Summer Assizes.
Wi e cannot give a stronger proof of the u importarnt natxre of the crimiinal cases for this county than by stating that AMr. B-sron HUL- LOCK despatched the whole of them sn-the course of three hours this morning. Joh eCiesgh, a little boy not more than 11 years old, was convicted of having felomnously stolen and carried away a tsilver watch of the value of 20s., a brass watch-cha,iin of the value of 6d., and a watch key of the value of Id., the propertv of William 7teron. It appca: ed that this young delinquxent had entered the dwelling-house of the prosecutor by the window, and had in that manner made himself mrster of the property mentioned in the iodicWment. ile canfess,d to the (officer who took him into cus-ody. that after he lhad taken pos. ?ession of thie watch. he was seized with a qualm of conscience, whici hatl impelled him to return to the prosecutor's house on the next evening, and to put the w atcii under his door. It was after- tvards found there by some memiiber of the prosecutor's family. The young varlet was sentenced to 12 months' iiprisonment, and to be well whipped during the 6rst and last weeks of than time. .Mr. Baron WVLLOCK then proceeded to try civil cases. CtIVIL SIDE.-Before AMr. Justice BAYLEY. DALGLEISU v. LIST. I\lr. JONES conducted the case for tie plaintifti He told t1he jury that tilis was ani action brought bv the plz-iniff, who wast ano auctioneer at Shieldd, to Tecover the suin of IIL lOs. Gd. of the de- fenrdant, Peter List, wiho is himHself a sailor, but who has a wife that carries on the business of aL fiurniture-broker at the same place On the 19th of June, 1I23, the plaintiff had a sale at his auction-roolm in whiich he disposed of certain articles, belonging party to himself ainidi partlV to two other individualg, named AAamron and LvalL At this.salethie defentlant's wife boughtgoodsto theamount of i 1l.lOs.6d. rhe gooAls were. sent to her house; bat wvhen paynient for them ws'l demanded, the defendant refused to nmake it. alleging that the goods were l,vall's. that i.awver l,owie had a ciaimn upon them, ani that ke hail indemnified her againist allproceedings which might be instituted against Iter in consequence of her refusal either to paty the plaintif tfor them, or to return them back into hix hands. Tbe actioll had been origilly hrought in the county court, but il:d been renoved bs cerliorari iow the Court of King's liencit coil ihety iere now emipanelled to try it. He trusted that thev wouildi teach the dA:efalaiit, or rather ti at the would teachi L,aw-ver l,awrie, Wiose puilpet site appearcdl tO be, that even if he miadi a claim on tie conds of l,yall, which ihe by no means admitted. tha: ile ha- ni right to reaiii vie tCootis of tle plaintiff' in order to get it liqmil.itsd. He slioalil call his witnesses, anid he had iio doubt th;t if lie uroved the case which he had opened o Letent, thee would give his client the benrfit oi' a v?rdict. A wi:t-ss, whose naitie we could not hllcr, deposed that on the eettiteLof the 18th of Jutet, 1823i. het iiai carried goods to the plain- tiff's,sale-roonm. not only from the plain:iff's own house, but also `roin the 0' oo twO virsons. one callrd Adninson. and the other l.al. Itl bought froi;i 1snli's woe iteatthei bed. which was not a very go:d one. aid a!so soni tither miinor crticies. fle saw Mrs. t tiUle wite of hr Jefii'ndan' at Isahleishl's sale on the 19itlh of Jupe. Aii,nz theouterarticlesshe bhugh:. wavsa 4tather-bed.ve-ry I ike tius ,t tonwis. ; h)i its chCs-eSaniatiot, lti't Plitied tl'at lie haid been emplh oedi lix I vNall to aCrl awa.WV !tiS il:ll-'; t0 !)lci'tl', salie-roon at Ii' L.a'c.k at night' Th' tili rie which' he carted ftwii Lyail' to D.:DA tlest is ere .( ii1 stizeai aBt Fc' UN 'a hoUset. Uidi soud be -ia riff's othi er c-dled Appleby. 'e I rgt a,se;lv dleposecd. Ensia ,.t thrie weeks becrre the sale 10th ,lace ttt tme a tI"iu:io; aum. be h:d valued l,yalt', hur- "'ititu. HI reckoti-td it to bo v nh ,,i. 12-. 'T'he'e vere acne Oth r thui.- bce.ide's chose he vMtued. ['e piattt;fftOo.l; a great part othe f-rtiar urowu Laall at his alu:ation. Th; evimnesmttcro.,-cxa trlatini read an acroun: ti oseveral artoce w15ict b 1: had v:tditl. and uhiel, 41iCtdred to be the sane with thosc lle -tiitiod in uhcli pia'ntif'', bil! ;,1 pI,tlculears. At the ti:ne he iied t' v 'itih5. lsttL St1 -l''.'o-iog u' all irU ihtlr5s to his house ' to Oir u:co:iu: ic t.ant. J0,,1 ArrmsronYgSt4ted that i::i couonf oflst Nutvember he had called upoui Mrs. Iest, by thc p disi;;iis desire. to obLtais npvoxent f l'i,; a roa it. He took that atcccul; ic it!: himn. 31rc. I,.: Sail ta:tt -he bila received all the aticIetu cn t;oned i; it. anld bIad aereed tiio pay Il I its. Gd. fhr titr; bi t::at she would ntt d. so as 1I Law:- ,r I,i:jroh.lad> a :iluac n takena e thi"t all aRsav hi- force. lHe ti i( no! r ismv whether .1r. I ,;t :ntl his wi:e vvdt-ti cg- 2'-r. di1r. J Oit ES tieel called s,eral witnesses lo prov c that Mrs. list was the wite ot tcie deteudc t but it turned oae rather unfortuantet- 'tht nrne of tiem. knee both .Mr. andl DIr. !,st. One knevw the hau- band. and another t he wife ; but nDtL 0:on of them could speak to Ihie :niarriaeeof the i drties. or even to thlie: cnhoa i f.at6 t'vehter. As ;i 1'est reit-UIter agillCst ari):Itsit. '- r. ,l a ts -e-ta!1 ''awv r !a v - rie'" i he dlefendant', attorney. lie depos;ed tlat he knew :hc detbr.. .lait. P'eter List.. ;nd tnat the said Pett:-s m o arried tli the furni- litre.-roker aaditst ton, tit,' reseat aelon 'was brough:. 1t crass- exatoinin ntion. tic said i.:t at t e ti.i;e of ihis sale L[all owed hin. mnone _-tht li hC Id a:. execunion oUt agiDvt leall *;r * - anmoutr.t /flii' debt-:hat tie hi.. delis-ered a wsarrant t A ppieby, a sheriff's sitficer, on t ie sanie day, authiorizing himr to iCV Vin hiS eOods-and that he had heard tha: I yasi was reni'itvig his troods, ant, that there wa.s to be a sale at Dalglrbh' atuctiin-rooni before hu had rcceived the writ iif executio-. .Mr. St At.ETr. wvio eva. counsel for the delletitan:m. inainrtined that the plaintiff in this action had ne rtgitL to recver, iitasmnuc as the z eonds v hicL lie alletLed ihiiself to 1it;c bomethit of Lyall, and to have sold tit the defendant. had been fraudtilently transXe'rcmd over to hios bv l.yall, in order tE delfeat. an execution which Alr. Lowrie had obtained acainst ther. .Nowi there was an act of Parliament which enabled a bailifi' to fAllhiw ioutts which wcre renoved fur the pur- pose ot' defeatinig wi execution. atid to sieze the'-n wherever hc oi hId fitnd theoi. In the present ca-e. tite batlhff had followed lyail's roods to Mrs. list's, atnt had there sei2ed thben by v'irtue ot' hiis authorniY. It ivas true that there was a pretended saie of t?e goods ruin L,yall toi Dalgleish. bat lie was sure that thew ooald not allow themnselves to be deceived bv it. Thev would see that the sal t waes pretended fbr noother reason than . tn1 i- nLose ot' 3-t,stoish l He trusze- frivoeousupre vbullnot pernit tne.ims> ._ . : i ol ous a prc:ext. b-Lit wou.d consider tne action es brought b' Lvall whlo. in point of' fact, vas the real p:i%olffr though , .-h gleisit's natne Was put on the record. I,yall. if lie but-td tIIn Rib own tianse, woiuld not be able to eec 'ver, as the fraud lie haid conitnimtid would appear too tnrosa. Would they, thin, allow himn to recover in itle nritne of snottier person, wlwin they onli, knew as ibis assistant in collin;'on ? Gertaiinlh not. All the goods which had Itecn seiz(d ott Mrt. List',t premises had belongec to AFr. Lvall, except three itenims, which had helonesed to somebody else. FJr the.e iter.s slic had promised to pay' 4. 5d. ; and tiaL sean tad been tendiered t*o th'IV plitintifl: As the goods had been se:zed utn6oer a process of law, bh- fore she had paid for theml, he contended ttint she coitad not now be called upon to pav' tor their value; eznd as, ;::at wac the case. he had tlO dolubt bUt ihey would return averdict for his client. The lcarned couinsel then callcl the foilowing witnesses- R. Applehe, a sheriff's officer, deposed, that lie ha:l :_-d tile roonds of t ,iall a: the tit)e lie wr>As a baskrupt. and that he Was its onlssq uencc arqu.iinted with themn. H-e saw a p3rt of-theru atterswards at Mrs. Lisi's: they were senSt o's his lv-rehouse. ad he afterwards sold them on the 2,0ith ot' Jlulic undet an executioni which Mr. [,,-wrie had obtained aganet therm. lie swnre that a few td:s aifterwarIs he had tad sonne conversation rtgardiing them with Di-. gl:ish, vlio had told huit that he was vcry sorrv that he had ever hail any thing to do with them. Dalelei,b told hinit tha:t L-all ha'i remo'ed them to his sale-roonis for the express pbtrpOse of avoidirec Lowrie's exec -ion. Dalgleisb. its another conversation, had itait to kimt tha:lt it wavs a very hard tSine fot kr. l'iwrie to lose his mit- nt'v bh' L'all in the tnanrncr lie had done. Witness deposed ftli he haA received thie writ of execoitiotn against L'ali's goods on the 19th of'Juie, .boat noon. 0:l this point he -nderwent a verr se- vere and in4eniots cross-exaitina'ion from IMr. Jo- rs, which did not, however, inateriilly shakc his testemony. AlUr. Co11iogwood Lindsay produtced tile proceePings in the countv' Court, in the stit of" Lowrie v. iL'all." The firs: proceedings in it were taket, on the2l:h ofA pril, 10W23. No plea had beei put in, but interlocuttorv judgment hiad heen siti,ed, as foir w-ant u ia plea, oTn the 14th dav of June. and final judgment cr. the 114ih. A writ of in- quir' witse%ecuted before ajiury on that day ; and bhe darmarges were assessed at 351. T'he costs were 941. Is. S. The writ of execunon tras signed between twelve and two on that da'. 1 he Court sat at. twelve, and geterally rose at two. .lohn Beverley produced the prt-i'rpc which he had received at rninc- or ten o'dock o'n the morning of the 2OLh of June. to let-v upron Mlr. Lyal' property. On going to Lvali's premises. he foutnd that all the goods were niearly gone. W'hut he foundi be sent to Applebv's vare-rooms. He aftterwards made a levy on some groods woich le found at llrs. List's. He knew' then to belong to IL-all. R I Leslie, an agent to a brewerv at Sh:htis, detailcd a conversa- tioti whtich lie had had with Dalgleisli regarding the removal of these Cootls. Dalgleishti first denied that lie hi~d had anyt thing to do with it but afterwards atlhiittefl that he had. ile said that lie s ished that he hadl never interfered weth them. I,yall told him to remove his beer-barrels, as an executioni was Loing to issue aainrst hinti' lie said thilt lie never initended to pay Loc'rie a single shillinc. Miss List, a daugh:er of the defendant, was then called to provre that 4s. 5d. bad been tendered by her mother to the plaintift, asi pa3'- ment for the goods which had not belonged to LvaU; but she proved that, as far as she krew any thing of the matter, no such tender had been ever nade. MIr. JoN-as replied, and said, that upon the evidence of the last witness it was clear that the plaintiff must have a verdict at all events fur 4,s. 5d. He trusted, however, that ke should convince t.erm thlat he was entitled to a verdict ftr the wlhole of his demand. He cot-- tendcd th-t the defence which had been that day attempted was too hieepre.bable toinbtain belief for a sititle moment. Was it likely that a respectable aulctioneer would, f'or no earthly benefit to hiniselt; become a party to a colutsion upon a lawyer, wlich seas certain to i.nvolve htiio in a troublesome and *xpensive litigation ? His learned friend had said, that the plaintiffs case was bottoned in fraud: he w.vould ask wheth:er the letence that cay attetpted looked alt0gether like au honest one? Supp'sine,for an istant,that the plaintiff had PWl rogue enough to:issis'Lvall in defeating SIr. Lowris executiocn.cotR'd titev believe that he would be fool enough to ttdmit Iiis participation in sucli a fraud to a person who was connected itt the manner Appleby weas with 3ir. Lov.rie? He had no hesita ion in accusing the witneit Applebv of wilful periury. That witness hail sworn that he had received the writ of execution at 12 o'clock ott the 19th of June. Another witness had proved that die Court which issuled it did not sit till 12 o'clock. After that, a writ of inquirv had to be exe- cited before a jurv; atid tfter thes' had assessed their damages, a writ of executinn hitad to be issued 'against Lyall, the defendant, in that actioni. Could thev believe that under such eircurmstiantos, what Appleby had twoin upon that subiect was true e If it were not true, what security hlad they for the truth of the remainder of his evidence? After commetiner for sonie time upOn this part of the defendant's case, the learned counsel in- sisted that there was no fraud proved against the plaintiff who hacl hiurchased these goods fairly of Lvall, and had therefore a right. first of all to sell them to any person wvho chose to parchtse tbem, and nexL to maintain an action against that person, stpFOsitig lie refused to pay the price which had been suipslated obr them. Be-. sides, adimitting that Lvall had soltl them to the p!aintiff to defeat 1ttwrie's intention, he had yet to learn that a deb:or, who knew tdat an execution wtts coming against his goods, had not a right to give them a preference to another brima fidr creditor, in ptirt payment of his demand. This sras all that ii d been done in the present case, and therefore be contended that he had a rig ht to expect at their hands a vcerdict for the whiole sum for wlich bis client wenL Al r. Justice BAYY.FY then sumimiied ltip the evidence to the Jury. The plaintiff was entitled to a verdict for 4s, 5d. at all evenbs; and it would be for fthem to considler whether, under aU the trcun3- stances of the case, he was or v:as not entitled to a verdict fir more. If thev should be of opinion that the plaiatiff, before he received Liyallts goods into his sale-room, krewv that they were to be dcis iPosed of by sale to defeat Lowrie's execution iTnd to -enable b7all to devote to other objects thie money which he oTlained framtheale of thbet, then, inasmtuch 'sistri. Listlhadnever pifMAtrl.em be(ore they 'were seized under MIr. Lnowrie's cxecution, theg must tot find a verdict for the plaintiff for their waiiount. He had no doubt that a ~~ ~ out if he sold his goods8 not for thatpur.. .d tfe ee u'o lo efeating the executioll, 'he was ult 1 sdc,towa n niiu who lent him assistance at = areeping for that' perin Moeover,2 if that person, or any ~4a~naer ettiey fo tht prsn, suedI a third Party for the piro Qt~od thus issnpvopelydsoeof,ttthrpronw ldaea ~I Ot TO mist the action, On the grnn hat thNwole wtransactiota J~sbtoe nfad and tha te goodsg h-,dabeen fraudlulentIv '~ars.,er td&om the debtokr's hcnds. In thlis ease they would conaT he fe tepaintiil ha,d been gulilty ofany frauid or collusion teh IA all if thellould be of opinion th at he had not, still they ~4u.t inide whthler Lyall had been gulilty of any? Now, thle in hisacton,unless hie had a lien on the goods, stood in sitnnon f I'all-for if he hiad no lien on the goodts, lie must e acontbleto teProceils of them to that pro.I aso h nthcat,clearly Lyall's actin a Idte wo,uldteeorite ~4nsier hethe,iremEo,.ingthese goods to the plaintifi',sFide.rooms, ~Od nto dtoefradllr. Lwrior no'. Thelearned.Judge then t~lld te ~senionof te jry o toseparts of the evidenice whichl '(~reipanthupoit, nd aidparicuarstress upon the curious fact he u Iappai~ o th painiffs wn evidence-oamely,that ~sa itthn, 2s'~h tat ie~a'e t th plinif'sha been an Cg,s ale, bthentheiotgv i edc o h whole amournt 0ihi -leatodefet )IW tecnrr:hetoght that it was only ' f"te toheft prl-o i'seeuIon thn he ust only return a The Jur pintifh o h sum o 4,. 5d ti Tt't ar. wihot eittin returned a veedicet foe the j'laultiff, T'rlandJtmcGU WAS declarine hiis intention of certif.ving. that eamacostWs, hendherot w slirinde b and( of so depriving thleplain. lhcl h -;s rinidedb),'Mr. Jones that he couldi not, -~t`e detfCfdants badl moved the cauise by cerlioruiri fromn The County fl''c~tr.aron IIt;e.cc Ot'o pndthsce to e jury. This was an ac. 2. te id,brogh bytheplantif,a respectable surgeon in New. t ' erte umo11.9.for medlicinies and mecdical Isise frnihedbs-hit, t seera sick persons by the desi;re of k "'"d~t aa. drin th lat ya, eas overseer of thle poor Incpacsh f Witinetlls As. tie ats of thne Case Were Very ne 2necensary for bi-n to mnake many observstions -12.n em taoe h jr' In the Month of ,jula, 18323. a poor 'let. am'd Be tnrsmgat Bell's.elose, about four tmilev '5wcso e asen Ln h'linift ttetid tupton onie of' his cJiil. was laburing nder atattack of tvPhtus feaver. Cl. .e t hishous hefound thlit not ottly thie childi =As.dbenrqeted to attend,bt that the poor man himself, other thr~ee of hisi children were inifected withl the sautte sracrdu'ced to the mlost lamentlible state of' misery '~ i"tttiO!. Te painitiff continued to attend thiem for some j~gii f r..a: nd utfor his benevolent exertion-, aiid for thie cs~of oni ofthir neighhotrg, the whole famlily Muist have htitndrteweight of accmuantuned sufferings. In the .vaInn the, plaintiff' discoveretd that Ehletidon hall oh- a ttlu tr, thne tsaris'ttof IVl.itttonimalls, a village about II ( t~aetfeoan elPs.ele'se. [lie rode over in consequence ~?'a' h ie. awThe dtfendan'! who was one of its over- a ~.~-cd hi o the mediical assistatnce he had given ~' rinmi.v,arnd ~t-crihed the wrretchied state of ~ 'ttan deslai,on to) whi,1 it was redUCed. The, defendlant, "t ZttC 2ntiC ufferini,rs of this miserable faintly, toldl thie n'f tht t'iSotbe atten-led to, a't' reqtiested hirt to convey to "snhm ;1.note. to) gs'poly tlieir present necessities. The nitin t I ert observe to 'tten,, wa, a person whonse ad. -tic a crowing ;n!ir.i,:tjcs reidered hiim tine Lual to the h is ot8ice, ,'ti,cr were greneral;y performed for him r.e and aI y."i mn of -lhe name of 'Taylor. iHe rtperve to 'hert', '' Taylor !iad suibseqiently ca;lletd upoin C *'d su-Aicd ho'.i W;:!l "m' snd had ex'Oressed a hope - we'said s'a-n rt'c'ner his health rd hlis PeAce of nititii unider Treatment s h plahintifi. lie sttould likewise prove, that s'n; 'tad aiss vi;hed Al;~ poor mian, anti hadi rntinit ted t{ t ;~lrour, nf the Cs,s-'zr, tlinM That the plaintiff's dlemandt 's -a m"-ierate de-cription. Inteced, nso doubt ci,uld be eni- nr ;C - Ut%%t p)oint, as not more tb-tn '-l. wai charged fur 21 la- -,iitiles di,tant t'routi Newcasitle. I iifartheis-eedni.declared That no f-sIit was fountd '"'1 ''en or~t1op'artif"s ill, nor was aniy imiputation in. b cast ur-tr li:i cuaracter. I 50 O~ sail he "'iould call evicdence to support theo state. le hrid "mae : and it'lIt substantiated themn, lie h,-ti no) doubt 'ah-' iaordshj,, wotid trll the jury that thley mt,ISt return a w 'sn 'c.s c's helr sas Thomas Fllesdon : hie deposedI as I res-de aiBt' -oe.0thout foar1.1 Miles fromn Newcastle. mv w;fis "'r-self. and myv four children weze all ill Di1 - y ~vr. 11 e wturn in a ve'ry destitute condlition at that I ~ the kirtdorss o!f our'neighibouirs, we must hiuve diedl. ~7o i r,' Wne iek we t.ll onri l4h. to supormdtb uves all,if itha rad Il S"z,aiion t which T was rduiced. Mlr. floswood at.. "-!lIit wec all trot bethc-: nobody could hlave behaved with k'-dnl to its, titan h, did. A'nman of thte none of Taylor C -o-,'a"i:ncd hi- .M1r. Lts it. -1 earned about 15s. a week at a I,0e'v b-inre I rell 0l. Mlr. lfoswoodi attetidied m-y first *'c-i fell sick. tie afterwards; attenidei thie others. I sent 1 - I at'Ls r-'t then receivitit parisli relief. I was then. at -aIt was nnt t:Il a mnonth afterward.A that I began to receive aia tnsref~ When Taylor r-icov down to see me, I was oil' I ol aehad plenty thein, but I wast not strong enoughi "ne: t fr inweeks afuer ithat period. My ston and, I now s.awebtweclnt u1s Snwi'n1 know the plaintifF. Ile called on mue at Wtihit. g~~.s~a. inrouce,d iim io M r. 'Wlilkinson, whio at that time ee-e oteplzintiff'. The ~,laintiff reepresentedI to hilm the ~eo itress- iii which Ellecldai r.nd his family were in. ~et 'II Wilinson ..atd he woula qend themT something, as the 1;a . Theyvtiien went into the houseutgether. t?'ilk; wrn wa-s thecn very infirm: his son transacted hiis business A r t'iortv Tavlor f a relative of the defendant, and is fre- ~,n suited by him. I do not know that he is hiis agenit. 1'~-x'nined--i intro,.lited the plaintiff to the dlefendant in C,.-r lar.t. I do not erccollect thle plaintiff saying that Ellesdon te oll enrisigh to cco to work in a day ot two 1n"s na-ined Herriman, wa&s c-alled to prove, that lie recelv- t,~,Z tsr:e frnm the plainiiffcor the utse of Ellesilon. ~9 tr,as Elles.Ion rec.allesl.-After toy faTmily lbad got better, M11r. Wilkinson calling upon nie. H1 askedI me t1,uiff had called upon me, and what medlicines hie 'ad the bill was rather heavy, but that the plain. -ds-oaget Moderation in hisi charges for attendance. Mr. ~I 4 sai, tht he was groing to Newcastle the next (Jay, and -stecas on the part of the plairntiff. ~'~i.t,iis, n th paint of tAe decfendant, conitendeLd That this ac. n b mantanedaganst his cliet, On the showing of `-ntH Z] hmlf. tapae that lie had been called in by El- etazim e ewsi fuill work, and was not receiving -eli' f I twas to Elleadonl. therefore, that he ought to look . ;mei t, and not i to he overseer of the parish to whom he be. ,. 13;des. die dlefendant knew nothting of thie plaintiff's g'z' cnplovcd by Ellestdon until nearly two months afterward.4, 'ruel.ne -xper 7a-as about resuniing Ihis labour, and to re-occupv lai, n a-hirh hc ha t heldI in society before he was disabled by I aron rl-LT.OCgV surmmed up the evidlence to the jury. After eat ,ts, rbinte of eplp'atse to the humanity of the surgeon, h.1dhint to attenid this poor family whien lite must have '-i t ca-v slender hopes of obtaining any remunieration for his f' - "m. he tzold them. that it was not necessary to prove that thei no tiAd been emplonyed by the defecndant to attend upion them. d~~efcrdAnt knew of hii attetndance, aind did not object To the %r"uantmaof it. he was% liable to pay the etxpenses of it,' from the hihhehfeldas; overser of the ponor ofthetmarish. He shiould c t di them to deride upon that po~nt, being quite certain that *-ulo. ret-urn such a verdict a, wouldl fully satisfy the justice te p~an'i~-am~e~121. Ni. ~'-' '.OaOi V. RIttGttTttORE ANT) ANTOTi-ERt. ~, 'l N SA opned the pleadings. TIhis was an action brought ce'sce h lot shic's the ptlaintiff had sustained upon certaini ~ krhad beenput on board thie plaintiff's vessel, aLnd which ~ ~he-r' toied n cona~cq oence of the wreck of' the v'essel. The frtasnrsplea!edthat they wxere niot liable, wlitereupon issue was d h sCnt t'tstated the case to the jury. The plaintifF was ta .e.aare'nn'-i resdinsg at Newcastle, and the defendants were rfr,4at Gainshnroiight in L,incolnshire. The plaintiff wra, 1Yh-hbit oIf puchasing e-oods of M1essrs. Anderton and Co., of athihfor Manrvears hadi been forwardedt to him front -m.-cpinthefolowing mtarner :-Thte v were s;ent to Gainsbo. i- h 'ctnavigation, andi from that p lace to Newcastle, .h he r,rryction of IMr. Hludson, of [lull. In the year "-c' Hrien etred fromo business, and the consequence was, die~i5t-'tifwro , t hisl correspondents at Birmingham, desining I-n o tnd hs godsin futuire to the defendants at Gainsborougl, f.tsrcd ohm direct to Newcastle. In ttite month ~ of octo-, a Makofgos teloneing to the plaintiff wvas sentfrmBt sei hsdirectioti, -Carriage Paid to Mlessrs. rgt o Gsnthrou~, t heforwarded to Jolin Stokoe dlirect to ~~ar~Ie Isteadc-f beyig this direction, which was certainly ~A~ict enagls,hedeenda issent it by flaIll, in theasltip Thomas, ~t~seio 'aer on,which by song accident or otlier wats lost in ~ .us i~rhur.On hearing thttt hiis goodis had been shipped u t's earer,the plaintiff' wrote to the det'eodartts informaing tha h hpItei which, they had made miast be cotisidered as eatthirownrs.The defendants, in reply, first of all de. tlatssthey had ever received any specific instructions to send the l7oods direct to Ne-castle ; buit at last admitted that -4:on as,1 sato h 3me order, had been so sent ; and that hecould info-nm the jatir, had arrived safe, and the head of ft i I he. pr'oducedl to show theos the directic.n wlhich Messrs.AndeTtOnl hasd pl'rxeii upon it. The law wxith regard to such a deviation e pa-i of a wharfinger wras quxite clear. The defenilants were 2 ,t he conrtended, TO sernd the cask dfirect from G;tinsboroughs to tefor otherwise, if the plaiiitiff' insured it, their deviation t'he core he pTLScribed teould rendier his poliey void, in case i'su happenecd to the goods on which it wasn e-ffected. This h, c.ase in the pre-en., instance ; and his client tlierefore J-.lt'saurv o gie hi a compenesation for the dlamacge he had '-na by hc nattntin of the dlefendants to his specific orders. ~i~ l' larnd cunel aled witnesses, who fuilly substantiated his I WjLtIAM.S, for thte defendant, staid, that he had to coin. al an extremec wanit of candour on the part of ihe plaintiff. tie p-,ve to thlen. that though thle lossq of the ship Themes w as inv him on the 7th of December, 18291, lie had written a letter ~e efenrdant on the 11th, in which lie mt"le menti)n of hiis goods, m Lention of the los which had befallen them ;andtiltat it trOt tnb thet Witl, when the wreck of the Thomav had become .,th-at he noticed it to them ina postscript to his letter. ernentirigupon s'aritius parteonf theplaintiff's cavRe, the learned ;esadthat lhe would prove first of all, that the freighit of thie '-'I umd~.on was, psad from Gaingiboroughi to Hull, the freight t'",n5ir ham to Hull being fis.. andI from Binninghi-a to IhoosbbeingZ onlv 4s. he would prove in the next place, 44w!e-c no g-pciflc instructions were given (and he asserted that "i:had been lven in this caosel and whiere a sound diecretion was 1 xrcss by, the wharfinger, the best thing that coti'd be ,jto ,tarwnrd t-he plaintiff's goods ditrect to Newcastle was ~$ tst-ua toHull, a place fromn whiich vessels were perpe. l~'~5 saling toNewcastle, and not to vallow themn toD relMain bet-ween which place and Neweastle thlere Was :i-~drc oMmrn ust tom' zat tthat period of thie year. He prv,that the cask in qestion was not directed mannr o~egedby the other side, buat that ft was directed in these words-." John StOtoo, ?Newcastle: paid to Ilull " If heaul)- stantiated these points in cvidonce, there would be an end at once to thc plaintiff's case. The learned gentleman then called his witnesses, but his proof was by no means as strong as the caee he ha l opened. ir. SCARTI1ET.T, it reply, pointed out to the jary the points in whIch his leaafted frtend's speech had been contradicted by the state- ments of his own witnesses. First of all, he had stated that in the winter of 18SI, the direct communication between Gainaborough and Newcastle was extremely rare, but his own witnesses had proved that there were two vessels, the lfMosconv and the Nymph, sailing every week between the two ports. In the next alace, the wit- ncss whom his learned friecnd had called to prove that the directions on the cask which had been lost we-e not such as had been alleged hy the plaintiff, hiad proved nothinzg at all by prov- ing too much. 11? had stated taitt the directiens in question hadl not been placed on the cnak which had arrived safe * but, untortu- nately for the witness, those di%ections had been producedl, and had confuted his testimony. In conchtion he contended that his casa had not been shaken, but on the contrary hadI been strengthiened by the defendlant's witnesses. 'rhe learne(dJudee sutmmed up the evidence and thenJury returnedl a vertlict for the plaintiff-dammages 291. 18i. 51, being the a-molint of the goods lost. SUhIfLfER ASSIZES,. NEW'CASTLE-UPON-TYNE. SATU-DAY. AVGUR8T 21 C0DIi,x,AL S}DE. -