The Liverpool Standard, and General Advertiser.
Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1854-08-22 00:00:00

May, made purchases of wool throng

Hughes and Ronald

and in the same month

called on the plaintiff, and asked him whether he --Iva*
willing to sell to the Messrs. Legg the wool that had been
purchased for him at Odessa ? He intimated his willing-
ness to do so, and Messrs. Hughes and Ronald entered
into a contract on behalf of the defendants, having first
received their sanction to purchase from the plaintiff 333

bales of white-washed
lOid. per down in Liv

Lionskoi" wool, (132,000 lbs.,) at
the

01, Huli

to be de

a in July and August,' and

the name of the vessel to be

was shipped. On the 16th September the plaintiff re-
ceived a bill of lading for 100 bales of the wool, and on
the 27th of September a bill of lading for the remaining
233 bales was received by Messrs. Hughes and Ronald.
On the 13th of October the plaintiff saw by the papers
that the Science had passed Constantinople, and he i
diately informed Messrs. Hughes and Ronald of tl

cnmstance; and on the same day they wrote to the
defendants, apprising them that the Science had sailed,
with 333 bales of their contract, from Odessa on the 17th
September, and had passed Constantinople on the' 26th
September. The Science reached this country in Novem-
ber, but the defendants declined to accept the wool, alleg-
ing that the plaintiff had not fulfilled the terms of the
contract. A correspondence ensued, in the course of

which they were repeatedly asked to point out wherein
the plaintiff had not fulfilled the terms of his contract ;
and three or four times the defendants had replied,
"merely that the contract had not been abided by," with-
out entering into the explanation required by the plaintiff.
Between the time the contract was made and when it was
rejected by the defendants wool had fallen in price. They
(the defendants) answered that they agreed with the
plaintiff to purchase the wool for the purpose of re-
selling ; and they then said that wool was an article which
fluctuated in price, and that the defendants could only
re-sell the wool when, and not before, they had notice of
the same being shipped ; and when, and not before, the
lame of the vessel in which it had been so shipped had
Mr. Hughes, of
erpool, wool-
-,,ccion, spoke to the
.ms of the contract mode of its fulfilment, as
stated for the plaintiff. s had had cases, he observed, in
which similar transactions had been made and completed,
'here the vendor had not given the purchaser notice of
ch the goods were shipped at
ped. He also produced the
case, which he had received
It was found to contain
should receive notir
hipped

ecording to the contrac
firm of Hughes and Ronald, of Li

been decla:

brokers, w

ad neg

;kited
nd

the name of the ship in wh
the time they were so shi;

form of the Contract in thi
from the defendants themsl

no mention of the proviso that the

;he wool was s:

Accom

form was a letter from t

that the cont:
Lordship, in

"as per form enclosed." His
:env the notice of the jury to
.ed by the- defendants them-

in which no mention whatever was made of the
name of the ship being notified to them when the wool
was shipped. This being so, the jury would conside-
whether the defendants, knowing the terms of the con-
tract which they themselves had proposed, could not re-
sell in a fair mercantile way, although they did not receive
notice of the name of the ship. It they found for the

plaintiff they would find damages for £506. After a brief
consultation, the jury returned a verdict for the plaintiff,
damages £5OO. On application, it was ordered that im-
mediate execution should not issue.
The Court rose soon after seven o'clock, the business
being adjourned until ten o'clock on Monday morning.
In the course of the afternoon Mr. Watson, Q.C., the
newly-elected member for Hull, entered the courts and
received the congratulations of the gentlemen of the bar.