The Liverpool Standard and General Commercial Advertiser.
Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1843-08-29 00:00:00

which I had given to Mr. Wood, who had lent me £2O,
£lO of which I gave to Miss 8., which was after I was mar-
ried. Told Mr. W. the note was a family affair, and re-
quested him to get it changed at Barned's bank. He re-
fused at first, hut afterwards consented, and, on theday af-
ter told Mr. W. I could not go to the bank as I wtrs going
to the races, and he said such work as that would not do
for him. Pretended, when Mr. Wood came to the hank,
that he had gone into the bank, and the inspector was
not there. Tried to escape from Mr. Wood the same
day, or day after. Went into a yard to make my escape,
but did not know what I was doing. I sent for the pri-
soner to Wood's house to get him to lend me £2O to pay
Mr. Wood. Told the prisoner the £lOOO note was
changed. Wood told the prisoner I had offered him a
£lOOO note as security for £2O. Wood told the prisoner
it was stopped at Barned's. Did not say I had received
it from the prisoner, and was before Mr. Turner and Mr.
Fletcher, and told them it was a family concern, and I
was entitled to a fifth of it. The note was at that time
stopped. Was called before Mr. Turner to account for
the note, but did not mention the prisoner's name. Said
the note had been received from my brother in America,
and that he was lodging in Tower-hill, London. Was
taken before Mr. Rushton the day after my apprehension,
and gave the same account I had given the day before.
Wrote something on a piece of paper, and gave it to the
prisoner to enable him to get me some money. Told Mr.
Wood I was going to Squire Clegg's. at Allerton, to. get
the money. He is a farmer, and I thought he might lend
it as he is a particular friend of my uncle's. Mr. Clegg
keeps his carriage, but I have never seen it. Put my
head out of the coach window when I was going to Al-
lerton with Mr. Wood to look for Squire Clegg's car-
riage. Drove to the London-road, and said I would wait
there for the Squire. Mr. Wood caught me at the rail-
way station, and I said I was waiting there for a friend.
Toid Mr. Dowling I got the £lOOO note from the prisoner,
and that it was the only money transaction I ever had
with him, and did not tell him I had known prisoner only
six months. Suspected something when the prisoner
asked me to change the £lOOO note. He proposed it
after I bad been there about a quarter of an hour. Can-
not swear, but I think Bentley was in the room. I did
not express any objection to do it. Had nothing to de.
Pend
upon but my salary. Believe the first note was
given in October. Never told Mr. Dowling the three
first £lOO notes were given in September. Changed the
first note the day after getting it, and the others in two or
three days after that. No one ever saw the notes in my
possession. Got the others about a week after, and I ex--
changed them in a day or two, and two others soon after
that. Had eight £lOO notes; had always said so. Did
not recollect telling Mr. Dowling the first note was got
on the first night after sleeping at the prisoner's house.
Most of the transactions took place at the prisoner's
house; some of them at a public-house—l don't know
where. Generally gave the prisoner the notes at his own
house. Gave one at a public-house-1 don't know where
it was.

Examined by Mr. BAINES.—Took the pin from the
prisoner for changing two £5O notes. Was taken up on
the charge of having a £lOOO note which I got from pri-
soner. He said he got it from a person who came down
from London night before. Said that one man and another
saw a person come out of a banking house and get into an
omnibus, and that he held his hand on his right side pocket,
and that when he got out they followed him, and one of
them took the notes out of his pocket. One setoff to Li-
verpool, the other watched the gentleman and saw him go
back to the same house, and that when he told them they
would not believe him. The other man then came down
to Liverpool. Prisoner came to me on the 7th, and said
he wanted to meet me, and I saw him at a public-house
in Copperas-hill, and he took out a newspaper and shewed
me an advertisement about three £lOOO notes, and the
night after I went up to his house in Stafford-street, and
he gave me a £lOOO note. That was the note about
which I was taken up.

Harriet Bentley.—l am a single woman. In the begin-
ing of last year lived in Mitchell-place, Ranelagh.street,
and afterwards went to live in Seel-street. Was ac-
quainted with Jennings before I went there. I first knew
him in August, 1842, and went with him soon after to
prisoner's house. Was there on the night when the watch
was taken. There was a bed in the room, and Jennings
and I were there about half an hour. A watch was lying
on the table, and 1 took it up and showed it to him, and
he said he would take it, and if he heard nothing about it
during the week, he would publish it. Ile put it in his
waistcoat pocket, and we went away together. Was with
him two or three days afterwards, at Seel-street, and two
persons came to fetch Jennings. It was the prisoner and
a Mr. Lever. Jennings went down stairs to the prisoner,
and gave him some gold and a watch, but I did not hear
any thing till we went to the York Hotel, where I saw
the prisoner again, and we staid about an hour or more.
There was nothing said that I heard. V': then went to
prisoner's house, in Elliott-street, and remained all night.
Prisoner asked Jennings where he worked when we were
in Seel• street, and he said he was at the Branch Bank in
Hanover-street. Had a breast pin given to me by Jen-
nings. [Witness here described the pin.] Had seen it
in possession of Anderson, who wanted to sell it to Jen-
nings for 1:2 10s. The pin was pledged at Richardson's,
-London-road, and I gave the ticket to Greaves, the police-
officer.

Cross-examined by Mr. WuxiNs.—First met Jen-
nings, in Ranelagh-street, about eleven or twelve months
ago, and we went to a house, and we soon became very
intimate. He used to see me nearly every day, and al-
ways paid me, mostly with a sovereign. He never kept
me for a month. He bought me some caps—a good
many—fashionable ones. He gave me £lO once, and at
another time £5. Cannot say that he has given me more
than £4 besides. We went to the theatre occasionally.
Did not know he was married, or I should not have al-
lowed his visits. Jennings took the watch off the wash-
stand. After the matter about the watch was present the
whole evening, and heard prisoner say something about a
note. Have not seen Jennings since he was in prison.
Heard what prisoner said when be went away to see the
parties about the watch. Have not had any conversation
since I came into court.
By Mr. BAINES.—I am 18 years of age nearly.
Thomas Lever said.—l know the prisoner, and he came
for me in August last, and we went to a place in Seel-
street, and Harriet Bentley came down stairs and spoke
to witness and prisoner, who said to her, " Where is that
watch ?" "0 ! George is up stairs and has got it." A
man then came down stairs, and she said, " here is Mr.
Anderson come about the watch." He had it round his
neck and took it off, and delivered it to the prisoner Jen-
nings ; they went out with the prisoner, who gave me a
sovereign for my trouble in going with him.
George Greaves, a police-constable, produced a pin ;
also a pawn-ticket for the same.
Eliza Silvester.—l live in Oak-steet, and Harriet Bent-
ley lived with me. I know Jennings—he went by the
name of George. I know the breast-pin.
George Richards, a pawnbroker. proved the pledging of
the pill on the 29th Dec. by Harriet Bentley. The pin
was taken by the constable.
The pin was then shown to Harriet Bentley, who said
it was the same that Jennings had given to her.
Mr. Fletcher, one of the managers of the Branch Bank,
was called.—Jennings was a clerk ; he came in July, 1842,
and was in the inspector's office, with the exception of a
short time he was in the discount office, till he was taken.
The notes are first taken by the teller, and he counts the
money to see that it agrees with the ticket brought by the
customer. He then doubles them up, and puts the name,
of the party paying it in on the outer note, and the total
amount of the notes themselves. They are then put in
the teller's drawers, and taken out by the inspector when
he comes round. He calls out the numbers with the tel-
lers, and the amount on the notes to see that they agree
with the numbers in the books, and they are then taken
to the inspector's office. He separates them into three
parcels, first putting down in a hook the total amount,
and then lays them out in three divisions, for Manches-
ter. Liverpool, and other branches. They are then put
in the inspector's room in bundles, and are entered in
three books by the clerks. Jennings was one of those
clerks, and had access to those bundles. On reference to
the cancel note-book for Nov. 14, there is the following
entry :—No. 99727, for £100; in a parcel paid in by Mr.
Arbuthnot; Nov. 26th, 97504, for £lOO, paid in to the
credit of Captain Broad; Dec. sth, 97474, for £lOO, paid
in by the customs ; Dec. 15th, 97631, for £lOO, paid in
by Charles Imer, Paulett and Co.; Dec. 17th. 95151, for
£lOO, paid in to the credit M. La Barre ; Dec. 21st, two
notes, 00313, for £lOO, and 01107, for £lOO, paid in by the
customs.
Mr. BAINES said he would then go through the history
of No. 99,727, and called
James Hazel, cashkeeper to Hodgson and Riley, who
received on the 14th November, £552 17s. 11d., at the
Bank of Liverpool, and had four £lOO notes. '1 hey have
my name on them. They were Nos. 82,629, 69,317,
81,084, and 81,831. The same day paid to Jones, Mann,
and Foster £lO2, G. Barnsley and Son £lB3, and Glad-
stone, Serjeantson, and Co. £233, and paid away those
notes.
Cross-examined by Mr. Wuxu4s.—Kept a book in
which I entered the numbers.
William Cameron Sillar, clerk to Jones, Mann, and
Foster, received on Nov. 24 £lO2 from Hodgson and
Riley, which he paid over to Mr. Clarke, the cashkeeper,
who refused to receive a £lOO note.
George Harkle, clerk in Leyland's bank, on the 15th
Nov., gave change to Jones, Mann, and Foster for a
£l3O note, No. 12,629, being the first of the notes men-
tioned by Hazel.
Cross-examined by Mr. WILKINs.—We don't give
change except to parties who are known to us.
Maurice Williams, clerk of Barnsley and Co.—On the
14th Nov. received from Hodgson and Riley £lBl, on
account of Baring Brothers.
Roderick M`Kenzie, cashkeeper to Barnes and Co.,
received £lBO from Barnsley and Co., and paid into the
Borough Bank £2,027, which was deposed to as having
been received by a clerk in that establishment. The
number was 69,317.
William Bird Redish, clerk to Gladstone and Co., re-
ceived on the 14th Nov. £233 Bs. from Hodgson and
Riley, and paid it to Ogilvie and Co.. of whom Arbuth-
not is a partner.
George Hopwood, clerk to Arbuthnot and Co., re-
ceived from Gladstone and Co., Nov. 14, £230 Bs., and
paid £llO on the 14th Nov. into the Branch Bank of
England, and £l2O on account of the firm.
Benjamin Shaw received, on the 14th Nov., £llO on
account of Arbuthnot and Co., and folded it up and put it
in the letter drawer. _ _

Jon. Francis Heath, an inspector of the bank, took the
above notes out of the teller's drawer, and from the entry
made at the time there appeared No. 99,729, a £lOO note.
Had a payment of £l2O the same day, in which there was
a £lOO note, No. £81,084.
_ _ _

Claudius -ratitin, cashier of the Liverpool banking com-
pany.—The prisoner, on the 18th Nov. last, made a pay
went of 4:25, and gave a £lOO note, No. 81,831, and re-
ceived the change.
Cross-examined by Mr. WILKINS.—The prisoner
wrote his name on the back of the note, and it is my
custom to endorse the notes on the back. The prisoner
has banked Pith us for sevon years.

THE- LIVERPOOL STANDARD

Richard Green, clerk in the office of the Liverpool
Banking Company, refetred to an entry, on the 15th of
November, of No. 81831.
Mr. HENDERSON said they would now proceed with
97631, substituted for 12168, which they proposed to trace
to the prisoner.
J. J. Kirby, clerk to liner, Paulett, and Co., deposed
to getting some notes changed at the Borough Bank, in
December, one of which was 12168 for £lOO.
Francis Nevett, a teller in the Branch Bank, gave
change for two £lOO notes on Dec. 15, 1842. One had
his mark on it, and 12168 was one of them. Knew by
the entty in the book.
Cross-examined.—The cancelled note books spew the
entries.

.Mr. Heath.—l was on duty on the 15th December at
the hank, and received two £lOO notes, No. 97631. Did
not find 12168.

James Todd.—On the 15th Dec. entered two notes,
Nos. 97631 and 80714, paid me by Paulett and Co.
Claudine Vantin.—The prisoner made a payment on
the lith Dec. of £6O, in a bank note of £lOO, No. 12168.
M r. ADOLPH us.—The next note we trace will be 97504,
substituted for 80348.

Wm. Fisher, jun., a clerk in the Bank of Liverpool.—
I remember copying a parcel of £lOO notes on the 25th
November. We put the numbers on them, and entered
them in the cash book. No. 80348 is one of them.
Wm. C. Ashlin, a cashier in the above bank, paid a
check of Schroeder and Co. for £450, in four £lOO notes
and one £5O. It was paid to their clerk. One of them
was 80348. _ _ _

Alfred Pickering, clerk to Schroeder and Co., received
the £450 in notes, as stated by the preceding witness, and
cave them to Mr. Mahs, who banded them over to Capt.
Broad, on the 26th November.
Capt. Broad received the notes from Malls in Novem-
ber, and took them to the Branch Bank.
Mr. Agard received them from the last witness, and
they were handed over to the inspector, who stated that
he had received them. One of them was 97504 ; 80348
was not one of them.
Mr. ADOIPHUS.—We now proceed to show what be-
came of 80348.
Mr. Shaw, of the Branch Bank.—l remember a check
coming in on the 28th Nov. from Coventry and Glover
for £359 9s. Bd. It was paid in a £5, a £5O, and three
£lOO notes ; one of the £lOO notes was 83615.
George Nicholson, cashier to Steill and Co.—On the
28th Nov. gave a receipt to Coventry and Glover for
£359 9s. Bd., and made a payment of £9OO into the bank.
Alex. Gillespie made a payment into the Branch Bank,
receiving the money from the last witness.
Francis Bocquet, teller at the Branch Bank.—There is
an entry of money from Steele and Co. on the 28th Nov.
Mr. Heath, teller at the above bank.—Remembered the
payment of Steele and Co. It contained some £lOO notes.
No. 83615 was not there, but 80348 is one of them. The
others were 83616 and 83617. _ _

Mr. Imer.—The number; paid to Coventry and Co.,
were 83615. 83616, and 83617.

John Quayle.-1 am a tailor and draper, and live in
Elliott-street, next door to prisoner, who paid some money
for work. It was about Dec. He gave me a £lOO note.
I gat it changed by ltighton.
Mr. Righton, a grocer in Lime-street.—l commenced
an account with the Union Bank in December. Got the
note from the last witness. The number is 83615.
Hugh Makin, cashier in the Union Bank. On the 22d
December Righton paid the note into the bank.
Mr. BAINES.—The next we shall trace is 95151, which
bad been abstracted and 07089 substituted.
Mr. Long, clerk to Jones. Lloyd and Co., Manchester.
—Paid on the 20th Nov. £7OO to Mr. Douse. There were
two notes of £lOO each, one was 07089. The number of
the other was 07302.

Mr. Douse, a surgeon at Huddersfield, received the
notes and paid them to Mr. Stocks. My wife took the
numbers. They are a £5OO note. 15459. The first £lOO
note was 07089 ; the second, 07309.
Mr. Stocks deposed to receiving the money from Mr.
Douse, and paying it to John Booth.
John Booth received the same, and banded to M. Le
Barre, who paid it into the branch bank in December.
It amounted to £2,900

Mr. Heath took Le Barre's payment. There was a .£5OO
note. No. 15459. Among the A;100 was No. 07309; 07089
was not among them, but 95151 was there.
Mr. Quayle.—After the first note the prisoner brought
a second, and 1 got it changed at Mr. Rightotes ; but af-
terwards went and took it from Mr. Righton, and gave it
back to the prisoner.
Mr. Righton deposed to the same fact as the previous
witness.

James Sixsmith, publican, of this town, remember the
prisoner coming to my house near the latter end of last
year to ask for change fora £lOO note. Obtained it from
Mr. Howard, in Cunliffe-street. Sent the boy for it and
gave the change to the prisoner, who went away with it.
John Debney, clerk to Mr. Howard, proved the changing
of the note for Mr. Sixsmith. lie afterwards took it in
a payment of 1:173 to the Royal Bank.
Adam Lowe, of the Royal Bank, proved the payment
of the money as stated by Debney.
Thos. Scholes received the note for Howard. It was
07089.

This was the whole of the evidence for the prosecution.

Mr. WILKINS then addressed the jury for the prisoner.
He observed, that before he commenced any comment or
observation on the details of the case he must remind
them what they had to do. They had to consider whether
the prisoner then in the dock had been proved to have
been guilty of receiving several of the notes stolen from
Mr. Marquis, at Preston Guild, on the sth of September.
They were not to consider whether the prisoner might
have received the produce, but whether he had received
the notes that were stolen on that occasion. He thought
they must have observed that the evidence of the wit-
nesses who had been called was, what the poet Milton
called "confusion worse confounded." It appeared to
him to have very little to do with the case befcre them,
He hoped to be able to convince them that what the pro-
secutor had made out, namely, that certain notes had been
put off, for which the stolen notes had been substituted,
and a hat was suspicious at first sight was perfectly com-
patible with the innocence of the prisoner at the bar. It
was not enough that the indignation of the jury should be
excited by an allusion to it on the part of the prosecution,
hut his learned friend had said he should be able to prove
it, and he had failed to do so, for one witness had told
them that the house in Stafford-street was not a brothel.
It was not his duty to uphold the conduct of any man en-
gaged in such a calling, and he thought that if the priso-
ner had any feeling about him it would be sufficient to
make him ashamed of the course of life which he had pur-
sued. There was a great deal of humbug abroad on that
subject, and there were a great many gentlemen, and Chris-
tians, too, who would treat the conduct of such men with
loathing, but who have yet condescended to indulge in those
places which the prisoner was charged with keeping. One
thing was certain : it was not the poor man, but it was
among men of money and rank where they would find the
parties who supported institutions of that character. They
were not there to consider as to his moral character, but
whether he was guilty of the charge laid against him in
the indictment. He contended that Jennings was not
corroborated in any single point affecting the guilt of the
prisoner; and unless that were the case, his testimony
under such circumstances amounted to nothing. Be
would ask them whether there bad ever stood within the
bar a man so base, and so divested of everything that
could dignify and ennoble the human character, as that
thing which had been in the box that day ? He had taken
pains with his external habit, but had there been such a
wretch as he ever introduced into a witness-box? Why,
when he came to Liverpool he was a thief ; and he has
not been in Liverpool two months before he goes with a
girl and steals a watch, and the fellow was coward enough
to try to fix it on the poor girl : the wretch, in order to
screen himself, said it was the poor girl who had done it.
He then alluded to what he conceived was sufficient to
upset the whole of Jennings' story—namely, that he had
stated it was either the end of September or beginning of
October when the note transaction commenced. lie got
from him the time when they took place, and, giving him
the greatest possible latitude, all the notes except two,
according to the evidence of the other witnesses, must
have gone out of the bank in the month of October. He
finds he is in the strong arm of the law, and that it is ne-
cessary to adopt some means for his deliverance. Why,
what did Mr. Wood do ? He treated him as a felon ;
and he thought if they gave to reason and truth that share
which they ought to occupy in the case, they could never
believe the story which Jennings had told them that day.
The learned gentleman then alluded to his conduct to his
wife, for at the time he was married he was actually pick-
ing up an intimacy with Harriet Bentley, who had that
day been before them in the box, and who had stated
that, had she known he was married, even she, degraded
as she was, would not have admitted him into her com-
pany. After some further remarks on other parts of the
evidence, he concluded by calling on them to consider the
case with all that caution and deliberation :which its im-
portance demanded. If they wished to see the bearing of
one who was guilty and one who was not, they must con-
trast the bearing of the prisoner with that of Jennings.
The prisoner courted inquiry—Jennings tied from it ; the
prisoner never told a lie from beginning to end—Jennings
never told the truth. He thought the situation of the pri-
soner such as ought to make him more strenuous in his
behalf, and he considered it his duty to lay the case
before them in a calm and dispassionate light, and he
asked them to acquit him because the principal evidence
against the prisoner was that of one of the most vile and
degraded individuals that had ever come into the dock.
The Learned JUDGE then went carefully over the evi-
ewnhtoitlperehsiemntteod
dence to the jury, remarking that it depended principally
on the credit they could attach to the witness Jennings,
credit unless circumstanceshieiid satis-
fied notti s-
tied them that he was borne out in what he said. And if
they found him upon the evidence to be of such a charac-
ul himself
ensdsetrhe circumstancesother
ter, it would be their duty to discredit him provided his
evidence was not corroborated by other witnesses. The
question they had to decide, as regarded the prisoner, was
whether the prisoner received, or had in his possession,
certain notes being the produce of the Preston Guild rob-
bery, knowing them to have been stolen.
After the jury had consulted for a short time, one of
them wished to know from his lordship the particular
point they had to consider.
The JUDGE.—Notes are given (if you believe the testi-
mony of Jennings) by the prisoner to him for the purpose
of being changed. He changes them, and he says, those
gonoteafo
tor
fourthe prisoner.re a Now, four
thie noteshands whichof
changed he
the
prisoner at the bar. The question was, whether the pri-
soner received the Preston Guild notes, and according to
Jennings he did receive them. Then it is for you to say
whether Jennings speaks the truth.
The jury retired, and after being absent about an hour,
returned with a verdict of guilty against the prisoner.
Mr. Ant:menus said, the other indictments would not
be proceeded with.
His LORDSHIP observed that the prisoner had been
convicted of one of the worst of crimes—and one that was
fraught with the most dangerous consequences to society •,
and whatever might have been the moral delinquency of

Jennings, he (the prisoner) had taken the advantage of
the charge of felony which might have been proved against
him to serve his own wicked purposes. The sentence of
the Court was, that he be transported for fourteen years.
The Court rose at half-past eight.

NISI PRIUS COURT.

Mr. Justice CRESSWELL took his seat at nine o'clock.

SMETHHURST V. TAYLOR AND ANOTHER.
This was an action, before a special jury, for goods sold
and delivered on an account stated. The defendant
pleaded not liable.

Mr. Martin and Mr. Segar appeared for the plaintiff.
Mr. Knowles, Mr. Crompton, and Mr. Atherton for the
defendants.

Mr. MARTIN stated the case. The plaintiff, Richaro,
Smethhurst, is a manufacturer, carrying on busines at
Chorley, about twenty miles from Manchester. The de-
fendants, John Taylor and William Potter, ate in a large
way of business, in Liverpool, who send a large quantity
of goods to India and China, and this action was brought
to recover a sum of £2400, alleged to be due by them to
the plaintiff, arising out of a sale of goods in March, 1841.
The parties who immediately bought these goods were
persons carrying :on business in Manchester, under the
the firm of Saml. Knight and Co. They had been carry-
ing on business for some time as commission agents, and
from the year 1838 till 1841 they had bought goods for the
defendants to the extent of £lOO,OOO. They were uni-
versally known as being the agents of Taylor, Potter and
Co. As to themselves, one of them, at least, had been a
bankrupt, and they were a firm who never could and never
expected to receive credit for themselves. They never, to
any extent, sold goods on their own account. In March,
1841, the plaintiff bad in hands a very large quantity of
shirtings, an article very largely exported from this country
to China and the East Indies. He employed a person
named Pilkington to sell goods for him, and, accordingly,
in March, he called upon Messis. Knight and asked them
if they were purchasing goods for Messrs. Taylor, Potter
and Co. ; he told them at the same time that if they were
disposed to buy the plaintiff would take a bill for 3 or 6
months. The ordinary way of business was to pay cash
in 1841, or a bill for a month. Messrs. Knight said they
were not at present in the market for Messrs. Taylor,
Potter, and Co., but when they were they would let them
know. Accordingly, on the 27th Mach, Mr. James
Knight came to Mr. Pilkington, told him Taylor, Potter
and Co. were in the market, and requested that samples
should be sent to them. He (Mr. K.) said he was about
to go to Liverpool, and he would take the samples with him.
Five pieces of each description of arlicle were sent to Mr.
Knight as samples, and when Mr. Pilkington called on him
next day he stated th t he had taken the samples to Li-
verpool, shown them to defendants, who were willing to
give 12s. a piece for one kind, and 12s. 6d. for another.
After some time the plaintiff was induced to take the
prices offered, but in order to ascertain properly that he
was dealing with the defendants he sent down his nephew,
who, with Mr. Pilkington, waited upon Mr. Knight. Mr.
Pilkington said, " You are buying these goods for Taylor,
Potter, and Co." " Yes," was the reply, " and more
than that, we are buying them to go to China in a ship
called the John Bibby, and you look at Myers's Gazette.
you will see that the vessel is going to sail in a few days."
They then went to the news-room, and finding the vessel
was entered as stated, the nephew returned home, told
what he had ascertained, and the plaintiff determined to
conclude the bargain. He wrote to the effect on the 50th
March to Mr. Pilkington. Accordingly, the goods were
sent to Lees and Jenkinson, the packers ; they were af-
terwards sent down to Liverpool, shipped in the John
Bibby, and went to China. This being the state of the
case, he (the learned counsel) understood the defence
to the action would be that when young Smethurst went
to Mr. Knight's office, after he had learned that the goods
were for Messrs. Taylor, Potter and Co., he said to Mr.
Knight, " To whom •are we to make out the invoice ?
Are we to make it out to Taylor, Potter and Co. ?" Mr.
Knight said, " No, when goods are sold per six months
bill, the bills are not made out to them but to us."
Accordingly, the invoice was made out to Mr. Knight.
Mr. Martin continued by saying that he wou:d prove,
from letters found in the possession of Messrs. Knight,
who had since become bankrupt, that he had autho-
rity to buy for the defendants. He then read a letter
signed W. P. Livingston, which, he said, was written by
authority of the defendants; and added, that when the
defendants were applied to they said that Messrs. Knight
had had a general authority to buy for them up to January,
but not since. It would appear, that in this instance the
invoice was made out to Knight and Co., but he submitted
that the goods were sold to the authorised agent of Taylor,
Potter, and Co., who had full authority to buy them.
After reading letters written by W. P. Livingston and
other persons on behalf of the firm, relating to the pur-
chaseoo
vobviously
ueo of
Johnyfl
y gt
eaol
tadtsee ,
Bibby,vdtei
tri oey
which
heal aierirce6neh,elodsoaoci
of oeptudi nes:
soeees gcoeoof
odn
shirtingdat eys
cd ee
later I t tpl
ut atohrt
ntl
al
wsei
enas
de
from the plaintiff, and nothing
as
else.s
He would prove to
bthyet hj
originally intended. There was a person named Nixon,
at Manchester, who sold goods for other persons, the
same as Mr. Pilkington, and he asked Messrs. Knight
who their principals were. They replied that Messrs.
Taylor, Potter, and Co. were. He sold them goods to
the amount of £20,000, and some of the invoices were
made out to Taylor, Potter, and Co., some to Knight and
Co., but the goods were all sent down, without destination,
to Taylor, Potter, and Co. The mode in which Taylor,
Potter, and Co. did business at first was for cash, but
about the end of the year 1838 they commenced signing
bills to get money to discount and pay for the goods ; and
the mode in which Knight and Co. carried the money to
pay for the goods was by bills signed by Taylor, Potter,
and Co. These were discounted by the bank of Daintry,
Ryle, and Co., at Manchester, and in no case did Taylor.
Potter, and Co. interfere. The delivery of the goods was
completed on the 2d of April, and by the terms of the
purchase agreed upon the money was to be paid in four-
teen days, and it became due on the 16th. On that day
application was made by Mr. Pilkington to Mr. James
Knight, who said, " 1 am sorry to disappoint you, hut 1.
have not done my discount in Liverpool as I expected,
therefore I have sent off the bills to London to be dis-
counted." At the latter end of April Mr. Pilkington
obtained £1,500 in bills on account of the shirting, and so
things continued until the beginning of May, when the
concern of Knight and Co. closed. After that, Messrs.
Taylor, Potter, and Co. were applied to for payment for
the goods, and the statement made by Mr. Taylor was,
that they had not given authority to Knight and Co. to
purchase goods for them since the January preceding.
He (the learned counsel) undertook to satisfy the jury
that the goods were sold to Taylor, Potter, and Co. through
Messrs. Knight. 2,000 of the pieces came to the house
of Taylor, Potter, and Co. ; but there was a firm, Living-
ston, Gilliott, and Co., who carried on business under the
same roof with defendants, and the remainder of the goods
were shipped on board the John Bibby, with the name of
Livingston, Gilliott, and Co. on them, but how that name
got there he could not tell, as, in looking over the bank-
rupt's book, it was not found that there were any dealings
between the parties.
Mr. MARTIN then called a number of witnesses to
prove the sale of the goods, the general course of busi-
ness, and the agency of Messrs. Knight. The total cost
of the goods was stated to be 43,975, of which £1,500 had
been paid, leaving a balance of £2,475, for which sum the
action was brought. _ _ _

Mr. KNOWLES, for the defendants, said, there were two
questions for the jury—whether Messrs. Knight and Co.
had authority to bind the defendants in the matter, and
supposing that they had, had credit been given to them or
to Messrs. Taylor, Potter, and Co.? lie said there was
no proposition of law more distinct than this, that if a
party sells goods to an agent, knowing that he is dealing
for a principal, and the principal's name be known to him,
and the seller gives credit to the agent, the principal can
never be made liable, whatever becomes of the agent.
The learned counsel then contended, at some length, that
the invoice was the only proof of the party debited, and
concluded by expressing an opinion that his learned friend
(Mr. Martin) had failed to make out the two propositions
which would entitle him to a verdict.

Mr. Justice CRESSWELL said, there were two questions
for the jury to decide—the first was, whether the goods
were sold on the credit of Knight and Co., or on the credit
of Taylor, Potter and Co. and if they (the jury) should be
of opinion that Smet burst knew that they were for Taylor,
Potter, and Co., and he consented to give Knight and
Co. credit. he could not after that claim against Taylor,
Potter, and Co. But if they were of opinion that the
credit was not given to Knight and Co., but to Taylor,
Potter, and Co., then would come another question—
whether Knight and Co. had authority to pledge Taylor,
Potter, and Co.'s credit. If the jury were of opinion in
the affirmative that they were sold to Taylor, Potter, and
Co., and Knight and Co. bad authority to pledge their
credit, then they (the jury) must find the verdict for
the plaintiff, and if otherwise, their verdict would be for
the defendants. If for the plaintiff, it would be for £2475.
The jury, after half an hour's deliberation, found for
the defendants.