The Liverpool Standard and General Commercial Advertiser.
Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1842-04-12 00:00:00

n 6 otbe

6uhi Oil tictount of the 300 bales ; but I received the
ent. The

) the cotton isi
1 prorni

market rose on me, and I was disappointed in the price. This
is a mere pro forma account, to show what the profit would
have been if the transaction had been effected.
By Mr. KNOWLES.—Those (the papers being handed up)
are the accounts of the tea speculations. They are merely
the account of the profit.—Show me where the £2,000 paid
by Mr. Balmer is credited. It does not appear in the settle-
ment there. If it had been a true transaction I had authority
to t. an account as this cotton account. I had no

cnaer suu.... --
authority to receive cash. When I did receive money I bad
no authority to give receipts. I should have paid it to the
cash-keeper.—His object was to conceal from Balmer that
he had not made the purchase of cotton and to pay him what
was due to him. If the £2,000 were paid on account of tea
transactions, why was it not in them? It is in the account
rendered by Mr. Balmer to the house.
By Mr. WORTLEY.—His share of £1,300 is in the account.
By Mr. KNOWLES.—I received from Mr. Balmer £1,300
on account of the adventure. That was in August, 1838.
On August 16, I wrote to say his share would be £1,300.
On August 28, I received from him the £1,300. He has
credit for it in my private account, hut not with Messrs.
Littledale. The house knew nothing of the transaction.
They never knew Mr. Balmer from beginning to end. The
£1,300 I paid to his account with me, the £2,000 to Messrs.
Littledale to our joint account, who account for it in that
account. We had very considerable transactions. We bought
afterwards £6,000 worth of tea, which Mr. Balmer never
paid for, but it was sold and realised.
Mr. WORTHING contended that this evidence nonsuited
the plaintiff. There was no evidence on the special counts
relating to buying and selling, and the last witness proved
that the transaction was an entire fiction: The count for the
£2,000 alleged to have been paid in on account of the cotton,
is disposed by Comer's admission that he was Balmer's agent,
not Littledale s, and paid the £2,000 in joint account.
After several efforts to finish the case, his lordship, being
unwilling to nonsuit Mr. Knowles, without fully hearing him
on all the points, adjourned the case.

SATURDAY

BALMER V. LITTLEDALE

This case was resumed this morning, at nine o'clock, when
Mr. Baron ROLFE intimated, that th evidence on the part
of the plaintiff was extremely slight, but he should not take
upon himself the responsibility of stooping the case. He
would leave it to the 'determination of the jury.
Mr. KNOWLES recalled Mr. Corner, to explain some mat-
ters in his evidence yesterday ; but, after some discussion,
the learned Judge said he could not receive additional evi-
dence.
Mr. Woumuy then proceeded to address the jury on the
part of the delendants. He should not attempt to go through
the details of the ease, and he had only risen to lay before
them the grounds upon which Messrs. Littledale resisted this
action. If Mess. Littledale thought they were at all to
blame in the transaction„they would rather have sacrificed a
thousand pounds than heite put any party who dealt with
them to the trouble and expense of litigation. They resisted
this demand, because the plaintiff, whatever loss he had sus-
tained, had brought it upon himself by the manner in which
he had chosen to carry on his dealings. He had not dealt
with Messrs. Littledale upon the same terms as other mer-
chants dealt with them; and now he wanted to recover da-
mages for the consequences of his own fault. • Everybody
who knew Messrs. Littledale knew that their business was
conducted with extreme regularity, precision, and propriety.
Whether Mr. Balmer was a regular merchant at Runcorn or
not, or whether he was a private gentleman making occasional
speculations for his own benefit, he did not know ; but he
ought to have understood, that if he dealt with Messrs. Lit-
tledale, he must deal with them upon precisely the same
terms as other merchants. Instead of that, it appeared,
from first to last, he had never dealt with Messrs. Littledale:
he had made the person who was employed by Messrs. Little-
dale his own agent and partner in all his transactions. Mr.
Corner, therefore, was the person he dealt with, and not
Messrs. Littledale. Under these circumstances, he con-
tended that the plaintiff had not, as the learned Judge had
intimated, established his case.
Mr. Baron ROLFE then summed up the case, and the jury
retired to consider their verdict. After an absence of some
time, they returned into court with a verdict for the plaintiff,
damages £383.

SLANDER AGAINST A CLERGYMAN OF THE CHURCH Oh

ENGLAND.-PALEY, CLERK, V. FARRIMOND.
This was an action brought by the Rev. Joshua Paley, in-
cumbent of Pemberton, near Wigan, to recover compensa-
tion in damages for certain slanderous expressions uttered by
the defendant, William Farrimond, a farmer, residing in the
same township. The following gentlemen were sworn a Spe
cial Jury to try the case :-
Mr. Hugh Hornby,
Mr. Thomas Fannin,
Mr Charles Alexander,

Mr. Thomas Barber,
Mr. Wm. Chas. Fosberry,
Mr. Isaiah Ashlin,

Mr. Mayer Frank, I Mr. C. S. Middleton,
Mr. John Bentle, Mr. James Hargreave,
Mr. Henry Wilson, Mr. George Grace.
Mr. Dundas, Mr. Cowling, and Mr. Ramshay appeared
for the plaintiff; Mi. Wortley and Mr. Watson for the de-
fendant.

Mr. RAMSHAY stated the nature of the declaration. It
contained three counts, alleging various slanderous imputa-
tions upon the plaintiff. The defendant pleaded, first, not
guilty, and, second, by a justification.
Mr. DUN.DAS then proceeded to state the case, observing
to the Jury, that they had heard from his learned friend the
nature of the inquiry they were about to be engaged in. It
was one of the most solemn and anxious investigations that
could occupy the attention of a court of justice. Before he
detailed the circumstances of the case, he must confess, that,
often as he had been engaged for clients where life had been
intrusted to him to defend, or liberty to maintain, or the
rights of property to assert for his fellow-countrymen, he
never, in the course of his life, felt upon him the responsibi-
lity which now rested upon him in doing his duty to his
client; for there was something dearer than liberty, there
was something that he valued higher than property, nay,
there was somethingin issue to-day which was dearer to him
than life itself, because the charge made upon his client was
of a nature so revolting to every feeling which God had im-
planted in our bosoms, so hateful to every thing decent and
honourable, and of good report in Christian society, that, un-
less he could, by the verdict of the Jury to-day, clear
his character from this false and malicious slander, a
wanderer upon the face of the earth must he be from this
day forth. His family, his friends, the sacred calling in
which he had hitherto been occupied must all be flung to the
winds, and he must go far beyond the ye of all people. It
was, therefore, God knew, that be (Mre. Dundas) felt the re-
sponsibility that lay upon him. After some further general
observations, the learned counsel stated, that the crime of
which the plaintiff was accused, namely, sodomy, was, from
the very nature of it, calculated to subdue the most firm ; the
most virtuous could scarely stand up against it, such was the
nature of its poison, such the nature of the wound it was cal-
culated to inflict. If he satisfied the jury, to whom he ap-
pealed, that his client was entirely innocent of such imputa-
tion, that it was made upon him by a false and calumnious
tongue, there could be no damages he was not entitled to re-
cover. The plaintiff was the Rev. Joshua Paley,
,incumbent
of Pemberton, in the neighbourhood of Wigan. He was a
gentleman about thirty-six years of age ; a man of education ;
who, after leaving Cambridge, entered into holy orders, and
since 1832, had resided with his cureat Pemberton ; and if his
instructions were right, he was one of the most painstaking
and worthy ministers of the church in whose service he was
engaged. It was a district about three miles long by as many
miles broad. It contained a population of between 5000 and
6000 persons, consisting, principally, of weavers and colli-
ers ; and the plaintiff, from his earliest connexion with that
people, had devoted himself to them in a way, as far as lay
in his power, which all of us must applaud. He had, by edu-
cating the poor, through the day schools and Sunday schools,
through lectures in the week, through regular services in the
church, (where none had been before) done his best, and
done it most successfully, to improve the condition of the
people there, and to place them in greater light in the land
wherein they lived. He lived there in great harmony among
his people. Some time ago from over-exertion in his duty
as pastor, he fell into ill health, and was obliged to go abroad,
and in some part of 1841 he was absent from Pemberton.
The defendant, Mr. Farrimond, was a proprietor in that part
of the country : and he (the learned counsel) knew not whe-
ther, in the course of the case, it would transpire why he
pursued such studied revenge against Mr. Paley. He could
not tel why the defendant, time after time, seemed to have
felt it a sort of duty to hang on his ciient's skirts and stab
him in his reputation in the manner that he had ; but the
jury would find, that, on the 25th May, last year, when Mr.
Paley was not at home, there was a town's meeting at Pem-
berton. It was attended by a considerable number of per-
sons, the defendant among the rest. Thera was there a gen-
tleman named Stephen, one of the churchwardens; and,
when the people were all there, Farrimond, addressing Ste-
phen and some persons within his hearing, uttered this slan-
der, and the jury would judge whether it had not a tendency
to destroy a clergyman's reputation :—" Mr. Paley ! he ought
to be brought up, for there is no keeping him" * *
an insinuation perfectly intelligible to every man who heard
it, implying that Mr. Paley was addicted to some unnatural
propensity, or to some indecent and disgusting passion, Mr.
Stephen, when he heard it, said, " If you have anything to
say against Mr. Paley, speak out, and I will speak to Mr.
Paley about it." The defendant said no more : having ut-
tered this peison he left it to circulate. In the month of
July this same Mr. Farrimond was at Wigan, in a public-
house called the Dog and Partridge, at which was Mr. Mars-
den, the sidesman, or some other ecclesiastical officer of Pem-
berton, with several other persons. Some question arose as
to who Ms. Marsden was, and some one said lie was one of
Mr. Paley's churchwardens : upon that Farrimond did not
miss that opportunity of smiting the clergyman, for he said,
addressing Mr. Marsden, " Thou art no great things, or
else thou would not be churchwarden for such a devil as
him :'.' * * * 1 told Mr. Stephen, at_ a

town's meeting, about Mr. Paley carrying on so, and Mr.
Stephen promised to have him up." The filth and abomina-
tions of such a man no man could doubt, nor the imputation
it was meant to convey. Here were words spoken, to per-
sons who knew the plaintiff, of the plaintiff, the revolting
and disgusting nature'of whiel he was not going to enlarge
upon. It was quite enough for him, if, in the course of his
painful duty, he had to mention them. He laid them before
the jury, and lie left them to judge what, when they were
communicated to Mr. Paley, his feelings must have been.
He left them to judge, if these words were proved to have
been uttered by Mr. Ferrimond, and they were as false as he
was sure the jury would believe them to be, when they had
heard the case out, what a calumny that was ; what measure
of damages the defendant ought to pay ; to say whether they
should not inflict, with a ready hand, such measure of damages
as, iu their judgment and conscience, Mr. Ferrimond ought to
pay. But what sort of a man is Mr. Ferrimond? What sort of
a man must he be, if he really believes this to be true? What
would the jury think of Mr. Farrimond, a man witha family of
grown up children, permitting some of his growing up family to
attend Mr. Paley's lectures, as if Mr. Paley was not the man
he made him to be, and as if lie was still so good a man that
his children must attend upon him for instruction? Having
circulated this poison of Mr. Paley ; having done him this
wrong and cruel injustice, he still allowed his family to go in
the face of the public, as if Mr. Paley was as good a man as
ever, and as if it was proper for them to attend his lectures.
The plaintiff felt himself called upon to try this question with
Mr. Farrimond : he said, " I will bring my action against
you, and leave you to justify your words, if you dare." He
brought his action, and Mr. Farrimond justified his words.
His client, strong in the integrity of his innocence, cared not
for such justification ; but Mr. Farrimond still said, " You
are guilty of these indecent practices ; there are eight per-
sons whose names are upon the record upon whom you have
taken some liberty, or made some attack or other, and I
shall prove it." Said his client, "Do what you can ; any
man in England may be subject to this charge ; the best,
the most honourable, the most innocent man among us may
be thus tried." And so said he. (the learned counsel,) and.
God help him unless he were innocent. The defendant then
put upon the record, " You have been guilty of some dis.
gusting and loathsome practices with the eight persons
whose names I give ;" but he did not stop there, for he
went on to say, " Not only have you been guilty of
them with these eight persons, but I will show that you
were guilty of them with divers other persons." The
plaintiff was determined to know the meaning of this al-
legation, that other persons beside the eight could
prove he had committed some .indecent and disgusting
practice upon them; and he did what an innocent man
ought to do. He went before Lord Denman, and applied
for a summons to that learned and noble person to know
who were those.divers other persons whom Mr. Farrimond
chose to charge him with some indecency or other. He said,
" Tell me what their names are, that I may know who they
are, and that if they come into court I may confront them
and establish my innocence." Lord lienman felt that he had
no power to grant any such order • so that to this day the
plaintiff did not know what Mr. Farrimond: moot by saying

elle were other
ould prove this

dant was not at libert

.
,ersorie •Wades those he tied named
barge. He submitted that the defen-

,rove anythi

by- those witr

justification set up were craved by credible witnt..
nis client must suffer; but let him see those men, and knos
who they were. This, however, was the issue the jury would
have to try. That the words spoken were spoken in the sense
that he (the learned counsel) imputed to them, no man could
doubt ; nay, the defendant himself had admitted that, by
putting his justification upon the record. Upon the verdict
of the jury, therefore, bung all that Mr. Paley cared for in
this world. If they were constrained by the force of truth to
say, that the justification was made out, he knew they would
have done their duty by their conscience and their oath ; but
he knew, too, if that were not made out beyond the question
of the shadow of a doubt, why then he would ask them to do
their duty by their countryman who appealed to them on be-
half of his character, and give him that sort of compensation
which might not only stop the mouth of Mr. Farrimond, but
redeem, as far as a verdict at their hands could redeem it,
Mr. Paley's character, and restore him to that place among his
friends, among his family, and his sacred calling, which he
held before, and give him peace of mind and respectability
among his people.
Mr. John Stephens, one of the churchwardens of the
plaintiff's church, at Pemberton, was the first witness. He
narrated the words uttered by the defendant at the public
meeting ; and he described the improved morals of the popu-
lation of the district, in consequence of Mr. Paley's exer-
tions. In his cross-examination he admitted, that in-conse-
quence of certain rumours affecting his character, he had
forbidden Mr. Paley to enter his house ; but that he after-
wards satisfied himself, by private inquiry, that these rumours
were false.
James Marsden described the expressions used by the de-
fendant at the Dog and Partridge, in Wigan.
The Rev. Henry Gunning, rector of Wigan, spoke to the
gentlemanly conduct.of the plaintiff, whom he described as
a man of uncommon assiduity in his sacred calling.
A number of other witnesses were then called, some of
whom had been pupils in the plaintiff's schools, and all of
whom stated, that he moved in the most respectable circles,
and that they had never seen him behave otherwise than in
the most becoming manner.
Mr. WORTLEY then addressed the jury for the defendant,
telling them that if they should not be able to believe the
testimony which he adduced, they would have the agreeable
duty of returning a verdict for the plaintiff, but in any event
that this was not a case that called for heavy damages.
A great number of witnesses, and among them two females,
were then examined, but their evidence is totally unfit for
publication. Their general testimony went to the effect that
the defendant had taken most gross liberties with them.
The dates of the alleged crimes ranged between four and six
years. One witness, named Bagster, it appeared, had been
at Mr. Stevenson's office, where he signed a paper, apologi-
sing to the plaintiff for having, in Mr. Leigh's office, charged
him with this offence.
Two witnesses were called by Mr. Dundas to contradict

this witness, in consequence of which
Mr. WORTLEY obtained the right to reply on the evidence.
In doing so he protested energetically against the tampering
which had taken place with the witnesses by the plaintiffs
friends, and said, if this instance were permitted to pass by
without reprehension, it would furnish a precedent most
dangerous to the administration of justice.
Mr. DUNDAS rose to reply, which he did at great length
and with uncommon animation. He had read and felt, upon
many an occasion, that the darkest hour was next to the
dawn ; and he had been looking forward, as those witnesses of
darkness assailed his client, for that hour which now he
thanked God, had arrived, when again, for his client, he
might address his countrymen the jury. If this case had
been taken on the other side of the court, no jury in the
world could convict the plaintiff on the testimony brought
forward to-day. It was impossible to believe, that several
offences had been committed, seeing that some were- stated
to have taken place five, six, seven, and eight years ago.
The charges, too, were made by parties who were unknown,
against one who was perfectly well known, and who had
borne an irreproachable character as a minister of the Gos-
pel ; and there was a manifest want of corroboration to all of
them.
The learned JUDGE summed up. He confessed it appeared
most exraordinary to him, that this felonious offence should
have gone on for four, five, six, or even seven years, as a
system, without a single witness being called on whom it had
been perpetrated without his knocking the offender down.
The only question for the jury, however, was, whether the
defendant had established his plea of justification to their
satisfaction.
The jury retired at a quarter to eight o'clock to consider
thei? verdict. They returned a few minutes before nine,
and found for the plaintiff. Damages, £5O.
The court adjourned at nine o'clock.

YESTERDAY

CLAIM AGAINST THE TRUSTEES OF A COAL MINING

COMPANY.
GIBSON V. FRITH AND ANOTWEII

—.—
This case was tried before a special jury. The action was brought
to recover compensation in damages for the non•fulfilment of an
agreement entered into between the plaintiff and the defendants.
The declaration contained five counts, varying the allegations.
Mr. DuNDAs, Mr. KNrowcxs, and Mr. FROST appeared for the
plaintiff; and Mr. WORTLEY, and Mr. WATSON, for the defendants.
Mr. FROST having opened the case, Mr. DUNDAS stated the par-
ticulars. The plaintiff, Mr. Thomas Cummings Gibson. was for-
merly a merchant and shipping broker in Newcastle. and in a large
way of business, which he relinquished on entering to an agree-
ment with the defendants ; and he brought the action for a breach
of that agreement, which appointed him as " fitter" to the Northern
Coal Mining Company, of which the defendants, George Frith
and Hunter Gordon, of London, were trustees. The office of
" fitter" was one of great trust and considerable emolument, and
the plaintiff, was engaged by the defendants to undertake it in
1839 for a term of 14 years ; he receiving certain commissions for
his services. He was, however, discharged unjustifiably (as it was
alledged) about the end of the third year, and the damages sought
were for compensation for his being so discharged before the ex-
piry of the agreement. As fitter he had to take all the coals pro-
duced from the mines of the company, to find ships to convey them,
and to keep up several officeg, with clerks, &c. for the disposal of
them, in consideration of which he was to receive so much per
chaldron. During the time he was in the service of the company
the transactions between them and himself amounted to from
£•280,000 to £300,080. His commissions, in some instances, were
to be 2i per cent, and on coals that were shipped for abroad 5 per
cent, or Is per chaldron. The defendants in reply put in the several
pleas that the plaintiff was never duly appointed ; that he had been
paid ; that they had not discharged him ; that he had mismanaged
the company's affairs ; and that he acted wrongly in giving bills
which he had no right to do.
Several admissions were made on both sides of documentry
evidence, and a copy of the deed or agreement appointing Mr.
Gibson was also admitted att,l read.

—...—..
Evidence was then given of the nature of the plaintiffs duties,
and the extent of business transacted by the company.
Mr. Wo RT LEV said in behalf of the defendants, that the plaintiff
was a holder of 400 shares in the company, and the action was
therefore brought by one portion against the co-partners.
Mr. DUNDAS contended on the contrary, that the plaintiff sued
the defendants in their individual character as trustees; and that
the funds taken out of their pockets, would not be divided from any
partnership fund, and would go clearly into the pocket of the
plaintiff. He quoted aas e decided by Chief Justice Tindall, which
he considered analogous.

-
Some further arguments were on this point, and the plaintiffs
counsel admitted that he was a shareholder.
The learned .Ivnom stated that if that were admitted, he thought
the action could not be maintained ; and advised a settlement out
of court.

finally the plaintiff was declared, with usual form, to be nonsuited

There are three or four other cases yet to be tried, which it is
expected will be disposed of by 12 o'clock this day.

THE THEATRE - ROYAL AGAINST THE
" ROYAL " LIVER THEATRE.

KIRKDALE PETTY SESSIONS-APRIL BTH

(Before Sir THOS. BRANCKER, and W. RATHBONE, PETER
BOURNE, TURNER, J. B. YATES, and T. RODICK,
Esqrs.)

THE QUEEN versus RAYMOND

This case, which has excited considerable attention in the
theatrical world, was heard on Friday at Kirkdale Sessions-
house. There were many gentlemen connected with the
dramatic profession present. Amongst them we noticed
Messrs. Clarke, Hammond, Baker, Aldridge, sen., Ray-
mond, Lloyds, Lee, Aldridge, jun., Egerton, Barton, Pelham,
Slaiter, Eaton, Jonas, Beuwell, &c.
Dr. BROWN and Mr. JAMES appeared in support of the
information ; attorney, Mr. Lloyd, of the firm of Foster and
Lloyd. Mr. HENDERSON and Mr. WARREN for Mr. Ray-
mond ; attorney, Mr. James Norris.
Mr. MYERS read the information, which, after the formal
part. proceeded as follows :—" That, within six calendar
months now last past, (that is to say) on the fourteenth day
of March, in the year of our Lord one thousand eight hun-
dred and forty-two, at the parish of Liverpool aforesaid, the
defendant, in a certain place there, to wit a certain place in
the parish and county aforesaid, then and still called and
known by the name of the Liver Theatre, otherwise the
Royal Liver Theatre, without lawful authority by virtue of
letters patent from her present Majesty, or any of her Ma-
jesty's predecessors, and without license from the present or
any other Lord Chamberlain of her Majesty's Household,
and without any license from the Justices of the Peace in
General Quarter Sessions assembled, and having jurisdiction
in, or over, or at the said place called and known by the
name of the Liver Theatre, otherwise the Royal Liver Thea-
tre, did cause to be acted, represented, and performed for
gain and reward, a certain part of, and in a certain entertain-
ment of the stage called the " Maid of Croissey, contrary to
the statute in such case made and provided, whereby and by
force of the statute in such case made and provided the said
defendant has forfeited for his said offence the sum of Fifty
Pounds of lawful money of Great Britain, to be distributed
as the law directs." _

(Signed,) ROBERT SANDFORD ROBINSON.
The informations against Mr. Strickland, Mr. Webster,
and Madame Celeste were similar.

Dr. BROWN said he had the honour to appear, with his
learned friend Mr. James, on behalf of the lessees of the
Theatre-royal, in support of the information against Mr.
Raymond. Mr. Anderson and Mr. Hammond were those
lesses ; and he appeared for them in support of a right given
to them by law,—a right valuable to them for the protection
of their own property in a theatre for which they paid a
very large rent, under the authority of certain acts of parlia-
ment which the legislature had thought proper to pass with
reference to the direction and management of theatrical
exhibitions. With the policy of those acts neither he nor the
court had anything whatever to do ; and he apprehended that
his learned friends would not attempt to raise a question of
that kind. The learned counsel then proceeded to state that the
information was founded on the 10th George 11, ch. 28, sec.
2, which provided that no person should perform or cause to
be performed theatrical exhibitions without the license of the
lord chamberlain or the license of the justices of the peace
in quarter sessions; and that every such person so performing
or causing to he performed in such unlicensed theatre should
for every such offence forfeit and pay the sum of £5O. This
had been supported by subsequent decisions, which he
quoted. Messrs. Anderson and Hammond had refrained
from asserting their tights till they were in danger of losing
them altogeth7 unless they did so; and they now only took
these proceedings to vindicate them. The learned counsel
concluded by some general remarks on the case, after which
he proceeded to call the first witness, who was
JOHN FRANCIS ROGERSON, who said he was an actor
and prompter, and had been in Mr. Raymond's employ. He
was not now, but was so employed on the 19th of March.
Was an actor as well as prompter. Knows the place called
the Liver—was prompter there. Went there on the 26th
December. Was engaged by Mr. Raymond. Remained in Mr.
Raymond's employ till 19th March. Mr. Raymond engaged
with witness's wife. It was a double engagement. Mr. Raymond
paid him. Believes Mr. Raymond is the manager of the
theatre. Has always received his directions from Mr. Ray-
mond himself. Has always received his money from Mr.
Raymond. Does not know who pays the other performers.
Has generally received his orders from Mr. Raymond. Has
sometimes received directions from the stage-manager.
Mr. HENDERSON objected to a question put by Mr.
James, to show Mr. Raymond's general mangement of the
theatre. The objection was that the questions should have
reference to the act committed on tne specific day laid in the

information.
After some argument, the court overruled the objection.
and the evidence proceeded :—He had received general direc-
tions from Mr. Raymond, and had heard him give directions
to the stage manager. Witness used some times to give a
book ourto the performers, by directions of Mr. Raymond,
from which they themselves wrote their respective parts.
Mr. Raymond generally corrected the bills of the per-
formances in one or two instances witness had done so
himself by Mr. Raymond's directions. Mr. Raymond was
in the habit of correcting the bill from the 26th December
to the 19th March. Witness always received his salary for
acting as prompter from Mr. Raymond. Witness was pre-
sent at a rehearsal of the "Maid of Croissey," previously and
preparatory to its performance ; this was on the 12th March,
Saturday. Does not recollect whether Mr. Raymond was
present at that rehearsal. None of the London performers,
Mr., Webster, Mr. Strickland, or Madame Celeste, were