at
a considerable distance from its exit, the three stages of gas,
flame, and smoke were all distinguishable at the same mo-
ment—the flame being intromediate, between the other two.
By what authority, then, said Mr. Williams, does Mr.
Smith degrade these gases, and nickname them as "dense
smoke, and for the sole purpose of making out his theory,
that smoke is made and can be burned ? For the first time
the motto is thus said to be proved, and to Mr. Smith be the
credit given—Ex fumo dare lucem ; for if it be dense smoke
that issues from the retorts, it
must be the same which
passes to the purifiers. Mr. Smith's paper states—" That
it is impossible to prevent tine formation of the mixture of
gases and vapours, popularly called smoke." Mr. Williams
asked, who ever denied it ? The question, however, was,
not what is popularly called smoke, but what smoke is? for
on this depends the remedy. Mr. Smith's case, be said, was
this—at the instant the gases are formed, they are gases, but
the next instant they are dense smoke : the chemical world,
however, would noeadopt this new nomenclature.
Mr. Williams said he then came to the more serious point :
Mr. Smith's assertion that Dr. Ure and Professor Brande
concurred with him in these views; and to set this matter

oght, hit toad writteit In bah ileit4 gontioalen,l44oi4ii 4
copy of Mr, Smith's paper, He would now read their re.
plies, as essential to his justification. Dr. lire's letter to
Mr. Williams says, " I quite agree with you in considering
the prevention of smoke to be the true mode of curing the
nuisance ; for when once formed, that is, when the carbona-
ceous particles become deposited, it is impossible effectually
to burn them, so as to destroy the smoke which they occa-
sion, or rather constitute. I have received your favour with
the pamphlet inclosed, (Mr. Smith's,) and in reference to
the words to which you have directed my attention, I have
shortly to reply, that I do not concur with the author, when
he says ' that coals cannot be burned without smoke." No
one can deny ' that it is impossible to prevent the formation
of what is popularly called smoke.' Popular notions and
popular names, however, are not current with chemical phi-
losophers. Nor do I agree with the said author, that, when
gases escape from the retort, they are dense smoke, although
they may be vulgarly called so."

Professor Braidess reply, Mr. Williams observed, was
equally decided. His letter states, " There is so little chemis-
try in Mr. Smith's paper, and that little is of so questionable
a character, that I am sure you will have no difficulty in re-
futing it. To the third paragraph of page 6, ' Combustion
as defined by chemists,' &c. I would ask, what chemists ?
The whole seems to me as if the author did, in fact, not pre-
cisely understand himself. Again, at page 10, 'As a further
illustration,' &c. This paragraph is manifestly a jumble of
errors. Now, as to the quibble about burning smoke ;in
other words, burning what is to be presumed has already
been burned, and, therefore, cannot be burned twice over;
you have already so ably and satisfactorily dealt with that
matter, as to render any remarks upon my part needless. I
can, in short, see nothing in Mr. Smith's paper; that in the
least invalidates your views respecting the prevention of
smoke, by the combustion of that which would become smoke,
if you would let it ; and 3ou are quite right as to the inter-
pretation you put upon the meaning of my words."
After such statements from the chemical professors of the
very highest standing, said Mr. Williams, it was unnecessary
to say more in disproof of the errors of Mr. Smith on this
part of the subject. He then combatted the doctrine of the
value of hot air in the combustion of gaseous matter, and re-
ferred to the comparison drawn between his (Mr. William's)
furnace and that described as " commonly called Kurtz's
patent." He thought it would have been well if Mr. Smith
had ascertained if this,'so called, plan had any claim to the
name, and thns avoid the imputation of leading the society
astray. The difference Mr. Smith described as consisting in
this,—that "in the one, cold air is prescribed for the pre-
vention of smoke ;in the other, hot air for its cure." He
denied, however, that hot air was used, and to test this fact
he had erected a furnaee as now used in the Victory, under
the name of Kurtz's patent, but which is in fact nothing but
Parke's old patent double bridge with cold air. The pipes
acted as bars, and on these the fuel lay. So far from find-
ing the air which passed through them being " intensely
heated," the pipes themselves were so cool that the hand
might be kept pressed against them—an aperture having been
left by which the hand or a thermometer might be intro-
duced. A model of this furnace was then exhibited. Mr.
Williams said be then bad the pipes lowered to the bottom
of the ash-pit, and out of contact with the fire—the result
being that the air then actually issued even warmer than be-
fore. The third experiment was the removing the pipes, and
replacing them with his own air box, through the perforations
of which the air isused. Here the result was, that the air
issued still warmer than in either of the former ; so that, as
he observed, if there was any value in the air being warmed
or hot, (which, however, he denied,) his plan had a better
claim to the title of a hot air plan than that " commonly
called Knrtz's."

Mr. Smith's paper, he observed, stated that there were
admiralty testimonials in favour of the plan as adopted by the
Urgent steamer ; but what were the testimonials as to the
Driver, or the Merlin ? In both it had failed. In truth,
said Mr.f Williams, the whole has been a series of experi-
ments in these Admiralty vessels, until they had at length
returned to cold air and Parke's plan in the steamer the
Victory, though it was still called Kurtz's plan.
Besides, said Mr. Williams, bow did it happen that Mr.
Smith, though he could not see the Urgent, had overlooked
the steamers the Prince and Princess, and the ten other ves-
sels in the port to which his Argand furnace had been suc-
cessfully applied, or the public works in this town which also
had adopted it.

Mr. WILLIAMS then exposed the error into which Mr.
Smith had fallen, in stating that the bottom of a boiler would
be intensely heated, and for which he said he would give him
a very simple remedy,—namely, the keeping a supply of
water in it. He then placed a vessel with water over a large
laboratory burner, and when the water boiled he took it off,
and allowed that instead of being intensely heated, the bot-
tom was so cold that he could press his hand to it. Mr. W.
subsequently exhibited Houldsworths pyremeter, by which
the changes of temperature in the flues were accurately indi-
cated.—Mr. Smith made a short reply, repeating his state-
ment that smoke could not be prevented being formed.
Mr. SAMUEL HOLME then, in very complimentary terms,
proposed a vote of thanks to Mr. Williams for the able com-
munication he had made. He was glad of an opportunity of
saying what he had long wished publicly to declare, that not
only was Liverpool much indebted to him in reference to
steam navigation, but also Ireland, for the benefits he had
conferred upon her. He (Mr. Elolme) had gone through the
sister island ; he had gone up the noble Shannon, and he
did not take a single step in that country without witnessing
the successful and beneficial effects of his science, genius,
and enterprise. Mr. Williams, be concluded, was worthy
of the highest esteem for what he had accomplished in this
country and in Ireland. The members then retired to the
refreshment-room.

THE LIVERPOOL ANTI-EDUCATION MEETING

(From Yesterday's Times)

At a meeting at the Music-hall, Liverpool, on Monday last,
to oppose the education clauses of the Factory Bill, there
were present " ministers of the following various denomina-
tions • ' that is to say, first, " Catholics;" secondly, Scotch
Presbyterians ; next Welsh Independents, then simple Inde-
pendents, Unitarians, " Independent College, Manchester,"
Baptists, Welch Calvinistic Methodists, and " Methodist
New Connexion." After much declamation about " justice,"
" blood," " monopoly," and the like, a Mr. Thom, a Uni-
tarian, developed the principle of " comprehensive " state
education, as the ground on which all definite religious teach-
ing ought to be opposed, in terms which must have startled,
we should think, pretty considerably the " Catholic " deno-
minationists who, as we are informed, were present. Thus
then spake the Unitarian deputy,—
" We hold that a truly national education would be as
comprehensive as its name. It would be undertaken in a
large and Catholic spirit."
Now, we always conceived that " Catholicity " was some-
hing uniform, alt-pervading, everlasting, consistent, at one
with itself, definite, and, as being all these, a badge of truth.
We, therefore, supposed that if a religious Catholicity were
referred to by the speaker he implied that the teaching in
question should be conducted upon the basis of that catholic
truth, which appeals to the general consent of Christians of
all ages and nations ; but that, if merely secular education
were alluded to, then that there was implied a reference to
some scheme of instrugtion, some method of tuition, which
all the sages of all countries and all generations had concurred
to recommend and establish. What was our surprise, then,
to read the following piece of that very intelligible declamation,
which followed this mouthing about Catholicity :
" He conceived that a system of national education would
regard as its highest object the rearing up of a race of free
men,—of a race of men whose honour, whose truth, whose
integrity, whose religion would be based solely upon the
spiritual convictions of their own souls, and upon the moral
convictions of their own minds. But what noble fruits of
knowledge could they expect from a system based on class
degradation or how could they look for national glory to
proceed out of individual subserviency ?" &c.
More follows to the same effect, implying that all educa-
tion ought to be simply suggestive, or not even so much as
that, and that, therefore, it might and ought to embrace,
in one uniform vacuity of nothingness, good Christian, good
Mahomedan, good Hottentot, and good everything educa-
tion. The poor gentleman, indeed, mistook largeness for
Catholicity, and an infinite power of diversity and dissent
for Catholic agreement—just as men take height for symme-
try. or think that numbers make an army. But what is the
plain English of all this declamation about self-conviction
and self-created religion and morality ? It is neither more
or less than the monstrous humbug, that arch-folly of
the day, that people can and therefore ought to teach with-
out biasing. It is tyranny, say these gentlemen, to teach a
child to be a Christian, because when he gets old he might
possibly have preferred, if left to himseif, to be a Ma-
homedan or a Mormon; and Mr. Thom goes further—he is
for leaving even notions of " honour," " truth," and " in-
tegrity," to the chances of juvenile speculation. On his
principles, if a young gentleman should happen to prefer the
amusing morality of, " Jack Sheppard " or the Newyate
Calendar to that inculcated by his Bible or taught in his
catechism,—and we are sorry to be believe that the evil
tendency of hntnan nature will sometimes, if left to itself—
pace magistri Thom—choose the downward path instead of
the upward,—it would yet be the height of " tyranny,"
" monopoly," and "class degradation," to interfere and
compel "individual subserviency." " No," says the
" Catholic " Thom, " let them perish if they will, but let it
be by their own free agency. Let our teaching be for evil
as well as for good, but only make it large and comprehen-
siue. Let us only have the Catholicity' which teaches
everything, even though it be only because it teaches any-
thing—religion or irreligion—virtue or vice."

ROYAL GIFT.—The Queen Dowager has transmitted £25
towards the endowment of Parr Church, near St. Helen's.

LORD EDWARD SOMERSET.—A number of the friends of
this distinguished officer have resolved upon erecting a
memorial of his brilliant services in the defence of his
country.

The mastership of Dulwich College is vacant by the death
of Dr. Allen. The college, called " God's.• Gift " College,
was founded in 1619 by Edward Alleyne, the player, and
friend of Shakspeare. He endowed it with the manor of
Dulwich, and tenements in London, producing at present
about £15,000 alear. The foundation consists of a master
(who must bear the same name as the founder), a warden,
four fellows, six poor brothers, the like number of poor sis-
ters, twelve poor scholars, six assistants, and thirty non-re-
sident members.

THE QUEEN'i; STAG-HOUNDS.—CAUSE OF KENNEL
LAMENESS.—In consequence of a discovery which had been
recently made by a medical gentleman at Windsor, in the
case of one of the whippers-in to the royal hunt, who was
labouring under the effects of a paralysis, the cause of kennel
lameness has been found to proceed from the presence of
lead in the water, which is supplied to the kennel at Ascot,
by means of pipes composed of that metal, through which
the water is conveyed for a considerable distance. Since the
discovery of the presumed cause of lameness in the royal
pack, the water has heen analysed by Dr. Ryan, professor of
chemistry at the Polytechnic Chemical School, and also by
Mr. Phillips, the celebrated chemist, by order of the Com-
missioners of Woods and Forests. The results of Dr. Ryan's
two experiments are as follows :—The first examination was
made from a sample of water taken from the source or
spring-head before it had entered the leaden pipes, when the
specific gravity of 60 degrees was found to be 1.000.18. The
imperial pint, on evaporation to dryness, yielded 2.37 grains
of solid matter. The solid contents of an imperial pint were
found by Dr. Ryan to be,—

Chloride of Sodium....
Chloride of Magnesium
Sulphate of Lime
A trace of Carbonic Acid

Grains.
. 1.54
• 0.71
. 0.128

Excess in the course of analysis . • .OOB
The second examination was made of water taken from the
leaden pipes at the Royal kennel at Ascot, when the specific
gravity was found to be 100.42. Upon an imperial pint of
this water being, as in the former experiment, evaporated to
dryness, it yielded two grains of solid matter, viz.
Carbonate of Lead. Grains.l64
Organic Matter, and Traces of Chlorides
of
Sodium and Magnesium, and Sulphate of
Lime......

Excesses in the course of analysis .002
It has, therefore, been calculated, by Dr. Ryan,
that
every
imperial gallon of the water used at the Royal kennel, after
passing through the leaden pipes, contains 1.312 grains of the
carbonate of lead.

INTELIJOV

SOUTH LANCASHIRE SPRING ASSIZES

CROWN COURT.-TUESDAY

Patrick Doran, aged 40, was called upon, charged with
having, on the 26th of September, 1842, feloniously set fire
to his premises, with intent to defraud the Phoenix Insurance
Company. There were eight counts in the indictment,
charging the offence in different ways. The prisoner pleaded
not guilty. _ All the witnesses were ordered out of court.

Mr. Adolphus, Mr. Henderson, and Mr. Denman appeared
in support of the prosecution ; Mr. Wilkins and Mr. James
defended the prisoner.
Mr. ADOLPHUS detailed the circumstances of the case to
the jury. As a full history of the matter was published when
the examinations took place before the magistrates, and as
the details again appear more minutely in the evidence, it is
unnecessary to give the statement of the learned counsel.
Several plans of the premises were produced by the advo-
cates of the prosecution ; and a well-executed model of
Doran's house and shop, with the contiguous edifices, was
produced by the learned gentlemen for the defence, and made
use of by both parties.
Mr. Webster, a cooper in Crompton-street, deposed to
the circumstances of the first appearance of the fire, and as
to giving the alarm.

James Ainsworth.—l am a constable. On Monday, the
26th December last, I was at the premises in Crompton-
street, which were then completely burnt down. The wind
was about N.N.E. That wind would carry the great fire
clear away from the premises last burnt. I went next day to
the fire. The prisoner followed me up from there to the po-
lice-office with his brother. Henry Doran caked me if I
wanted Patrick Doran. I said I did, and I took him over to
the commissioners.

Alice Service.—l am a char-woman. On the evening of
the 26th of September last, I was at Mr. Webster's. It was
from half-past nine to ten o'clock that Mr. Webster gave the
alarm. He called out " Here's fire here." I ran into the
back kitchen to the door. I cannot say whether there is a
window in Webster's back kitchen. I saw fire coming from
Bushell's stable through the boards near the roof. I ran
round to Doran's front door to give the alarm. I found the
door a little open, about the breadth of my hand. I tried to
get in, but something prevented it from opening. I thrutched
against the door, and Mr. Doran started from behind it.
When I saw him he staggered against his parlour door. The
front door opened on the right, and the parlour door opened
on the same side of the lobby. I could see Mr. Doran by
the light from the fire; there was fire in his niece's room, on
the left, next to Bushell's stable. I could see the fire coming
from the niece's room ; it was on fire. I knew Doran : I
had known him two years. I said, " Mr. Doran, Mr. Doran,
your house is on fire at the back !" He wrung his hands
and cried out, "Oh dear, oh' dear! I heard him speak on
former occasions. He had his hat on and a dark frock coat.
but I could not tell the colour. I went away directly back
to Mr. Webster's, and took the children. I did not
see any
one but Doran.

By Mr. WILKINS.---I could not swear to seeing his face.
I did not see his face to swear to it. I did not see his face.
I said in the first instance that 1 was almost sure that I could
swear to him.

By the JUDGE.--I have no doubt about it now ; not in
the least.

Richard Bibby.—l am an inspector of police. On the
night of the 26th of September I was on duty. I recollect
going for an engine, to bring it to the fire in Crompton-street.
1 went down the street before the engine. I went opposite
Doran's store. It was about twenty minutes before ten
o'clock ; that was before I went for the engine. It was about
ten minutes after that I returned, after having called for the
engine. There were a few persons there ; 'amongst them I
saw the prisoner. He d—d my eyes, and told me to get
out of the way, or to drive the people out of the way. I had
not known him before. I have no doubt he is the man. I
had walked at a quick pace from the Amphitheatre, and took
me fifteen minutes.
By Mr. WierciNs.—When I went to the Amphitheatre
from the premises I went along Great Howard-street, up
Leeds-street, along Earle-street, on the left hand side of St.
Paul's Church, into Key-street, along Moorfields, Dale-
street, Sir Thomas's-buildings, Richmond-street, and Roe-
street. [Mr. WILKINS.—If your Lordship will try that
with your compasses, you will find that to be about 2,000
yards.] [TheJUDGE.--It is 2,200.] I could not have gone
back in the same time. The premises were burned down
about ten minutes past ten. Later in the evening I heard
some one say he had been up to the theatre to look for his
master. Ido not know who that was.
James Marshall.—l am a policeman. I was on duty at
the great fire on the 26th Dec. I was stationed at the bot-
tom of Crompton-street. A lad came and told me that a
fresh fire had broken out in Crompton-street. I ran oppo-
site to Mr. Doran's House and saw a fire at the back. I
gave the alarm, at the bottom of Crompton-street, and a
police-officer passed the word on. I returned in a few mi-
nutes. I think the wind was northeast. It was changeable ;
I heard people say so. My observation was that it was
northeast. I saw a few sparks flying ; they came towards
the dock ; that would be from northeast.
By Mr. WILXINS.—The witness was requested to point
out on the model where the fire was when he first saw it
He pointed to the roof of the stable next to Doran's house
The only person I saw on my return was the woman I have
mentioned. I cannot say whether it was Alice Service, or
not. The ruins of the old fire were behind Bushell's stable.
I saw the horses got out of Bushell's stable. Two horses
were brought out through the grate in front of the house.
The horses at the end fu.rthest from Doran's house were
burnt.
Samuel Tuck. I was -a fireman at the time of the great
fire. I was on duty on the 26th September. I cannot be
positive as to the state of the wind. I should think to the
northward. 1 heard the alarm of fire showing itself at the
end next Doran's stable.
The witness here described the bringing up of the engine.
The fire then got head and beat us back into the cooperage.
It could not, in my judgement, have been produced from any
sparks from the old fire.
John Newport. lam a police-officer and fireman, and re-
collect the alarm of fire on the night of the 26th. The wind
was north as near as I can recollect. It would not carry
sparks from the ruins to Doran's. There were no sparks
near there. I was sent by Tuck to see what was the reason
why the water had failed. I found the cock partly turned
off. It would require a good pull to turn it off.
Cross-examined by Mr. Wilkins.—lf some person had not
stopped the cock, in my opinion the fire might have been got
under.
Roger Hale, one of Mr. Bushell's carters corroborated
the above testimony. He said he saw Doran at his master's
that night. He said to Doran that it mss a large fire up the
street, and Doran replied that he would not care if his pre-
mises were on fire before morning. Witness said " Perhaps
your place is 'mired Mr. Doran," and he made a bit of a
laugh at that ; he had had a sup of drink.
Mr. Bushell, cartowner, proved that the prisoner went to
his house about eight o'clock, on the night of the 23rd of
December. He said he had about four or five tons of oakum
and asked John Dan, a carter, if he could load so much for
him. He said he could for a good fellow. Witness met him
on the Saturday afternoon following. He pointed to his shed
—said he had £6OO lying there, and he would soon have it
only for that bitch of a wife of his, for when she got tipsy
she would betray him. He repeated this many times over.
He saw a load of stores going from the prisoner's warehouse
on the Friday, and some furniture going another day.
Mr. Wuxi/vs addressed the Jury at considerable length
for the defence. Has ing gone over the evidence, he put it
to the Jury whether he should detain them to a late hour by
calling witnesses, or whether they thought the case had been
sufficiently made out. If they thought it had not, they
would relieve him from the painfrd necessity of detaining them
and taxing their patience fur a considerable time.
His Lordship thought this proceeding was not regular.
The Jury, however, turned round and consulted. Mr.
ADOLPHUS objected to the course pursued ; but the Foreman
said the Jury were unanimously of opinion that the case
had not been made out. Ile was, therefore, acquitted.
The court rose at twenty minutes past five o'clock.

NISI PRJUS—TUESDAY.
(Before Mr. Justice COLTMAN.)
DISPUTED TITLE TO LAND NEAR ROCHDALE.—FERRAND
AND ANOTHER V. MOORE.
In this case, (which it was supposed would probably oc-
cupy the Court for two days,) a Special Jury, consisting of
merchants of the town and esquires in its neighbourhood,
were sworn in. Mr. Dundas, Mr. Tomlinson, and Mr.
Watson were for the plaintiffs ; Mr. Wortley and Mr. Cow-
ling for the defendant.
Mr. DUNDAS, in stating the case to the jury, (which oc-
cupied upwards of an hour,) said that the plaintiff, Mr.
Thomas Ferrand, was well known, he having been for many
years coroner of this county ; he was also an attorney prac-
tising at Rochdale, and was agent for some of the most re-
spectable families in Lancashire. He was now a very old
man, between 80 and 90, and besides the infirmities of age,
he had personal ailments which prevented his attendance
here as a witness, a circumstance which he (Mr. Dundas)
much regretted, as it would have been satisfactory to the
jury, and conducive to the ends of justice, that he should
give his testimony that day. The other plaintiff was Mr.
James Dearden, a gentleman of property at Rochdale, and
lord of the manor there. The defendant on the record was
Miss Jemima Ann Moore, aged about 60, the daughter and
heiress of a man named Robert Moore, who from some pro-.
cess of law was thrown into Lancaster Castle, where he died
in 1819. His father died at a very advanced age, being up-
wards of 80. The latter, early in life, though not au attor-
ney, had acquired some inkling of the law in an attorney's
office. He was an acute man, and perfectly competent to
transact his own business and that of others, although he
practised and was known simply as Mr. Lawyer, or Mr.
Attorney. In fine he was quite as competent as many per-
sons in practice, who had obtained a better education. He
had had frequent transactions relating to estates, and, even
at this remote period, evidence would be adduced to show
that he was a man of intelligence. It would also be shown
what he was in this respect in 1807, and that he was then
' fully capable of transacting business. This was an important
point, as in the development of the case a good deal would
depend on his powers of mind in that year. Such were the
parties. There were five issues upon the record, upon which
the jury would have to try. These were directed from the
Court of Chancery to be decided by them, inasmuch as they
would have an advantage in hearing the witnesses which his
honour the Vice-Chancellor of that court could not, he being
confined to affidavits only. In the year 1822, a suit in equity
was brought by Miss Moore against Mr. Dearden and Mr.
Ferrand, (the plaintiffs in this cause). Her object was to
I have certain property which had been her father's and which
had been conveyed wrongly, as she opined, from him to
them--re-conveyed to her. In the course of the cause, the
questions arose in the mind of the Vice-Chancellor, whether
certain deeds executed in 1803 and 1807 were due and valid
conveyances, and the consideration therein required was duly
paid, and the property duly passed over from the one party
to the other. It was nearly half a century since these trans-
actions took place, and there were, consequently, difficulties
in producing evidence, some of the persons who would have
spoken to the facts being dead, and others incapacitated
from old age and loss of memory to appear before them.
There were others, however, still competent to elucidate the
case. About 50 years ago, a man named Richard Lord, a
baker, in Bocup, was owner of the land in litigation, and he
agreed to ssll it to a man of his own name, a collier, and
conjointly to the father of Robert Moore—father of the de-
fendant. He agreed to sell 28 acres of freehold for £2so—
enclosed and partly unenclosed, also some customary
land—the whole being about 84 statute acres. It was cailed
the Upper and Lower Barracks, and was situated al Brand-
moor, in the township of Spotland, in the parish of Rach-
dale. uHe here explained the various considerations that
were to be given for the property.) From the long time
during which the suit was pending, the Vice Chancellor, Sir
Knight Bruce, had directed the five issues to be tried before
a jury. The learned counsel then proceeded at great length
to explain the various sales of the land in qeestion from to party, over a long period previously to the institutionparty of
the suit in Chancery. His statement
en wasuninteresting
The learned counsel's further statemt of th ue
case went to
show a somewhat complicated sale and resale of the property
in thirds, and also, in one instance, of a fourth of it to Chas.
Barression tt for £196 10s. At that time Mr. Moore was in pos-
se of one-fourth that had been purchased by a person
named Milne, who had, however, repudiated his purchase.
He (Moore) had contracted to pay this fourth, and also his
own one-third to a person named Buckley, as trustees to
Dearden and Ferrand, he to be the purchaser of the fourth
only for this purpose. The land was also to be subject to a
mortgage for the payment of £142, due by Md which agreedr.- Moore, and
the whole of the considerations to be given, and
with the deeds deducting the £l4O, was £406. He should
show that the consideration required had been paid, and
should also show from a memorandum book which he held
in his hand,' that the principal transaction, as affecting

paste rp Eh;: land, vid; thamiti WlteJr with 04 gall"
which wei;, paid tbr it, and rendered evidenpa by °lPlltifi;
nature being attached. The manner, indeed. in ow"- de
land had come into the plaintiff's possession was a too fi
transaction. The surface of the.land was worth little or It;
thing, but the property was valuable, in consequence Of tof
coal under it, to the plaintiffs. Moore bad had peasess„i°,°
the surface after the sale, merely to drain it and use 1t "-4
tenant. As before stated, he was overtaken by a processbve
law, (ejectment,) and was sent to Lancaster Gaol, wbere,,,th
died. Before he went, however, he gave a lease of it, ull,l
above and below, to do which he contended, he had no OP
whatever. The defendant in this case stood upon the ner;
tive of the issues directed. His clients took the affirmativ
Miss Moore said that her father had never parted with the
land out and out, but that it was in the nature of a mortgage'
His clients said that he did, and produced the deeds of eccci:
vevauce, by the party who sold to the party who purebae_eA,
A number of witnesses were then called, and several dee'.
were put in and read. It was proved that the plaintiff F.'e
rand, who might have been examined on three weeks' neti„ed
being given by the defendant, was so infirm from age a"
disease that he could not attend. Much of the evidence
brought forward went to show that the late Robert Moore,
at the time of the alleged conveyance of the property, viDlt
about fifty years of age,
.but a shrewd man who could w,"„
take care of his own interests. The progress of the litiget_go"
in the case in chancery, from 1822 to the present time, "'—
also shown.

At the close of the case for the prosecution, Mr. W°111;
LEY, after consulting with Mr. Dundas, said he was 1.1,
to say it was agreed that a juror should be withdrawn,
parties having agreed to come to an arrangement. This, ".
added, was in furtherance of a recommendation of the Vic%
Chancellor, and would put an end to all further proceedi"
in the case, both in law and equity.
The case occupied six hours.

LIABILITY OF A MORTGAGEE FOR THE REPAIRS or A-

VESSEL.
SEYMOUR V. CARR.—This was an action to recover the._
amount of a bill of exchange, drawn by the plaintiffs on the
defendant, for the amount of certain repairs and supplies trti
a vessel of which the defendant was mortgagee.
Knowles and Mr. Crompton appeared for the plaintiffs, a°
Mr. Watson for the defendant.
Mr. KNOWLES stated the case to the jury. Fr°ll3
statement, and the evidence, it appeared that the plaintiff-
were ship and commission agents at Cove (Cork.) The tie,
fendant was a gentleman residing at Newcastle, and
gagee of the vessel, and the sum sought to be recovered, the
amount of the bill drawn on him was £lB2. Towards the
end of 1841, a brig called the Corrib, from the coast of Afrt,
put into the Cove of Cork in a very disabled state. 1.,",
crew were sick, her hull and rigging were damaged, her satin
split to pieces, and her provisions exhausted. The captain
then in command (Falconer)—the former captain and °ado
having both died on the coast—applied to the plaintiffs to
the necessary repairs, and furnish the necessary supplies' st,
that she might proceed to Liverpool, her intended nr
They did supply what was wanted. They had the crew taken
care of, provided her with new sails and the necessary riglOnr j
finally engaged the necessary hands, who had also to be Psi,
by advance notes, and the vessel aftervvards proceeded 0111.
way. John Thomas Carr was sole mortgagee of the yes 1.
The plaintiffs required a security for the outlay, and, as
customary in such cases, were about to procure a bottom!,
bond. At the very time that the plaintiffs and the eaPtai3
were discussing the question of the bond, and the latter
who had previously given up to them the ship's papers. oat
preparing to sign it, a Mr. Seymour, Surveyor of Customs ad
Cove, came to them and showed them a letter which be ha
received from the defendant relative to the vessel, and `v sad
he showed them. It was dated Broad Chase, Newcastle,
was dated the 4th December, 1841. It was to the effect that
the writer bad heard of the arrival of the vessel at Cove, fro°
Africa ; that he would feel obliged if he would see the cal
taro then in command, and request him to use every econotn.Y,
and to get the ship round to Chatham as soon aspossiblea
It went on to say, that the former captain (Carling), and
also the mate, had died, and requested Mr. Seymour (t""1.
surveyor) to seal up all his watches, money, and other
private property, and so keep them until they were released
by him (the writer) for the benefit of the captain's wide 7e
The letter next requested every possible information he (t°,
collector) could obtain relative to the death of captain Cs!
ling sad his mate, particularised where, when, and how th
former was attacked, and whether he had himself assisteawe
stow the cargo, or had gone after it in boats, as he (tb
writer) had a strong feeling that such employment was.tio
beginning of the malady, and had advised him not to Pr!:
it. On seeing this letter which enjoined economy, the piat•a"
tiffs and the captain in command consulted together, 8" ,
considering it was an authority, they abandoned their IL
tention of resorting to a bottomry bond which would .oust;
expensive, and in lieu of it a bill for the amount in (Ines° t
was drawn on the defendant. The bill was presented
Newcaatle, but was not accepted or paid. A clerk of a 10130.
presented it to a clerk at the defendant's counting-b°,
The latter went into the inner office, and on returning sa' IF
" the bill will not be accepted, but will be paid when due: _e
What the defendant pleaded to-day was, that he wrote t.
letter merely as mortgagee, and was no authority. He (Ai
tir
Knowles) contended that the letter imported much 1n°.,',.0e;
that it assumed an ownership; and that if the supplies o,e ea
for his advantage, he was certainly liable. The letter desird
the captain to be economical, and to write to him (the
fendant) as often as possible. He also wished Mr. SeYol°-bt;
the customs' surveyor, to sound the captain as to whether
liked the coasting trade, or would prefer going to the Meditt,d
ranean.. A bottomry bond could have been obtained, an
would have secured the plaintiffs, but in consequenee:s
economy being urged, they had given that up and draw
as
bill in lieu of it. The vessel came to Liverpool, andwhe--(1
taken possession of by an agent of the defendant. He
"to- •
all the advantage of the repairs, yet refused to pay for then
He thought there was quite enough to secure a verdict, be
the first count, for the bill; but should it be otherwise, og
could rely on the second count, which went for the all°
of the repairs which were undoubtedly done.
Witnesses were then called, and the letter alluded towl:
put in and read, also another to the agent of the defetnla el
at Liverpool, directing him to take possession of the ve14,90
in his (defendant's) name, he being owner-mortgagee. red,
vessel had been chartered by another party—not, it uPPea—
by the defendant.
It was contended by Mr. WATSON, that there was no c3„:116
to go to the Jury. Mr. Carr was only mortgagee, and as suet
was not liable by law for repairs. As to taking possessionso.
Liverpool, he was a mortgagee there empowered to d°
That was the first time he had ever had possession• He clar
tended also that tLe defendant's letter was no authority ee
tire expenses, the word economy implying that the observs°oo
of it would leave more for tile) widow f thc captain. Wl've'tbe
himself the owner. The plaintiffs also had possession °`oC
vessel's register at Cove, and they saw upon it the nall'p 7.,rt•
the defendant as mortgagee only, not as owner, iind nn
gagee was liable for repairs unless his name was on the reguid
ter as owner. In order to render the case clear, he sh°
put in not only the register, but the charter-party. that
These were produced. From the latter it appeare..
door
the vessel had been chartered by a Mr. Weston, of Lon_
and the captain.
Mr. KNOWLES replied in a very powerful and argurlebeen
tive address, contending, from the various facts that had eta
elicited, that the defendant was more than a mere mortgaiis
but acted and stood in the position of owner, so far at lesseo.
to render himself liable for the amount sought to be rote,
vered. He showed throughout the whole of these trage
tions a control of the vessel far beyond that of a Siw'

mortgagee.
cotssi'
u
The learned judge summed up perspicuously: .Ae (34 be
dered it a hard case for the plaintiffs that they should 1100
1)
paid ; but if they were not, they were in some degree to
„nd
themselves in relinquishing the security of the bottOthet
bond which was within their power, and must look to u.tici
parties. He explained the law of the case, and left the
to decide.
flea $
The jury, after a few minutes' consideration, relor"c110
verdict for the plaintiffs for the full damages claimed, n°—
£lB2.

BARROW AND ANOTHER V. E. ARNAL'D, Esa,jefedi
The plaintiffs are eminent Spanish merchants, the -„-,ort"
ant is the collector of het Majesty's customs for the r
Liverpool.
noo an 4
This action was brought to recover between X4,u,
£5,000, claimed as damages occasioned by the delenuaoll
a certain day refusing to deliver up to the plaintiffs 5e se
cargoes of foreign wheat imported from Spain by tblo'cl‘ms'
then in the warehouses in this port under the customs ill'
and which they claimed to take from the warehouse
consumption free of duty.
From the proceedings it appears, that the late
regulated the duties upon corn was repealed and ceas,eorlire
in force on the 29th of April last year. The act 01,,Yrig th„
went which governs the present scale of duties, reees"„jeurt
other, and directing the averages in future to be made
0
from the corn returns of a much increased oul'ool/:
markets, and a different scale of duties. The averagein esc(
made up and published in London on ThursdaY,,,,er °E
week, and transmitted by that night's post to the °giving °it
customs at the various out-ports. The plaint t
opinion, that there was not any duty due upon wheat "co
from the warehouse for consumption prior to ,' eat 0
average being received by the officer at this port, cia'Toe
delivery, the day previous to that in which the averag.'cisillee
in the usual course be received. There was one cou," the
ing for a cargo which arrived in Liverpool betwetehe Oro'o
periods of the old and new averages, or previous- tood
average being received, (a lapse of about six days+) an
P,,so,
which, under the circumstances, no duty was clue the 'if
able. By the refusal of the defendant then to athelticostebe
tries and deliver up the wheat, the plaintiffs were %tail) tof
obliged to pay heavy sums as duties, in order to ° iossths
delivery from the warehouses, and sustained great
~,i to
market and charges. To recover compensation eV
duties paid and the losses, this action was brought' pe
The defendant pleaded that the duties were doe' cons°,ol
of the case being admitted on both sides, after
ectil for
tion between the counsel, the jury, under the dir
the learned judge, found a special verdict for the P.
the agreed damages, the question of law to be deciue
judges in banco.
The court rose at a quarter-past six o'clock.

CROWN coil RT.—WmprrEsDAT
Before Baron PARKE.

tba
FORGERY. r Or id'
John Pileon, 51, was indicted for forging an orr-e0
payment of X. 27 7s. 6d., with which to defraud Tholio yo
well. He was found guilty, and sentenced to
transportation

0
HIGHWAY ROBBERY, WITH VIOLESC%ViiiIPoPe
Ti i~lranz Eeclesion, aged 20, was charged with hbbed„of,
the night of the lith October, assaulted and r°,4r.l„.ce,
James Rothwell, at Moss Bank, near St. Helens•inefevers!
ford was for the prosecution ; Air. Wilkins for tun'd seated
It was stated by the former that the prosecutor B"ept,Wtile
others had that day been at a footrace; that they vlrwhotl
on their way home, and robbed by some men, tubbed
prisoner was one, and that the prosecutor was °"t
r fro, tho
6d. A good deal of evidence was entered into, blies PrbstAl
cross-examination, and the testimony of oue w'trrie'oro„ool.,"
defence, it appeared that the prosecutor and his ',od,-ber"
said that they gambled their money at the races, han ot
not therefore be robbed ; and that they themseivsetooe'serli"
aggressors, and :had on their way home thrown
vho be
man's door, and broken it in ; and that the Irian ‘tielc•J a°
it pursued them and punished one of them with a' diet 7;01;
case was stopped ; and the jury, in giving a ”I:,,b11 tbej
guilty, expressed a strong opinion that it was a'"Waste„titrel
hensible to bring so paltry a case into court, t? 00' o°o
time and that of his lordship. The learned Jo°g-eesses
and said that he could not allow any of the w'rolicet
egged
expenses, with the exception of the sergeant
attorney, and one young man, who were not to bias ePoito;
Hugh Collins, alias Parione, a young Wag' „t,B,otel,
with having, on the 12th of February, near Prese-atte°l
ye
and robbed one Richard Taylor. The prisone.ression:to
defence, but tailed in making a favourable itrl”y.
jury found the prisoner guilty of the robbery °t ea.
sentenced to be transported for the term of 10 Y-- 0;14'
be;HIGHWAY RUBBERY. d.° 01,
John Brough and Joseph Cantrel were iodic,a - high fro
on the 20th January last, at Lewisham, on the tilted err
tweet' Manchester and Stockport, violently asaris sn
harned Coppuck, and robbed him of 5 soverelg
silver, his property.
Mr. Whighani appeared for the
defended one of the prisoners, and Dr. Broldgerleiris°,l'oo
The prosecutor was an organ builder, 9t the Pita
the day in question he left Salford, where withe
Brough kept the Concert Tavern, in colnlrn/Way °I rat/Ale
prosecution •,ger.orber'ooo(
prisoners, intending to go to Altringhaut, oY,,er off tile 'O4
port. They called at a considerable ntnue9 o
houses on the way, and had numerous glPseviclenvereC,
some gin ; but, according to the prosecutor sficooTo
not drunk. The prisoner had in his pockett_sqvggs
eight half-crowns, and about seventeen To get "-
He had also a parcel of leather. He wished