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

UTH LANCASHIRE SUMMER ASSIZES,

NISI PRIUS COURT.-FRIDAY.

SHERBOURNE V. QUARME.
As the jury were about to be sworn in this case, which was
in 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 bellag arranged provided a re-
menet were left on it ? s„.
Mr. Duren es said that he was untiale 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.
THORBURNE.
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, he said, Mr.
James Procter, was a merchant ofuLiverpool, 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,le 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 lnsnr.du e Company, who did in-
sure on the vessel to the amount o 1000, and on the freight
t
£2OO. There was a clause in the Bey to the effect that it
was agreed that the vessel should be considered as sound and
sea-worthy. He 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 ; butalie 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 perileof the sea; and another
that the plaintiffs had not sanctitined 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. M'Neile, 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 1
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 1 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 Haynes.—l am now surveyor for the Liverpool
Shipping Company. I 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 upeucd up ...inc....L.
to enable us to inapoot Lar sha had not one decayed tim-
ber. She was a 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 Young.—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. Stonebouse, surveyor for Lloyd's, at Newport,
said,--I 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.
He 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.
Witnesies 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, apd that ne 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
necessary to prove, in order to find a verdict against them.
The jury immediately returned a verdict for the plaintiffs
on all the issue3—or, in other words, for the full amount
sought, £397 15s. 10d.
IMPORTANT MERCANTILE INSURANCE CASE.—BOLD AND
This
Ni, ANOTHER V. ROTHERHAM AND OTHERS.
In-
surance an
action to recover an amount on a policy of In-
the
and
mu, effectedin good shipped from Liverpool to China,
leged to be due sought was £163 12s. 6d. being the amount al-
loss as insurers t°
plaintiff by the defendants as their share of
Mr. , out of the total sum insured of £4,000.
stated Mr. Dundas for the
Knowles was leading counsel for the plaintiffs, and
Mr. KNOWLgs
sought to recover the defendant.
Mr. se to the jury. The plaintiffs
goods shipped by the sr stated on a policy of insurance on
Liverpool to China witilP Penang, which was freighted from
be worth 00,000. Thea
svaluable cargo—stated, Weed, to
loss on the amount due by 1.1,tn sought was the proportion of
insurance company. The vessel as agents of the
when the relations between this sailed in October, 1840,
and
very unsettled precarious state......a factuntrand China were in a
be contemplated by the parties, for the which seemed to
in a somewhat unusual manner to meet the
was drawn up
to allow every scope for the shippe„ of the emergency, and
aeration of a high premium, to look out and await in consi-
ket. It was stated in the policy that the insurancein from, was on
; he Canton river
to any port or ports ..n t
remain on the coast of
China, including Manilla,with
leave to at any out port
until she could get to a desired port, and also with leave to
call at any port or
ports, in going backwards or forwards, for
instructions, traffic. For this risk ,
instructions, or in any way a pre-
mium of £4 per cent. was to be given, with the proviso that
should the ship be unable to discharge her cargo with in one
return shouldbe made to the
month, in the Canton river, a
The ship •
. sailed on
insured of 30s. per cent. by the insurers
the 31st Oct., 1840; and nothing remarkable occurred until
the 25th of Jan. 1841, when, having passed the. Caye. of Goodh
Hope, she encountered a very heavy gale of d
win
andco ' h
she became dismasted, and the maintop-sal y_ming
down, drove a hole in her deck, which admitted a great
damaged
quantity of water, and as was inevitable,
ary that she
derable portion of the cargo. As it was necessary
should undergo repairs, the captain had jury-masts erected,
the
circumstances. ran for Sincapore, the best and nearest port under
circumstances. The vessel was then re-masted and re-fitted ;
but the goods were not taken out for inspection, as heavy_
duties 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 and Co. was, however, advised by
letter from 'the Captain of what had befallen the vessel,
while she lay at Sincapore, where the r •
epairs occupied about
two months. She sailed thence in April, and arrived at Ma-
cao, at the mouth of the Canton river, on the 22d of June.
Mr. Burn having been advised •
of her coming, had to consider
how it was best to act in theperilous • '
which the country was then l Captainccumstance under
plenipotentiary from this country,p had,acElhot, the
on the 21st May, (a
short time previously,) issueda
the British residents in Canton not proclamation enjoining
to remain in the city
beyond sun-set that day, hostilities ha
on the 22d of June he issued another notice, commenced; and
notre, in which he
stated that ha did not consider it .
politic or safe for

the Ilritish 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 he
accordingly dispatched her thither, in company with another
ship, called the James Lang, which be had chartered for
three months as a receiving ship, and to which he 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, the 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 board 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
founded. 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, gave the ship-
pers of the goods a great latitatle in finding a safe and proper
market, giving them a choice of ports, and allowing them a
space of time spreading over a rear 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, bad 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,s captain of the Penang, a re-
markably good-looking man, %vas 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 be 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
qnestions 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 shewed 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 Hong 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.

Afters the hearing 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. BRCRWITII AND AMOTHER.
—ln this case, Messrs. Baines, Crompton, and Warren were
counsel for the plaintiffs, and Messrs. Wortley and Watson
for the defendants.

Mr. WARREN having 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 that 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 defendants 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 Metier.. Isoticher, -
Mortimer, and Co., and other pdrtions 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 had 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 he came front. London to the Liverpool
house in June, 1841. He knev; the defendants, who are
brokers, in the hide and leather business. The witness proved
the handwriting of Mr. J. Beckwith to two sold notes, which
were put in and read. They were dated the 3d and sth Au-
gust, 1841, of thirty tons of divi divi at £ll 10s., and about
six hundred bales at £lO 10s. per ton, to the Messrs. Bou-
cher and Co. The witness then produced a book in which

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 day sold
for you 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 XS 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. WORTLRY 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 :Amour
and integrity as merchants, and not only was that 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 had 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 be 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 be 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 be was formerly a partner in
the house of Messrs. Branscome arl_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 had 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. He first 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, 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 of 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.
I 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 note from Mr. Powles, which was afterwards de-
stroyed. It was made out to Messrs. Boucher, Mortimer,
and Company, and Powles' were mentioned as the sellers.
When I saw thebought note at my office, I immediately
to
went back Messrs. Beckwith's office, because it was made
out wrong accordingine to my understanding of the matter.
Afterwards I t Mr. Beckwith and told him, " I thought you
understood
think he said boughthed this for myself, not for the firm." I
Mr. Beckwith's office not so understand it. We then sent to
for the divi, and it ee
and desired him to send me a contract
for it for me if I could not. Mr. Beckwith should pay
ment the bought notes t*
y goodwere destroyed.
In consequence of that arrange_
it an extraordinar I did not consider
a great many bales and foueneicitract. The same day I opened
go
ti it betteratcht amn
aldeexopuete ted.
By the JUDGE.—Never
as was agreed.corrected
By Mr. WATSON.---I received the
übl Is. and £l3 per ton. Mr. difference between
hiso commission. Beckwith received nothing
Cross-examined by Mr. BAINES.-40 j
I was applied to by the Messrs. Beckwithanuary afterwards
to give
them a
letter of instructions relative to this transaction,
dated the
preceding August, and I did so. Was told by letter
on
30th July that I could not be wrong if I bought at £l4 thee
ton, and I did buy five tons the same.day at £l3. 011, P
divi as cheap the
sth of August I represented at £l3 per ton.
By the JUDGE.—It was cheap for a large quantity.
Re-examined.—lf the divi had been all sound it would
have been cheap at £23..