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

By the .Tv DGE.—Considered that I had not acted wrong to
my partners by making the purchase, as they had 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 he 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 ae£lo 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.—l 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 he 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
be 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
Augustl

Mr. Squire of Warrington gave similar testimony.
Mr. Cox, of the firm of Priestley, Giiffiths 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 forthem to make out notes in their own names.
He had been shown the divi in the month of August last,
which had been partially damaggd, he would think £lO a ton
a fair price for it. Some divi was sold by him in September
for £l2 lOs per ton.
Cross-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 plaintiff's, 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 golng 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 ifor 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.