The Liverpool Standard and General Commercial Advertiser.
Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1842-08-16 00:00:00

SOUTH LANCASHIRE SUMMER ASSIZES•

NISI PRIUS COURT.—FaroAN.
SHERBOURNE V. QUARME.
As the jury were about to be sworn in this case, which was
an action for libel brought by the Rev. Mr. Sherbourne, a
Roman Catholic priest, against Mr. Quarme, the editor and
proprietor of the Lancaster Gazette, in which many im-
portant disclosures were expected.
Lord DENMAN,asked whether there was any possibility of
the case being arranged ? He understood that it was purely
a question of character. He would not think of interfering
in a case of ordinary libel; but he had come into court
upon the understanding that the question was one of cha-
racter, and that there was a justification. He again asked if
thera was any chance of its being arranged provided a re-
el-met were left on it ?
Mr. DUNBAs said that he was unable to answer that ques-
tion at present, but that his lordship's intimation would
doubtless be taken into consideration.
A short conversation here took place between the counsel
and agents at both sides, which eventuated in a remanet
being left upon the case.
INSURANCE OF A VESSEL.—PROCTER AND OTHERS V.
THORBIIRNE.
This was an action of £397 on a vessel and cargo insured
by the Forth Insurance Company—the ship having gone on
shore, and sustained considerable damage.
Mr. Knowles and Mr. Crompton were for the plaintiffs ;
Mr. Martin and Mr. Dundas for the defendants.
Mr. CROMPTON opened the pleadings, and Mr. KNOWLES
detailed the case to the jury. The plaintiff, be said, Mr.
James Procter, was a merchant of Liverpool, a gentleman
well known, a member of the town-council, and of unble-
mished character. He mentioned this fact, inasmuch as one
of the pleas went to throw discredit upon him, by inducing
an inference, if not actually alleging, that he had been guilty
of fraud, in representing the vessel as sea-worthy, ke know-
ing that she was not so. The other plaintiff was a Mr.
Snowball, was a relative of Mr. Procter's, and joint owner of
the brig George the Fourth. The defendants were the re-
presentatives of the Forth Insurance Company, who did in-
sure on the vessel to the amount of £lOOO, and on the freight
£2OO. There was a clause in the policy to the effect that it
was agreed that the vessel should be considered as sound and
sea-worthy. Ile believed he should prove that the vessel
was perfectly sea-worthy ; but, even were it otherwise, a
verdict must be given for ,the plaintiffs, unless it were dis-
tinctly proved that they were cognizant of that fact. He
then detailed the particulars of the vessel's voyage from Li-
verpool, her going ashore near Newport, her being damaged,
surveyed, and afterwards repaired at a considerable cost ;
whence arose the present claim against the defendants for
£397 15s. 10d. A plea was set up. that part of the policy
was obtained by fraud, and a false representation that the
vessel was sea-worthy; but he should show that such an
imputation was unfounded, by the evidence of competent
individuals. There were other pleas of the defendants—that
the ship was not lost by the perils of the sea ; and another
that the plaintiffs had not sanctioned any loss of freight.
The following witnesses were then called.:—
James Simpson, a partner in an insurance broker's, in
London, said he received instructions to effect the insurance
of the brig George the Fourth to Newport and Palermo.
The insurance was effected—£looo on the vessel, and £2OO
on the freight.—Cross-examined : We received a letter on
the 28th October, from the captain, which was sent to us by
Procter, together with the papers relating to the insurance.
They were sent to the Insurance Company. These related
to the loss. Witness did not see the letter sent, but it might
be amongst them.
Wm. Wisleile, mate of the George the Fourth, said he
joined the vessel on the 14th October. I sailed with her
from Liverpool. She was partly laden. She was bound to
Newport and thence to Palermo. We left Liverpool on the
22d. On the fourth day, the 26th, we got off Newport—to
the river's mouth. We had very bad weather in the channel ;
it blew very hard. She made no more water than usual. It
blew all night of the 26th. On the day after she missed
stays and went in shore. We had a pilot on board. We
got a hawser out, and tried to get her off, but could not.
The wind blew hard all day. Next day we tried. She struck
hard on a mud and sand bottom. She was at last got off,
and made a good deal of water. Next day we got under
weigh. We took her on a bank up the river ; the sheathing
and copper was all knocked off. She was then got to the
graving bank, and then moored. A survey was held by
Capt. Young, in presence of two other surveyors.—Cross-
examined by Mr. Dundas : She afterwards proceeded on her
voyage. She was 99 tons. She had seven hands on board.
On the second night we were about the shoals. I kept the
log. We got to Cardiff sands. The old log-book was then
quite filled up when we got there. There was one old loose
leaf. I then wrote the log on the slate. The captain copied
it into a new book which he had brought on board. Both
books were brought home in the ship. I heard the captain
bought a book at Newport. Some of the wood sheathing
came up on the voyage, but I did not see it. The second
mate told me. I saw no timber started, nor anything amiss.
It blew very hard off Newport. I did not see any other
vessels sheathing plank at two A.M. on the 24th. She was
making then about an inch of water in the hour. I do not
know the pilot's name. He left us when the ship went
ashore. He landed in his boat. I do not know where he
went to. I swear there was a pilot on board. He was taken
on board down at the buoys. She went ashore about fifty
fathoms from the shore. The bottom was mud and sand—
no stones. She was striking and straining. When the tide
was out she was high and dry. We took a river pilot on
board when the vessel came on shore. The vessel was on
there two tides before he came. She was lying four streaks
down. The old log-book was produced, and witness denied
that any leaves were taken out at the end.—Re-examined:
It is possible for a vessel to be injured much on a sand and
mud bank though there are no rocks.
Peter Brennan, second mate, said he was on board. We
had a gale of wind in going to Newport, and the ship
laboured. Witness corroborated the last witness as to going
on shore. The bottom was hard at the bottom and soft at
the top. On the second day she was got off. They got to
Pwlheli, where she was surveyed.—Cross-examined : I saw
a piece of sheathing float up while I was looking out for the
Small Light. It was from the waist. She leaked a little
after that. It was a little before twelve. It was blowing
strong. It was not a light wind.
William Ilaynes.-1 am now surveyor for the Liverpool
Shipping Company. 1 assisted at a survey of the vessel with
other gentlemen (named). There were three surveys made.
(These were produced.) Before the last survey the coal and
coke was taken out, and the -vessel was opened up sufficient
to enable us to inspect her. She had not one decayed tim-
ber. She was w good vessel, and securely fastened. The
injuries appeared to be recent, and from every thing I saw I
should say she was perfectly seaworthy when she sailed. I
have known many vessels receive severe injury by taking the
ground there.—[The surveys were here read, stating the
damage sustained by the vessel. The estimated cost of
the repairs recommended by the surveyors was something
above £looo.—Witness continued, on cross-examination :
She appeared to be about ten years old. If a sheathing
board came off in fine weather without touching anything, I
should say the vessel was not in a good state. (The counsel
who examined this witness evidently knew nothing of the
construction of a vessel.)
Captain William Y oung.—l was formerly a sea-captain,
and for ten years have been a surveyor. I surveyed the ves-
sel. I agree with the other witness as to her condition. I
have no reason to suppose but the vessel was perfectly sea-
worthy when she sailed.
Mr. C. H. Stonehouse, surveyor for Lloyd's, at Newport,
said,—l concur with the other witnesses. The injuries to
the vessel were caused by the going on shore. There was
nothing to suppose that the vessel was not seaworthy when
she left Liverpool.
Charles Hall, ship-builder, Newport, was present at all
the surveys, and agreed with the parties examined. Except
the injury caused by going on shore, the vessel was in good
condition. The injury must have been done by the going on
shore.
Mr. Fitzpatrick, ship-builder, Liverpool, repaired the ves-
sel in 1839. Her timbers were all sound. There were some
deficiencies in her plank, which were replaced. I saw her
before she sailed to Newport, in October last, and she was
in good order and perfectly seaworthy.
Mr. Lorimer spoke to the amount of the damage to the
ship.
Mr. Dundas addressed the jury for the defence, at consi-
derable length, contending that the vessel was unseaworthy
from the beginning of the voyage, and that this was proved
from a piece of sheathing starting off, even in fine weather.
lie then read a letter of the captain to the owners, in which
he stated his safe arrival at Newport—saying that he had
hard work to keep the vessel afloat, and never once mention-
ing that she went ashore at all. He could, however, produce
only the copy of this letter, and it was objected to by Mr.
Knowles. He also contended that a quantity of leaves had
been torn out at the end of the first log-book, which had
been done for a fraudulent purpose. The captain, it ap.
peared, from an account produced, had also purchased a new
log-book when in Newport, and the log was continued in it.
Witnesses were called for the defence. A pilot was got
on board after she took the ground, said that the ground was
all mud together, and that no vessel could be damaged there.
Mr. KNOWLES then addressed the jury for the plaintiffs at
great length, and with great ability. He contended that the
vessel was injured by the perils of the sea ; that it had been
proved she was seaworthy, and that no imputation whatever
attached itself to the conduct of his clients, who had given
up every document of which they were possessed relative to
the vessel and the voyage.
His LORDSHIP then summed up. He thought there was
no distinct proof that the vessel was unseaworthy; and if it
were concluded that it were so on the evidence given, still
there was no proof whatever that the plaintiffs were at all
aware of the state of the vessel in that respect, which it was
ne,ereisiesary to rove, in order to find a verdict against them.
jury immediately returned a verdict for the plaintiffs
on all the issues—or, 'n
other words, for the full amount
sought, £397 15s. 10(1.
IMPORTANT
MERCANTILE INSURANCE CM;E.—BOLD AND
This was
et V. ROTHERHAM AND OTHERS.
surance effectedcitni°a to recover an amount on a policy of In-
and the sum sought shipped from Liverpool to China,
leged to be due to owes £163 12s. 6d. being the amount al-
aoafatiff by the defendants as their share of
loss as insurers, out
Mr. Knowles was leading total sum insured of £4,000.
Mr. Dundas for the lina counsel for the plaintiffs, and
defendant.
Mr. KNOWLES statedthsetac
sought to recover the sum e to the jury. The plaintiffs
goods shipped by the ship Penang, on a policy of insurance on
, which was freighted from
Liverpool to China with a valuable cargo—stated, indeed, to
sought was the proportion of
be worth £BO,OOO. The sera
loss on the amount due by the defendants as agents of the
insurance company. The vessel sailed in October, 1840,
when the relations between this countrayaaina China were in a
fact which seemed to
very unsettled and precarious state—
Ye::: drawn up
Polk
be contemplated by the parties, for the
in a somewhat unusual manner to meet the
scope for the shippers of the goods, and
to allow every
deration of a high premium, to look out and await
fora
consi-
deration
It was stated in the policy that the insurance waamsaorn-
goods in the ship Penang, at, and
to any port or ports in the Canton river, or on the coast of
China, including Manilla, with leave to remain at any outport
desired port, and also with leave
until she could get to a to
call at any port or ports, in going backwards or forwards, for
instructions, or in any way of traffic. Fo ,r this risk a
the proviso that pre-
mium of £1 per cent. was to be given, an with
should the ship be unable to discharge her cargo within one
month, in the Canton river, a return should be made to the
insured ship sailed orei
insured of 30s. per cent. by the insurers.
until
the 31st Oct., 1840; and nothing remarkable occurred
of Good
the 25th of Jan. 1841, when, having passed the Cape__n
which
Hope, she encountered a very heavy gale of wind, 1.
she became dismasted, and the maintop-sail yard coming
down, drove a hole in her deck, which admitted a great
quantity of water, and as was inevitable, damaged a consi-
derable portion of the cargo. As it was necessary that she
should undergo repairs, the captain had jury-masts erected,
and ran for Sincapore, the best and nearest port under the
circumstances. The vessel was then re-masted and re. fitted ;
but the goods were not taken out for inspection, as heavy
euties would have been incurred, and the place where one of
the parties resided to whom
the vessel was consigned was not
far distant. That gentleman, Mr. Burn, the principal
partner of Messrs. M.-Vicar end'%,,C
Co.
was, however, advised by
letter from the Captain of what had befallenthe vessel,
while she lay at Sincapore' where the repairs occupied about
two months. She sailed thence in April, and arrived at Ma-
cao, at the mouth of the Canton river,22d
on the of June.
Mr. Burn having been advised of her coming, had to consider
how it was best to act in the perilous
circumstances under
which the country was then placed. Captain Elliot, the
plenipotentiary from this country, had, on the 21st May, (a
short time previously,) issued a proclamation enjoining
the British residents in Canton not to remain i
beyond sun-set that day, hostilities having commenced
the city
on the 22d of June he issued another notice iin which
~hanhd
stated that he did not consider it Politic' or safe fore

the British shipping to remain in the river, and strongly
recommended them to proceed to the island Hong Kong, at
some distance from its estuary. Mr. Burns, actuated by
this and his own knowledge of the state of the locality,
thought it best to send the Penang to Hong Kong; and be
accordingly dispatched her thither, in company with another '
ship, called the James Lang, which he had chartered for
three months as a receiving ship, and to which be afterwards
gave orders that the cargo of the Penang should be trans-
shipped after their arrival, with a view to the damage being
ascertained, which was necessary, and also to prevent fur-
ther increase of damage to the goods. As soon as possible,
after the arrival of the two vessels at Hong-Kong, tine trans-
shipment commenced and continued for about seven days,
when a dreadful hurricane or " typhoon" arose, by the force
of which the James Lang, which had received on hoard all
the cargo (consisting of upwards of 1,500 bales), with the ex-
ception of about 200 bales of goods, was driven on shore ;
totally wrecked on an adjacent island, and the goods washed
amongst the rocks. On this misfortune the action was
founed. The defence would, he believed, be set up that the
risk had ceased when the loss took place ; but no one surely
could imagine that Hong Kong, where it would be shown
there were no warehouses, and only a few insecure sheds,
was ever contemplated as the final port for the discharge of
her cargo. The policy of Insurance, indeed, (rave the ship-
pers of the goods a great latitude in finding a safe and proper
market, giving them a choice of ports, and allowing them a
space of time spreading over a year or two, if they desired to
avail themselves of it. For this the large premium stated
was allowed. The risk, as related to the Penang, had not,
he contended, determined with the transhipment, which was
a work of necessity and prudence; He should, he added,
not longer occupy the time of the jury, but should proceed to
produce evidence of the facts he had stated. It was proba-
ble, he thought, that the case would fail to be considered
chiefly as a question of law, by his lordship.
The policy of insurance was then read in favor of Messrs.
Bold and Starkie, and setting forth the premium of £4, and
the provisional return of 30s, the permission to call at ports,
&c., as before stated. The sum insured in all by the plain-
tiffs was £4OOO, of which the defendants insured the parts
sought to be recovered. The bill of lading was also produced,
showing the goods shipped by the plaintiffs.
Hugh Rossiter Cumming, captain of the Penang, a re-
markably good-looking man, was then called and detailed
the principal particulars of the voyage, the transhipment of
the goods, &c. He considered the transhipment necessary,
to ascertain the damage, and arrest its progress. The da-
maged goods were placed in a separate part of the James
Lang. He took on board some hundred chests of tea from
the James Lang, at Hong Kong, but that was to make room
for the cargo he transhipped to her. He denied on cross-ex-
amination that the tea was intended as part of his homeward
cargo, while the ships lay at Macao, though it turned out
that he afterwards brought it home. He received orders,
indeed, not to stow it, as it was then intended to go by ano-
ther ship. The testimony of this witness was most clear and
satisfactory. His own ship had a narrow escape by'cutting
away her foremast.
Captain Pritchard, of the John Lang, corroborated the
statements of the last witness. He had received about 1400
bales from the Penang when the " typhoon" came on. He
was oblige to discharge the tea into the Penang to make
room for her cargo. [The counsel for the defence put
questions to this and the subsequent witnesses, with a view
to show that it was intended to discharge the Penang as
speedily as possible, not for the purpose of saving the in-
creased damage to the cargo, but to take advantage of good
freights home by the ship, but this was by no means borne
out by their testimony.]
Mr. Gilbert Smith, a young man who is partner in the
firm of M`Vicar and Co., and who had been one of the
hostages detained by Lin, head Mandarin of the Chinese
authorities, was also examined at very great length, but with
little effect to the defendants' case. He stated that had the
Penang arrived without damage to her cargo, the other
vessel would not have been chartered, and admitted that in
such case the Penang would have been retained as a receiving
ship. He also admitted that it was not intended to reship
them in the Penang. He sheaved that Macao was not a port
at which the goods could be safely.landed or stored at the
time.

Mr. DUNDAS addressed the jury for the defendants at
great length, grounding his argument chiefly on the admission
of the last witness.

The JUDGE briefly summed up, putting the only issue that
was left to the jury—namely, whether they were of opinion
or not that the goods, by being put on board the James Lang
at Fling Kong,under the circumstances, were to be considered.
as having been deposited at their final destination,- as com-
pleting the adventure so far as the Penang was concerned,
whatever might afterwards become of them as a matter of
trade.

The jury, after retiring for a short time, returned a verdict
for the plaintiffs in the full amount.

After the bearing of an unimportant case relative to the
wages of a seaman, tHe business of this court (before Lord
Denman) concluded, and his lordship took a polite leave of
the gentlemen of the bar.

(Before Mr. Justice MAULE.)
BROKERS' ACCOUNTS.
POWLES AND ANOTHER V. BECKWITH AND AMOTIIER.
—ln this case, Messrs. Baines, Crompton, and Warren were
counsel for the plaintiffs, and Messrs. Wortley and Watson
for the defendants.

Mr. 'WARREN havinc, opened the pleadings,
Mr. BAINES proceeded to state the case to the jury. He
observed that the questions which they had to try were of a
very serious nature, not only to the parties in the action,
but also, in his humble judgment, materially affected the in-
terests of commerce generally ; but if the conduct of the
Beckwith in the present transaction, was to pass, without
their being compelled to give reparation, there was an end to
all fair dealing, and to thut strict regularity which merchants
had a right to demand from one another. The plaintiffs
were, Messrs. Powles and Co., Commission Merchants, of
the highest respectability in Liverpool, and were also factors
dealing under a delcrederie commission to parties residing in
the West Indies and South America. The Messrs. Beckwith,
the defendants, were brokers also, of Liverpool, chiefly en-
gaged in articles used in the tanning business, and the action
was brought to recover compensation in damages for the
negligence, at least, of the de.endants in the sale of an article
which had been recently introduced into this country, and
which for the first time he had heard of when he received his
instructions. The article was called divi divi, and was used
in the tanning business. It was imported in the early part
of last year, per the Courier, and immediately afterwards was
put into the hands of the Messrs. Beckwith. In the follow-
ing July, a portion of the article was sold to Messrs. Boucher,
Mortimer, and Co., and other portions on the 3rd and sth
August. On the former day, a quantity of loose divi divi
was sold, and bought notes delivered to the plaintiffs at
£ll 10s. per ton. ; and on the sth of August another lot,
amounting to 600 tons, was sold for ten guineas per ton.
To the surprise of the plaintiffs, it was discovered in January
last that the goods bad in reality been sold for £l3 per ton,
and it was either by dealing as principals when they pretended
to be brokers, or gross negligence, that this had taken place,
and, he apprehended that his clients were entitled to a verdict
for £291 Bs. 3d., the difference between the amount paid
for the goods to the plaintiffs and the amount they were
actually sold at.
Mr. James Wilson Jeffreys, shipbroker, in Liverpool.—
Was formerly confidential clerk to Messrs. Powles, the
plaintiffs. The witness proved the partnership of the plain-
tiffs.

Cross-examined by Mr. WORTLEY.—Was not clerk in
their house at the time of this transaction. Left them at the
end of August, 1841. Had no knowledge of the transaction
in question.

Mr. Mundy, clerk with Messrs. Mortimer and Boucher,
who have a house in Liverpool and London, was next exa-
mined. He said be came from London to the Liverpool
house in June, 1841. He knew the defendants, who are
b-rOwers, in the hide and leather business. The witness proved
the h ,ndwriting of Mr. J. Beckwith to two sold notes, which'
were pn 'n and read. They were dated the 3d and sth Au-
g, L tr 1841, of thirty tons of divi divi at £ll 10s., and about
deed bales at £lO 10s. per ton, to the Messrs. Bou-
cher am. Co. Tae witness then produced a book in wi.ich
were papers posted which had been received from the de-
fendants. In it there were no contracts corresponding with
the bought notes dated August 19 :—" We have this gay sold
for von about 30 tons of divi divi, loose, at £l3 per ton, to
Messrs. Boucher and Co." Another bought note was then
put in, of the 2d August, another quantity was sold at £l3
per ton. Several other bought notes were then read by the
witness, of different quantities of divi divi, all at £l3 per
ton, dated in the months of August and September. On the
11th of August a note was read of the sale of about one ton
of damaged divi divi, at £8 per ton. Invoices of the goods
from the defendants to Messrs. Mortimer and Co. were also
put in, which were settled by the defendants. He added
that as the divi divi was required, orders would be given on
Messrs. Beckwith, who would countersign them to the plain-
tiffs, and that then it would have been delivered accordingly.
Mr. WORTLEY then proceeded to address the jury on be-
half of the defendants. He said the defendants held a station
in the commercial world of the highest character for ..,onour
and integrity as merchants, and not only was tbat character
put to hazard, but they were that day arraigned as criminals
at the bar of that court. His learned friend was not content
with complaining of them as guilty of negligence, for that
would not benefit him unless the plaintiffs had suffered in
consequence, but bad charged on them positive fraud for
putting money into their pockets which they had no right to
do. When a party chose to charge another as guilty of a
crime, it was his duty to lay before the jury every informa-
tion which it was proved he had in his power. Was it, then,
common fairness that he should leave the case as bare as he
possibly could, and only just put in evidence exactly as much
as would make out his case. The learned gentleman then
detailed the nature of the evidence he should adduce on be-
half of the defendants, and he concluded by observing that
under all the circumstances he trusted the jury would have
no doubt that the verdict ought to be for the defendants.
The following witnesses were then called

Mr. Samuel Branscome said he was formerly a partner in
the house of Messrs. Branscome and Co. They carried on
business as leather-factors and general commission agents.
In the year 1841, Powles'frequently spoke to me about divi.
He first offered me some in the month of June. Before
August he had frequently offered it to me. I hat often pur-
chased it before. There are several importers of it into Li-
verpool. The first answer I made was that Mr. Powles
asked too much for it. Hefirst offered it to me at £l4. I
said if he would allow me to have five tons as sample at £l3,
I would send it off. That was sold to me, Mr. Powles sta-
ting'
he would not be bound to sell the remainder at the same
price. I sent to Mr. Squire and Mr. Reynolds of Warring-
ton, and Mr. Franklin of Runcorn. I received letters from
Franklin and Squire about the 3d or sth of August, and af-
terwards met Mr. Powles. He asked me if I had received
any report ..if the samples sent off. I told him I had, and
they were very unfavourable. He then wished me to see the
bulk to ascertain if it corresponded with the report I had
received of the samples. Accordingly I went, and found
several bales were taken down by the warehouseman. I
found several very much damaged—l should consider from
heat whilst in the vessel. The warehouseman was then di-
rected to take samples to Mr. Powles' office, and we met
him there. Mr. Beckwith was with me. Mr. Powles seemed
very much concerned that they were damaged, and asked me
to make an offer for the whole, both the loose and the bales.
offered ten guineas per ton for the whole. He said it was
too low. I assigned as a reason that the divi was damaged.
He said the damage would not apply to the loose. I made
him an offer of £ll 10s. for it, and in the course of the day
he accepted it. Purchased the whole of it. I received a
bought
stroyed.note from
It
and Company,When I saw
went back to Mees
out wrong accord'irs.
Afterwards met Ml°. g to
understood I bought
think he said he
Mr. Beckwith
Mr. Powles, which was afterwards de-
was made out to Messrs. Boucher, Mortimer,
band Powles' were mentioned as the sellers.
for the divi, and it was arranged
for it for me if I could
ment the bought notes were Beckwjth's office, because it was made
,s
obffieue_gnehaoenttiote at my office, I immediately
LI My understanding of the matter.
ith and told him, " I thought you
did this for myself, not for the firm." I
ntriideerstand it. We then sent to
desired him to send me a contract
not. In
Mr. Beckwith should pay
y good contract. the consequence of that arringe-
it an extraordinar I did not consider
The same day I opened
a great many bales and found it better than I expected.
By the J V DGE.—Never got a contract made out corrected
as was agreed.
By Sir. WATsos.—l received the difference.
£ll 10s. and £l3 per ton. Mr. Beckwith r between
received nothing
but his commission.
Cross-examined by Mr. BA INES.—In January afterwards
I was applied to by the Messrs. Beckwith to give them
letter of instructions relative to this transaction, dated
preceding August, and I did so. Was told by letter on the
30th July that I could not be wrong if I bought at £l4 per
ton, and I did buy five tons the same day at £l3. On the
sth of August I represented divi as cheap at £l3 per ton.
By the JUDGE.---lt was cheap for a large quantity.
Re-examined.—lf the divi had been all sound it would
have been cheap at £l3. •

By the AlDOVl,—Constdered that I had not noted wrong to
my partners by making the purchase, as they bad given me
notice of dissolution previously, and I had orders not to pur-
chase goods except what I had orders for.
Mr. John Greenshield said he imported divi to a conside-
rable extent. He saw samples of the divi imported by the
plaintiffs. It was pretty good, but not equal to what be cal-
led the best. The price in the beginning of August was low.
It was very difficult to sell at any price. About August last,
Mr. Powles met me and asked if I would purchase the divi
at 10 guineas per ton, having previously offered that sum for
the lot he had. Sold divi at::$10 per ton in October, but not
of the best quality. In the month of August £lO was a fair
price for divi partially damaged.
Cross-examined.—Saw the divi in question. The best
divi was never lower than £l2 10s. per ton. .
Re-examined.--I should think £lO per ton for divi was a
fair price.

F. W. Reynolds, tanner, at Halton, near Runcorn.—
Received five bales of divi from Mr. Branscome. The first
bale he opened was so damaged be declined having any
more.

Mr. Reynolds, tanner, Warrington, received five bales of
divi as sample, from Mr. Branscome; two of them were very
bad, and wrote in reply that if the bulk was like the sample
he would not purchase any.
Cross-examined by Mr. BAINES.—Did, however, pur-
chase 100 bales of the divi at £l3 per ton on the 7th of
August.

Mr. Squire of Warrington gave similar testimony. •
Mr. Cox, of the firm of Priestley, Gtiffiths and Co., said it
was the custom for brokers when they became responsible
for goods, to make out bought-notes in their own name, and
the ordinary course under circumstances similar to the pre.
sent, would be for them to make out notes in their own names.
Ile had been shown the divi in the month of August last,
which had been partially damaged, he would think £lO a ton
a fair price for it. Some divi was sold by him in September
for £l2 lOs per ton.
Crass-examined by Mr. BAINES.—Never heard of a case
in which a contract was cancelled by one party without ap-
prising the other of it.
By the JUDGE.—It is not usual to cancel a contract at the
request of one party. _

James Jones proved that the samples in question were
taken from the warehouse of the plaintiffs, and taken to
Beckwith's warehouse.

Mr. BAINES replied, contending that the plaintiffs were
clearly entitled to a verdict, and the only question was the
amount of compensation. He remarked strongly on the im-
propriety of the conduct of the defendants, who were guilty
at all events of gross negligence, in allowing the whole mat-
ter to be going on behind the backs of the plaintiffs, when
they were paid a commission for the fidelity with which they
performed their duty to his clients.
The learned JUDGE then proceeded to sum up the case,
observing that the action was brought for compensation in
damages for negligence in not obtaining so large a sum as
they ought to have done for the goods in question. If the
jury were of opinion that they had not obtained so large a
price as they might have done, the plaintiffs were entitled to
a verdict, and they claimed to the amount of £291 Bs. 3d.,
the difference between the price of the divi divi at £ll 10s.
per ton and £l3.
The jury retired, and were out of court nearly an hour,
and then pronounced a verdict for the defendants.

LIEN!-TAYLOR WALMSLE Y.

This was an action in trover to recover 100 quarters of
wheat belonging to the plaintiff. The parties in the case
were Mr. William Taylor, merchant, at Derby, and the de-
fendants, Sir Joshua Walmsley and his partners,'corn-mer-
chants, in this town.

Messrs. Wortley and Watson were counsel for the plain-
tiff, and Messrs. Baines, Crompton, and Martin for the de-
fendants.

It appeared from the facts of the case, which occupied a
Feat portion of the day, that the plaintiff purchased from a
Messrs. Saunders and Son, of Derby, 1000 quarters of wheat
under the following circumstances. In the middle of last
year a merchant at Derby, named Webb, ordered through
the defendants 4000 quarters of wheat from Marseilles. Of
this quantity he allowed Messrs. Saunders to have half, and
the latter party sold to the plaintiff 1000 quarters. In March
he gave an order to the defendants, in whose bonded ware-
house the wheat was, to deliver the quantity purchased to
the plaintiff, but they refused on the ground that they had a
lien on them, and in order to prove this, it was shown that
the agreement between Mr. Webb and the defendants was,
that the latter were to hold the wheat for sale and to appro-
priate the proceeds of the sale to pay the purchase-money of
the wheat. Under these circumstances a verdict was eventu-
tually recorded for the defendants. The court then ad-
journed.

NISI PRIUS COURT.-SATITILDAY.

POLICY OF INSURANCE.-MACINTOSH AND ANOTHER V
M ARSHALL.

This was an action to recover £550 on a policy of insurance
effected on a cargo of oil in the ship Elizabeth on her voyage
from St. John, Newfoundland, to Liverpool.
Mr. Wortleyand Mr. Crompton appeared for the plaintiffs;
Mr. Knowles and Mr. Tomlinson for the defendant.
Mr. WORTLEY said this was an action in which the plaintiffs,
Messrs. Macintosh and O'Dwyre, sought to recover from
Mr. Marshall, an underwriter in London, the value of a
certain quantity of oil shipped on board the Elizabeth, which
was lost on her voyage from St. John to this country. The
plaintiffs were merchants in this town and in Newfound..
land, Mr. O'Dwyre residing at St. John and Mr. Macintosh
in Liverpool. In the month of January last the insurance
in question was effected. It appeared, that Mr. Macintosh,
the resident partner here, had passed the greater part of bis
life in the military profession, and had subsequently taken
up this business and become an active partner. On the 26th
of January last he wrote to Mr. George Mackay; an insur-
ance broker in London, and directed him to effect an insur-
ance upon this oil. The letter he wrote was in the following
term :—" Liverpool, January 26th, 1842. We have advices
from St. John, of the 27th ult, of train oil being then
shipped on board the Elizabeth, Spencer, master, of this
port, a new vessel, to sail about the end of the month," and
directing Mr. Mackay to effect an insurance upon the oil for
£550. Mr. Mackay received this letter the next day, and he
lost no time in sending one of his principal-clerks with the
letter to Lloyd's, who effected an insurance with the defendant
at 30s. per cent. The next day the price was higher, but Mr.
Marshall made no objection, merely observing, that if the
vessel should be lost he should require to see all the plain-
tiff's papers. It turned out afterwards that the, premium
upon this vessel rose from day to day, and it appeared she
was, in all probability, lost ; at all events, she had never been
heard of from that time to this. The grounds upon which
the defendant resisted the claim were various; but the great
fact,h
I n
point
n especiallyf fact,
a withn t
esdins
at
etsrtat
recall eh:
hff
eroeoaenrrntdeeoudni ws
plaintiffsnncat
outa
shei
understood,
insurance
rrdomat
st
hhnto theoaaennhotet
minds
thesailingsttdh,hh etb
they
the
ofye2 Elizabeth
had
nht
aabzeogi
da,
plaintiffs
guilty
ground
net
nhfftrot
hdyyest
fight would be upon the plea which charged that the plaintiffs,
l
when the insurance was effected, concealed or misrepresented
id
aEduo
of concealment
ozetansao itabnnewhi
ecltrahtheti
uvhahaiaecplelt.
mhoklfneaent
tcnhottteetwh.
roden
reont2f
17enati
instructionstsdhura.
the
would
npuatrl ndvea dase
statedtmustha
the terms of the letter; it stated that the ship would sail
" about the end of the month." This, he contended, was
consistent with the best information which Mr. Macintosh
possessed at the time he wrote the letter. But Mr. Marshall,
the underwriter, had information of it, because the insurance
broker at Lloyd's had drawn his attention to the duplicate
list received by the Amelia, which stated that the Elizabeth
had sailed on the 27th ; of which Mr. Macintosh could not
then have known, because no information of it had then
arrived in Liverpool. The plaintiff had given:the best in-
formation which he had upon the subject; therefore he had
done his duty and was entitled to the verdict of the jury.
Mr. Champion, managing clerk to Mr. George Mackay,
insurance broker, of London, produced the letter of the 27th,
addressed to Mr. Mackay, y the plaintiffs, requesting him
to effect an insurance for £550 upon the oil. Mr. Marshall,
whom witness saw at Lloyd's, said he would take the risk at
305., and pointed out to him the duplicate shipping list,
from St. John's, received by the Amelia, on one side of
which it was announced that the Elizabeth had sailed from
St. John's on the 27th. The policy was not signed till the
next day, when the defendant said he was aware the vessel
had sailed on the 27th, and he should require to see the cor-
respondence, to ascertain whether Messrs. Macintosh were
aware of it. He had since seen the correspondence.
The policy was then put in and read.
Cross-examined by Mr. KNOWLES.—Considered that 30s.
was a fair premium for the risk at the time. Witness re-
ferred Mr. Marshall to the duplicate list, and told him that
the original was on board the Elizabeth. Heard next morn-
ing that policies bad been effected the same day at £3 35.,
and the following day at £5 55., which would be the premium
upon a missing vessel.
Cross-examined.—Had heard that a general insurance,
"by ship or ships," had been effected on the oil, during the
winter, at 255.
Mr.:J. G. Oughterson, merchant, of Liverpool, said he
had some goods on board the Elizabeth. On the 21st of
January witness received a letter from Greenock ; and, the
day afterwards he met Mr. Macintosh, and told him that he
had dates to the 27th, and nothing was said of the sailing of
the Elizabeth, but she ought to arrive by the time the letter
reached. The winds were adverse at the time. The passage
from Newfoundland varied. Sometimes it took 14 and some-
times 40 days.
Cross-examined.---The passages were under 20 days gene-
rally, but it depended on the season of the year. Mr. Mac-
intosh did not tell him that he had himself received letters
by the Amelia.
Mr. William Valance, merchant, Liverpool, sail he bad
advised Mr. Macintosh on the subject of this insurance.
The rates of insurance varied from 15s. to 30s. 50s. was a
winter rate. The winds were north at the time; and, if
witness had known the Elizabeth sailed on the 27th, he
should not have considered her a missing ship. Witness had
made the passage himself in 15 days and in 30 days. He had
resided 14 years in Newfoundland, and knew the trade. It
seldom occurred that a vessel reached Liverpool from New-
foundland in 20 days.
Mr. WORTLEY then proposed to put in the list shown to
the defendant at Lloyd's; but Mr. KNOWLES objected, on
the ground that the defendant had not seen what was at the
back of it. At the back of it, there appeared an announce-
ment of the departure of the schooner'Elizabeth from St.
John's on the 27th of December.
The JUDGE admitted the list.
This closed the plaintiff's case.
aprf
niNaacrontesydsv
every ;wh,
naal
id::
1,
rtelcuoocuntanmds
underwrites
.the enrlcibttepee
governing
oratrasenootii
insurance
hst
courturega plaintiff,
rneca eat
nessdht
juryou l
importance
a allibd e hi
thenis.
ett.ohi learnedrrMaamturetmhdaeKoti
tenabledinnab ly toin calcull
ate r a thea ts,
thepremiumi a ot order dbeer
principle
hnaacrtigpalde he might be
the observation of good faith in all the 'rcumst.naungcljehnstqtuoaenbsde-
this principle was more especially applicableni to the policies
e
of insurance. The question, then, was aa snywnhiernthnemraMtanr.neMacin-
tosh had misrepresented or concealed material in the case; and he
should demonstrate that
the plaintiff had concealed material circumstances which
would altogether have altered the prerein
policy was void ; and he should further show
and, therefore, the
how that the plaintiff
had misrepresented. in his letter to the broker,
facts. The first fact was the letter which some of the
re-
ceived from O'Dwyer, at St. John, whiche contained this
plaintiff had
passage :—" We have shipped for you, on board the schooner
Elizabeth, Spencer master, 3,479 gallons cod
gal-
lons cod blubber, 21 cwt. old junk, £550. oil, 2,400
about the 25th instant. She is a new vessel. You
endeavour to save the insurance. Give three or four da eau
will all depend upon the weather you have at ho ays : it
me. ' The
object of the parties, therefore, was this, not to insure at
all, so long as there was a chance of the Elizabeth coming
to port. This letter was dated the 24th December, and it
came to the hands of Mr. Macintosh on the 14th of January
following, by steamer, and it would, therefore, come some-
what earlier than by a-sailing vessel. Another letter of the
same date was written by O'Dwyer to Macintosh, and sent
by a sailing vessel, and this was the material part of it
" You can allow her (the Elizabeth) from sixteen to twenty
days. You can run a reasonable risk to save the insurance,
but all will depend upon the weather you have upon the
other side." Mr. Macintosh had not informed the defen-
dant of these letters, but only given him the information
which he had received from :11 r. Oughterson. This last
letter came by the Amelia, which sailed on the 30th from St.
John, at which time the Elizabeth had sailed three days.
The Amelia arrived at Cork on the 19th January, and the
plaintiff would receive the letter in Liverpool on the 21st;
but there was endorsement upon it which lie (the learned
counsel) could not understand, namely, that had it
• been re-
ceived upon the 24th. The fact was it must have been re-
ceived on the 24th. However, he took till the 26th before
any thing was done in relation to the insurance; and, then.
having those letters in his hand, he (the learned counsel)
should contend that, at the time he effected the insurance,
the plaintiff must have had every reason to believe the Eliza-
beth was a missing ship, but he kept back the information

that she would sail about the 25th. Under these circum-
stances, he should contend that the policy was void,
The learned counsel then put in the letters of the 24th
December, from O'Dwyer to Macintosh, which he had re-
ferred to, and the material passages were read.
Mr. WORTLEY, in reply, said those letters were confiden-
tial communications between partner and partner, and that
they were no evidence of misrepresentation or conceal-
ment.

The JUDGE, in summing up, told the jury, that the party
making an insurance was not bound to put an underwriter in
possession of his opinions, but facts he certainly must : and
he left it to the jury to say, whether the plaintiff had pro-
perly communicated whin information he had to the under-
writer.

The jury returned a verdict for the plaintiffs, damages
£2OO, that being the actual amount which the defendant in-
sured for.
POLICY OF INSDRANCE : QUESTION OF TOTAL LOSS.-
HEARNE v. HAY AND ANOTHER. •
Mr. Baines and Mr. Watson appeared for the plaintiff;
Mr. Wortley and Mr. Crompton for the defendants.
The declaration was on a policy of insurance effected on a
ship called the Heron, which was wrecked on her voyage
from Liverpool to Malta. The plaintiff claimed £2OOO as
for a total loss : the defendants pleaded, that it was an
average loss of £7OO and no more, and they had paid that
amount into court.

Mr. BAINES said the plaintiff was an English merchant,
residing at Valetta, in the island of Malta, and the vessel in
Question, the Heron, was built there in the year 1840. The
defendants were two of the Directors of the Forth Ma-
rine Insurance Company ; and the action was brought to
recover as for the total loss. of the Heron on the 19th
March last. The Heron had been engaged in five Voyages
before she last came from Alexandria to Liverpool ; and on
the 12th of January she set out on her voyage from Liverpool
to Malta, with a cargo of coals and copper. In con-
sequence of stress of weather she was obliged to put back
to Liverpool; she subsequently made two other attempts
to sail, but was obliged to put back by bad weather. On the
14th of March she sailed on the voyage on which she was
unfortunately wrecked. The weather almost immediately
came on to be very bad ; and on the 13th of March, having
in vain attempted to make Kingstown harbour, she was
driven into the Bay of Carnarvon, where she became so com-
plete a wreck that she was unworthy of being repaired, inas-
much as the expense of it would be greater than the value of
the ship after the repairs had been made. He therefore con-
tended, that he should be entitled to treat her upon the
footing of a total loss. He understood the defendant would
rely upon a survey, which had subsequently been found to
be defective. Some communications were made to the de-
fendants, and, among others, one of an intention on the part
of the shipowner, or those who acted with him, to abandon
the vessel. He (Mr. Baines) was not in a condition to prove
the notice of abandonment, but he held in his hand a letter
from the Co. acknowledging the receipt of that notice ad-
dressed to Messrs. A., F., and R. Maxwell, the agents of the
vessel. In this letter they declined accepting the abandonment,
but stated, they had given authority to Mr. Robt. Griffiths,
Loyds' agent at Pwjlheli, to survey the wreck. The vessel was
got off the place where she had been wrecked, and put upon
the patent slip at Carnarvon. Negotiations took place ; some
delay followed ; and, there being a difference of opinion
between those who had made the calculations upon which
the plaintiff relied, and those who had made those on which
the defendants relied, the plaintiff determined at once
to procure the highest authority he could find in this town.
A gentleman of the name of Bayley, who had been concerned
in ship building a great part of his life, and had had much to
do with the inspection of ships, with two other honourable
and respectable gentlemen, Mr. Challoner and Mr. Russell,
were sent to the spot. They took a diligent survey of every
thing ; they discovered many injuries which had not been
observed before ; and they came to an unanimous conclusion
that the vessel was one Which no prudent man, supposing
him to be uninsured, would think of repairing. If the jury
should be satisfied of this, he should be entitled to their ver-
• diet as for a total loss. The learned counsel cited the case
of " Cambridge v. Anderton," on the authority of which he
contended, that, under the circumstances, he should be en-
titled to recover as for a total loss ; and that of " Allan v.
Segrew," to show what constitutes a total loss. He con-
cluded by stating, that, if he established these facts to the
satisfaction of the jury, he should be entitled to their verdict
for a total loss.

Antonio Caracci, captain of the Heron, proved the several
puttings back of the ship, and her final wreck, in Carnarvon
Bay, on the 19th of March. She was a total wreck : the
false keel was lost, the planks were staved in, and the rudder
was gone.

Cross-examined.—Sold the cargo on the 20th or 21st of
March, and told Messrs. Maxwell of it the same day. Did
not see the bottom of the vessel till the 23rd or the 24th.
Could not swear whether he had or had not paid, on the
24th, that the vessel looked very well, except her bottom.
Knew nothing of her being towed afterwards into Carnarvon
harbour, because he was sick.

Re-examined.—Was sick at that time, in consequence of
one of the crew having bit off one of his fingers.
James Bayley, Surveyor for the Liverpool Registry of
Shipping, said he went, in May last, to Carnarvon, to exa-
mine the wreck of the Heron. Went by direction of the
Committee of the Registry of Shipping, and not by the re-
quest of Messrs. Maxwell. The witness then described the
state of the vessel, and said, that in his opinion, it would
have taken more than £l,OOO to repair her. In July he and
Mr. Challoner and Mr. Russell made a detailed survey of
her, and they agreed that it would take £1,450 to repair her.
She was not worth repairing. She was entirely built of
Adriatic oak, and was of 230 tons.
Cross-examined.—Was not sent down by Messrs. Max-
well, in order to see if he could not condemn the vessel; but
he should infer that that was their object. The vessel was
inferior to a British-built vessel of the same kind; but she
would be a fast sailer.

Mr. Thomas Challoner, shipbuilder, of the firm of Messrs.
Challoner and Russell., said he, Mr. Russell, and the last
witness examined the ship. She was a complete wreck. Mr.
Price was there, and he took part in the measurements. She
could not have been repaired for less than £1,450, which
would be more than she would be worth after she bad been,
repaired. _ _

Cross-examined.—The vessel might certainly have been
repaired, but she was not worth it.
Mr. 'Wilton Russell gave similar testimony.
Mr. Thomas Milcrist, shipbuilder, proved that the prices
on which tliG estimate of the ropairs had been founded %VP.;
usual and proper.
Mr. Peter Cato, shipbuilder, confirmed Mr. Milcrist.
The letter from the Forth Company to Messrs: Maxwell
was then read and put in : it declined to accept the abandon-
ment.

the fury
aisuLer'oyrdship whether he was of
oupon
the proposition laid
p roi.snewhl oeos esitclhToLt
uhledy p
glaoi
askednt toiff s
dloss b ife
a worthsli
uponp
the question
couldda
fotwern t bnh yoe
trhebi spe
alrieerapsrani era
edddf rbf ioeerennlde,ns
Ist
ahmda
eto,niaeeny.dvt ahasal
snao
she
ohteawl
of average loss ?
The JUDGE.—I think you had better do it on both points.
Mr. WORTLEY then addressed the jury on the part of the
underwriters. The only question was, whether the plaintiff
was entitled to a total or an average loss, and to enable them
to come to a correct conclusion upon that point, he should
be obliged to take a short review of the circumstances and to
refer to several cases in the books. This vessel was a Maltese
vessel, and it was evident that the witnesses looked upon her
with contempt, and, no doubt, she was much inferior to a
British vessel of the same class. The plaintiff had made a
great show of the opinions of Mr. Parry, the agent at Lloyd's,
having visited the wreck ; but they had not ventured to call
him. There was, from first to last, an evident desire (he
did not say an improper desire) on the part of all parties to
get rid of her. This was established beyond doubt ; for
the Captain, the very day he got ashore, sold the cargo; he
had extracted from Mr. Bayley that Messrs. Maxwell were
anxious to abandon the vessel. But he contended it would
not do for the owners, who had reference to her reputation,
and, therefore, would not spend so much money upon her,
to treat her as a total loss. He apprehended she could not
be considered a total loss, unless it had been proved she was
damaged to the extent that she could not be restored to her
original quality, and for reasonable purposes. It was ne-
cessary to constitute a total wreck, that the vessel should be
utterly broken up, a mere congeries of planks, but so far
from that, it had been proved that the Heron could be
repaired and become a ship again. If it remained a ship, it
could not be a total loss, for she was so perfect that she was
• floated into Carnarvon harbour, and, in order to be inspected,
they had actually to take up her planks. The learned coun-
sel then cited a number of authorities against the principles
of total loss. as laid down by Mr. Baines; after which, he
suggested. that, if the Jury should find it, was an average and
not a total loss, the exact amount should be ascertained out
of court. if they found it was a total loss, it was known
at once.
Mr. BAtNes intimated his assent to this suggestion.
Mr. WoterLEr then said a few more words in support of
his proposition, that this was not a total loss. It could not
be a total loss, because the wreck retained the character of a
ship, and it had not been shown she could not be repaired.
The JUDGE then directed the Jury. The only question
was, 'whether there had been a total or an average loss. If
the damage was of a nature that it might have been repaired,
it was not a total ; but, if the loss could not be repaired by
means which were reasonably within reach of the party who
was to repair, it was a total loss.
The Jury immediately returned a verdict for the plaintiff
for a total loss, for £2,000, including the £7OO paid into
court.

" CLOSING AS lIE BEGAN."
THE CLErac of the COURT—There is only one cause left,
No. 79. Is any gentleman instructed in No. 79, " Whitley
t 7. Gamble?"

The JUDGE—Does any gentleman appear in " Whitley v.
Gamble ?"
Mr. CROMPTON—There is no plaintiff, my lord.
The JUDGE—Then we must end as we began, by striking
out.—(Laughter.)
" No. 79, Whitley v. Gamble," was then formally struck
out ; and the Judge immediately retired.
The business of the Assizes closed exactly at a quarter
before four o'clock.

THE CAUSE LIST.
SALFORD HUNDRED.
Plaintif-Nos. 2,3, 4,6, 7,8, 9, 11, 12, 14, 15, 17, 20,
21, 22, 24, 25, 27, 28, 30, 31, 32, 34, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 47,
52, 57, 58, 64, 65.
Defendant.-Nos. 53, 60, 61.
Withdrawn.-Nos. 5, 10, 13, 16, 41, 42, 54, 62, 63.
.Referred.-Nos. 1, 19, 33, 35, 43, 45, 46, 48, 50, 65, 56, 59.
Struck out.-Nos. 44, 49.
Nonsuit.-Nos. 18, 23, 51.
WEST DERBY HUNDRED.
Plaintiff.-Nos.. 1,3, 5,6, 8, 9.
12, 16, 20, 22, 26, 30, 31,
33, 47, 48, 50, 51, 53, 54, 59, 61, 63, 65, 66, 68, 74, 75, 81,83,
Defendant.-Nos. 2,7, 40, 41, 60, 62, 73.
Withdrawn.-Nos. 4, 11, 13, 14, 15, 17, 18, 21, 23, 25,
27, 28, 32, 36, 39, 42, 43, 44, 45,
46, 55, 57, 58, 64, 67, 69,
72, 76, 77, 78, 80, 82.
Referred.-Nos. 34, 49.
Struck out.-Nos. 8, 25, 29, 35, 37, 33' 79'
Rernanets.-Nos. 19, 70, 71.

As a proof of the supposed secrecy which the vote by ballot
ensures, one of the Paris papers publishes the names of all
the parties who voted for M. Dufaure on the late election for
the presidency.
A SPLENDID SHIP.--Messrs. Grinnell, Minturn, and
Co. have, in these dull times, laid down the timbers of a ship
of fourteen hundred and fifty tons, for their Liverpool line.
This will be the largest of all the packet-ships, and superior
in all respects, so far as it is possible to do better, than the
best of what is past.—New York paper.
It is confidently reported that Lord Hill, in consequence
of the state of his health, has expressed a wish to resign the
office of commander-in-chief of the army. We understand
that the Duke of Wellington will, on Lord Hill's retire-
ment, be invited by her Majesty to resume the command of
the army.
CRITICAL POSITION OF THE DUKE OF SAXE CODURCII.
—An Ostend journal gives an account of a critical position
in which the Duke of Saxe Coburgh was placed on the 2nd
instant, whilst shooting sea-gulls. It appears that the Prince
set out at four in the evening in his carriage, to proceed along
the strand towards Blackenbergh. Whenever a sea-gull
appeared, the carriage stopped, and the prince fired. The
The D
tide_ was coming in fast, and consequently the carriage was
frequently in the water. After one stoppage, a little longer
than usual, it was found impossible for the horses to move
Veearriage, which had sunk up to the axletrees in the sand.
g at a late
h prince was obliged to get out, and reached terra firma
on the shoulders of the postilion. Additional horses were
eudkeafrteetrusronmede ttinmeosatteinddthtehecasrarimageeewraesniduragged out.
procured
hour.