Welsh Newspapers
Search 15 million Welsh newspaper articles
5 articles on this Page
MONDAY.
MONDAY. The monthly sitting of this Court was opened at 10 o'clock, before His Honour Judge HERBERT. CHARGE AGAINST A SOLICITOR. Williams v. Blaiberg.—This was an adjourned case, and was an action brought in the name of Joseph Williams, fishmonger, Barnes well-ro ad, Newport, to recover £ 50 damages from Solomon Blaiberg, money- lender, of Cardiff and Newport, for having registered a bill of sale contrary to agreement, and by so doing 1 destroying the credit of the plaintiff, Mr. Tomlinson now said he appeared for the plaintiff, who disclaimed ever having authorised the proceed- ings, and said that he never instructed Mr. David to institute them. He consented to the action being dis- missed. Mr. Poole, barrister, instructed by Mr. W, K. Morgan, appeared for the defendant, and said The matter appears before your Honour to-day in this light Mr. Gibbs I ask your Honour whether in a matter o"this kind, in which it appears from the notice served upon Mr. David that it is intended to impugn his pro- fessional credit, I have a locus utatidi to represent Mr. David. His Honour I think so. Mr. Poole I won't make any objection. The mat- ter appears before your Honour in two lights. The plaintiff appears ou an adjourument from a hearing which should have taken place I think at the last sittingllyou had before the vacation but which, for reasons 1 shall explain, was adjourned. That is in the case. But there is another matter before you which relates to the same thing. The application upon the tile, which has been adjourned from the Registrar, is relative to tho discontinuance of this ac- tion and as to the costs. His Honour Costs are claimed on the grounds that the plaintiff has given notice through his solicitor dis- claiming the action and denying that he instructed Mr. David to bring the action. Mr. Poole You have that application for your consideration to-day, and also the matter of costs. It will be necessary for me to detail to you the circum- stances of the action. My client, the defendant, ap- pears to have lent some money to the plaintiff, and for security took a bill of sale on his property. He registered that bill of sale, but did not take possession of the goods. The plaintiff filed a petitioniin liquida- tion, and to restrain defendant from enforcing the bill of sale. He then brought an action against defendant for having registered the bill of sale contrary to agree- ment, and for having forced him to go before his creditor?, and a further charge was made that the bill of sale was obtained by fraud. I appeared in that action. It was palpable to your Honour that the action was on an agreement that was outside the bill of sale alto- gether, and therefore you could take no cognizance of it. Then, without calling the plaintiff to substantiate the declaration that the bill of sale had been fraudu- lently obtained, your Honour advised Mr. David that if the facts were as he had said, he had better take .proceedings in Chencery to set aside the bill of sale. Mr. David eventually withdrew the action, and issued a writ under the Court of Chancery, and brought the action which is now before you. The original damages were £50. He claims now that the bill of sale might be set aside, and claims f500 damages. Thereupon a correspondence arose, and at last on the 13th December, Mr. David wrote to Mr. Morgan It is my intention to take proceedings to set aside the Bill of Sale- That is the action which now comes before you. Plaintiff says that Mr. David told him that he (Mr. David) would be answerable for the costs if be would bring an action. The action was withdrawn, and the costs were taxed, and the present action was commenced. On the 19th February Mr David writes to Mr Morgan that he will sign judgment in want of a statement of defence. Mr. Morgan replied on the 20th that he had forwarded instructions to his London agent for the de- fence. Mr. David wrote again on the 28th that he I would sign judgment unless the matter was compro- mised. On the 27th Mr. Morgan wrote to Mr. David asking what amount his client would accept in settle- ment, without prejudice. Mr David replied on the 28th, X50 and costs without prejudice. Mr. Gibbs I presume it is clear to your Honour. The question I want to take your Honour's ruling upon is whether, in a matter of this kind, in which the only question is as to the conduct of a solicitor, it is com- petent for the parties in the action to go into that con. duct before your Honour. The Judges Surely I must go into the question of costs against a solicitor. Mr. Gibbs I hope your Honour will not rule with- out hearing evidence for Mr. David that you had no jurisdiction. Hir Honour I really can't tell whether I have jurisdiction or not until I hear the evidence. Mr. Poole 1 feel that this is a charge against a pro- fessional man. The matter comes before your Honour in this way That is the correspondence which took place before the day on which there should have been a hearing. My client having an action brought against j him for cancellation of a Bill of Sale and zC500 damages, and a serious charge made against his credit, naturally took the best method of defending himself. On the 17th of August Mr. David wrote to Mr. Morgan say- ing that as Mr. Bowen Rowlands would not be able to attend he should apply for an adjournment on the 20th, and that he (Mr. Morgan) had better write to me. The action had been brought up before the hearing and there had been an order that the plaintiff should furnish an affidavit and documents. Mr. Williams said, that not having instructed Mr. David to bring the action he would entirely refuse to give him the affidavit. That affidavit was wanting, and one of the reasons for hearing the case on the 20th Williams says was, thatac«iast Mr. David's persuasion he refused to swear to an affidavit. But the reason given in the letter which I have already read to you was the absence of Mr. Bowen Rowlands. On that day-the 20th of August—Mr. Bowen Rowlands at- tended here and appeared before your Honour in one or two cases. His Honour He appeared in the case of Graham v. Payne. Mr. Poole continued As far as I am concerned, the adjournment was a considerable inconvenience to me but I was willing to oblige another professional gentle- man by not coming. But Mr. Boweu Rowlands did appear, and made an application to your Honour for adjournment in this very case. Of course Mr. Morgan was unable to go on in my absence. Mr. David may be able to explain that, but at the first blush it does appear to be unaccountable. 1 put off several engage- ments that day in order that 1 might attend before your Honour. Either upon that day or a subsequent one, it came to the knowledge of Mr. Morgan that plaintiff had declined having anything to do with the action, and had given notice to Mr. Blaibeig of that fact, and had sworn to an affidavit before Mr. Tom- linson, which was brought to Mr. Morgan. (Mr. Poole read the affidavit, in which Williams stated that he bad never instructed Mr. David to take any proceedings against Mr. Blaiberg in any way relating to the bills of sale which he had given to Mr. Blaiberg, and that any proceedings taken by Mr. David were taken without his consent and sanction, and that the bill of sale given by him to Mr. blaiberg, was read over to him by Mr. John McCarthy, and he signed it after it had been read over.) Mr. Morgan, veiy properly, 1 think, at once drew Mr David's attention to this affidavit in a letter dated the 20th of August. (Mr. Poole read the letter.) No answer was received to that letter, and Mr. Morgan wrote another on the 22nd, saying that as Mr. David had not replied to his letter of the 20th he had no alternative but to lay the papers before counsel. Then, at last, Mr. David writes a letter, which appears to me to be most un- called for, and abusive. (Letter read. It was date 1 the 23rd August, and said that Mr. Morgan's conduct in interfering with his (Mr. David's) matters, and holding communication with his client, and getting him to sign documents, was most uncorteous, un- gentlemaoly, and unprofessional. Mr. David added I should have thought that, with your experience, you would have known better how to behave yourself. I shall make no comment ou the subject matter of your letter, except to deny the charge. I consider you are unworthy of membership in an honourable profession like the legal, and henceforth I shall know how to treat you.") Mr. Morgan wrote on the 24th I have not seen your client or got him to sign auy document." On the 19th of August Mr. Williams wrote to Mr. David saying he should have nothing whatever to do with the case, and withdrew from it, and for whatever was done Mr. David alone would be answerable for the consequences. Now, sir, you see that the plaintiff is in this position. He says that he has nothing to do with the action. Now, either there must be an order for costs against the plaintiff, or against Mr. David. The action has been brought against the defendant, and it is evident that somebody must pay his costs. If the charge which the plaintiff brings against Mr. David is a true one, Mr. David wi 1 have to pay the cost, and have to answer hete oi in another place for what he has done. It is not for the defendant to make out the case against Mr. David, but he must necessarily bring the matter before you. Now here are two actions of the most expensive kind, brought by the attorney of a man of straw, in which he would, if successful, have been able to obtain a large amount of costs, but, if unsuccessful, the de fendant would necessarily get no costs at all. I don't know that I can claim anything at your hands, but I suppose your Honour will take into consideration tLe manifest injury done to my client, and act in your discretion, if the matter bad been brought before the High Court ot Justice an order might have been at once made against Nir. David. The question which j arises before your Honour id whether it must not necessarily bo apa-t of your jurisdiction to make a similar order, seeing that the case was remitted here from the High Court. His Honour The case is initiated in the High Court, and not here. Mr. Poole The-a have been legal proceedings which have taken plaee since the case was remitted to your I Honour, which, if initiated without the authority of the plaintiff, muse necessarily bring Mr. David within your Honour's jurisdiction. It must necessarily be contempt of court. His Honour There may be some question whether the equity suit was properly brought here. Mr. Poole It was remitted by consent, I think. There is a matter being carried on before your Honour, and I apprehend your Honour, as between plaintiff and defendant, will make no objection, neither party r tising the point. His Honour If that is the case, I shall deal with it. Mr. Poole Now, how is your Honour going to deal it. I apprehend that Mr. David has signed the roll of tiis court. I don't know whether that is of any im- portance in your Honour's eye. If he has signed the roll he has become an officer of the Court, and subject to your Honour's order if guilty of contempt of Court. Supposing an order is not made, and you leave the party injured his right of action, I apprehend that if you make no order against Mr. David you make one against the plaintiff. His Honour No, I don't think so. 1. Mr. Poole There is one other course that appears to me to be feasible, and that is for you to make an order that Mr. David should be defendant ki the suit. Your Honour knows that you have power to make anyone a defendant. His Honour: But he must be interested io the mat- ter of the suit in some way or other. Mr. Poole Is not Mr. David interested in this way —The plaintiff says,. 1 am not liable for the costs because Mr. David is." His Honour But he must not only be liable for the costs he must be interested in the suit. Mr. Poole The action rests in this way I appear for the defendant. There i3 an affidavit which says that the proceedings have been brought without any authority from the plaintiff., Your Honour will decide whether he has given authority and must pay the costs or if he has- not given authority Mr. David must pay the costs. His Honour I think the preper course will be for Mr. Tomlinson to pjtt his client into the witness box to show why he should not be mulcted in costs. If he can satisfy the Court that fee never engaged Mp. David expressly or constructively, that will absolve him from costs. Perhaps sufficient will come out to justify the Court in making an order against Mr.. David. Mr. Poole The action itself has come to an end now. It is a mere question of ccafts. Joseph Williams was then called,, and said On the 15th October, 1877, 1 filed a petition in liquidation. A composition was agned upon in the latter end of last year. I gave a Bill of' Sale to Mr. Blaiberg for £ 30 he lent me. The Bill of Sale was for £47, and it was given on the 20th August, le-n. Mr. David was my solicitor in the bankruptcy proceedings. Soon after a composition waa agreed upon, Mr. David called upon me, and said 00 me and my wife, I want I' to try and get some money for you that you have paid." He said it was from Mr. Slaiberg. I said I would have nothing to do with it. "1 have no money, and don't understand the law." Mr. David said, "Never mind, I don't want any money, and r. understand the law." After that he called upon me, and. asked me to attend this Court,, and I did so. I attended as a witness. That was on the 17th December. I was not called to give evidence. Next morning. Lsaw Mr. David by my door, and he said, "The case is adjourned for a month." I told him to leave it alone. I never heard anything more about the case until Mr. David's bro- ther told me to come up to hia ofSee- and sign an affi- davit. I told him I should not go without some gentleman would come along, with me. He said, You come along with ze, and I'll take you to a solicitor." I refused. I hadi no money to pay any costs. The Bill of Sale I gaie to Mr. Blaiberg was read over to me by McCarthy. I never gave Mr. David any instruction3 about these actions. Cross-examined by Mr. Gibbs-r I did not consider that in October, 1877, I had any complaint against Mr. Blaiberg except that he had charged me too much. 1 did not go to Mr. David •; he came to me. I never went to Mr. David. A gentleman took me to Mr. David's office when I got into difficulties. The gen- tleman was Mr. Brimfield. 5 instructed Mr. David to tile a petition in liquidation. I don't believe I mentioned the Bill of Sale at the time when 1 filed my petition. I filed the petition because people were asking me for money, and f had none to give them.. By filing the petition I restrained Mr. Blaiberg from entering my house. I do nob remember filing an affi- davit on the 19th October, 1877, "That Solomon Blaiberg, of Cardiff, is the holder of a Bill of Sale on my property, which, I am advised and believe, is void as against my creditors." I might have tiled such an affidavit I had paid Mr.. Blaiberg X47 10s before I filed my petition. J got A60 altogether from .Mr.. Blaiberg wnen I gave him the Bill of Sale. Mr. Poole There were two Bills of Sale. Cross examination continued That liquidation petition resulted in my paying a composition to my creditors. Mr. David did not take down any state- ment from my wife. I went with Mr. Mudd, my largest creditor, to Mr. David. 1 went to the Connty Court when the action was set down for hearing. Mr David told me afterwards that the case was adjourned for a month, and that he was going to bring an action in the High Court against Mr. Blaiberg. 1 told) him he had better leave him alone. 1 never wrote a letter to Mr. David, nor he to me. I cannot write nor read. I never remember signing a letter to Mr. David to the effect that I had given him no instructions h, bring the action against Mr. Blaiberg, and that T would bold him responsible for any result that might ensue from such action. I did not see Mr. Morgan's clerk on the 19th August. I believe I first consulted Mr. Tom- linson the day I made the affidavit. I did not instruct Mr. Tomlinson to prepare the affidavit which I swore to on the 19th October. I bad no solicitor at the time. I believe I signed the affidavit in Mr. Blaibesg's office. Mr. Tomlinson was there at the time. Mr. Tomlinson It was sworn in my office. Cross-examination continued I belie-ve Mr. Brim- field went with me to swear the affidavit. I went to Blaiberg's office of my own accord. Mr. David sent me the bill in the first place, and I paid it off, and thought I bad paid him enough. Cross examined by Mr. Puole In the first action that was brought in the County Court Mr. David told me I would be put to no costs. I suppose it was Mr. Brimfield that first told Mr. David of the Bill of Sale. Mr. Brimfield drew out the form of the affidavit I signed ou the 19th of October, and Mr. Brimtield took me to Mr. Blaiberg to tell him that I had nothing to do with the action. I have had nothing to do with Mr. Morgan. I have had nothing else to do with Mr. Blaiberg. Mary Williams, sworn, said I am the wife of Joseph Williams. Mr. David called at my house nl said that he had entered an action again-tt Mr Blaiberg. I did not know the meaning of the action tiiat was brought against Mr. Blaiberg. I was present when Mr. David's brother came to my house in August last. He asked us to come up to the Court and sign the papers. My husband was in. Mr. David called after- wards, and asked my husband to go up to his office and sign a paper. My husband refused to do so. Cross-examined by Mr. Gibbs We went to Mr. David's office before the tti.d came ou. Mr. David askpd me questions, which I answered. Wiiliam Henry Davies, clerk to Mr. Morgan, de- posed 1 was in Mr, Morgan's office on August 19th. Mr. Brimfield came and asked me to give him a copy of the letter, which I gave him. I found it with the bundle of papers about this action. By H s Honour When 1 made a copy of the letter I gave it to Mr. Brimfield. Cross examined About a week after the 19th August I found the letter among the papers. I en- I dorsed the letter, and made a copy of it afterwards. His Honour How came you to make a copy of the letter at Mr. Brimtield's instance? Witness I have charge of the letters. Cross-exaniiuation continued I did not make any communication to Mr. Morgan concerning the letter. Mr. Kinsey Morgan stated The affidavit was handed to me by Mr. Blaiberg after the case had been adjourned on the 20th August. Cross-examined On the 20th August, the day on which the case was to have come on, I wrote a letter to Mr. David in the afternoon. I had not seen Mr. Brimfield previous to the 20th August, to the best of my recollection. I do not remember whether Mr. Brimfield called at my office on the 20th August. He called then or a short time after. To the best of my recollection he told me that Williams had made an affidavit. He told me that he acted for the plaintiff. From six or eight months before I had had no tran- saction whatever with Mr. Brimfield. Benjamin Blaiberg, defendant's son, who manages the business at Newport, said I first received inti- mation from Williams that Mr. David had been acting for him on the 19th August. Williams and Brimfield informed me on the 9th that they had never instructed Mr. David to bring any action. I then asked Wil- liams if he would make an affidavit to that effect. He said he would. In cotsequence the affidavit was written out and given to me. Cross-examined On the 19th I received the original affidavit. When Mr. Brimfield first came the affidavit was not made. It was aLcut two hours after I asked for an affidavit that it was made. It may have been written by one of my clerks. I do not remember seeing him writing it Williams, recalled, said T remember the affidavit being written out. Mr. Brimfield and Mr. Blaiberg were there. It was written out by Mr. Brimfield in Mr. Blaiberg's office. I think one of the clerks copied it afterwards. Mr. Gibbs addressed the Court for Mr. David, arguing that the plaintiff naturally smarted under payment of the money to defendant, aod was anxious to get some of it back again. He characterised this as an attempt to get money from Mr. David, and pro- ceeded to lay before his Honour the case which he had to present in answer. He then called witnesses. Mr. A. J. David said I first knew plaintiff when he came to me about his liquidation. He told me that Mr. Blaiberg had registered a bill of sale contrary to agreement. He also gave me books relating to the loan, and desired me to take steps in the matter. I I saw Mr. Williams and told him I intended to with- draw the action from the County Court, and enter it in the High Court of Chancery. He seemed to be highly pleased at it. I saw him a few days before the 20th August, and I asked what he meant by sending the message to, me to the effect that he did not intend to go on with the case. I received the letter o. the wl 7th September, and wrote him a reply saying that I should have nothing more to do with him, and sent in my costs. I saw Williams in the presence of his wife. I took down their statements. Cross-examined r 1 acted first in the liquidation proceedings for Williams. I acted solely in his interest He has since paid me. I had no Eecurity for costs in the frrst action. I withdrew the first action without his sanction. 1 told him that after what had taken place in the first couirt I should take it to another. I told him I was going to enter an action in Chancery. I did not say anything about the costs in that action. I met him about 20 or SO yards from his shop on the siay when this, conversation took place, I can't say wao began the conversation. It began about the County Court case, and I tried to explain to him as well ?.& I could the technicalities of the ease, and told him that I should enter i: in the Chansery Court. He- did not say Let the man alone." I did not apply for the coats of the first action before entering the second. I eaid nothing to the man for three months. It first came to my know- ledgetihaat he had refused to sign the- aifidavit three or four days before the 20tb. I agreed with Mr. Morgan that there should be no hearing sutil the 20th. I drew the affidavit somet-ime in August. I think it was the 7.th or 8th. I left home on the 7th and came back about five or six days after. 1 knew on the 12th or 13tb my brother could not get the affidavit signed. I had heard of Mr. Morg&n flourishing the affidavit. The first £ beard of that affidavit from Mk\ Morgan was in September. Immediately I heard of it I tried to get a copy. I replied b Mr. Morgan's- latter on the 23rd. I received his oaitlie 21st. George »avid said I am in the office of my brother. I am artisiied to him. On one-occasion when going to dinner we met the plaintiff and told him thoa his- case would be taken to London.- He did not mise any objection. Cross-examined: Plaintiff refused to sign the affi- davit, and aaid that he had not instructed my. brother to commence the case. His Honour said he would! reserve his decision.- He would, however, now say thioJ-much. He would not say whether there was a sutEciently technical retainer, but it was qjiite clear that Mr. David had not; suffi.-I ciently iustruoted the plaintiff as to the meaning of going into a Chancery suit. TJhless he fully explained to him the steps he was taking, no poor man Hke this should be ta>ken through such, a proceeding without | being told what the probable oonsequences would be- [. Because if he failed the man would be ruined.
TUESDAY. !
TUESDAY. CLAIM FOR. THE EXECUTION- OK A REJECTED 3LAN. Lawrence v. Cranch.—This was a case brcught by the plaintiff Mr. Lawrence, architect, carrying on business at Newport, to recover the snm of; £ 4f), alleged to be due to him from the defendant, Mr. Granch, the manager of the Monmouth Old Bank, at Monmouth.—Mr. Bowen Rowlands (instrooted by Messrs. Gibbs-and Llewellyn) appeared for the plain- tiff Mr. Carter (instructed by Mr. W. C. A. Williams, of Monmouth) for the defendant. Mr. Rowlands, in opening the case, said that the plaintiff claimed X40 for cestuan plans and specifica- tions- executed by him for the defendant, at, the re- quest of the defendant, and for the defendanfs, benath. On the 13th of December, ran Mr. Cranch came to Newport, &ad called at the office of Mr. Lawrence, but that gentleman was not in at the time, and the [¡ clerk told ,-lie defendant to eall again. The nest time he called defendant said be wished to employ. him (Mr. Lawrence) to prepare plans of a house he wished to build scmewhere in the town of Moninovsth.. He had no time to give full instructions at that i.ima; 00& plaintiff went to Monmouth to see defendant,, and the matter waa arranged. Largs and importantalterations were made in his plans by the defendant and Mrs. Cranch's directions, and the consequence was that tenders were far in advance of the £ 800 which de- fendant said he bad stipulated should be expended, but plaintiff denied that thare was any such stipulation. Defendant then not only said the plans wera of<no use to him„ but even wrote, through his solicitor,, stating that he- ought to be paid for the time he had lost. Mr. Carter then said the defence set up. was, that defendant had stipulated that f800 would be the amount to be expended in erecting the home* and the £ 40 commission which plaintiff claimed was based upon a 5 per cent. ratio upon the total amount. The plans were too costly and they were useless. Benjamin Lawrence,, architect and surveyor, laid he remein bered the 13th ot December last ysar. He then saw Mr Cranch at his (plaintiffs) office in Newport abo,at half-past nine in, the morning. The defendant had no time to give any detailed instructions, but told witness he wanted him to prepare plans and specifications, and on the succeeding Wednesday, the 19th of December, witness went to Monmouth. There the defendant asked witness what he would charge for plans and specifications and superintendence of a bouse. Witness asked how much be intended spending, and tha defendant said Y.8004 Witness said, I will change jE40, and if it conies to more, you can spend as much as you like after that." Defen. dant then showed plans which he bad himself pre- pared and asked witness whether that could be car- ried out for ZEC-W. Witness said it might, but it would depend upon where he would get his stone from. After inspecting the site and showing him that the plan was imperfect, witness suggested that he should change the aspect of one road. Witness sketched the alterations on defendant's plan. Defen- dant then gave witness instructions to send up a set of plans. Witness then left. On the next day, a letter, dated the 19th December, reached him at New- port, stating that the writer had forgotten to tell witness that he wanted to get a coach-house and stable. Never told the defendant that he would guarantee that the building could be erected for ESOO. Witness sent a plan and prospective sketch to the defendant. Received a post-card dated 21st January, asking witness when he would come to Monmouth, and he went there on the 30th January, and saw de- fendant, who suggested several alterations. He wanted to have a conservatory built at once, bay win- dows all round the house, &c. The witness was instructed to alter his plan, in accordance with a specification prepared by Mrs. Cranch. A second set of plans was prepared, and after sending those to the defendant, he went to Monmouth the third time, and further alterations were asked for, which would entail a large amount of expenditure. A long correspondence took place, the plaintiff saying, in effect, that no one could expect a house to be built with all the things wanted by Mr. Cranch for £ 800, and the defendant alleging that as the plans prepared by Mr. Law- rence could not be carried out for the £800, they were of no use to him, as he was not ready to go beyond that sum. Cross-examined by Mr. Carter The defendant never mentioned £8UO, except 00 the first occasion at his office. The alterations required by the defendant would involve an extra expenditure of jE450 or so, but he (plaintiff), did not draw the attention of the defen- dant to that fact. Mr. A. 0. Watkins, architect, said he had inspected the various plans and specifications prepared by the plaintiff for the defendant. The percentage for pre. paring plans and specifications with superintendence, was five per cent. Mr. George Jones, builder, Newport, had seen the various sets of plans. The first set could have been completed for £850 or so, but the alterations were worth £470. Mr. H. B. Sketch, builder, Cwmbran, had looked at the plans, and after going into quantities, he thought the new plan was worth jEl,400 or £ 1,500. Mr. Charles Miles, builder, Newport, having gone into quantities, and priced them oS, estimated the first plan at £917, and the last plans at £ 1,394. Mr. John Linton, builder and contractor, Newport, agreed with the last witness as to prices. William Charles Biggs, a clerk in the employ of the plaintiff, was present during the first interview be- tween the defendant and plaintiff at Newport, and the plaintiff's version of it was true. This being the plaintiff's case, Mr. Carter addressed his Honour on behalf of the defendant, and submitted that as Mr. Cranch had always kept in view the expenditure only of £ 800, the addition of 50 per cent. on that sum was too much. Some of the builders were even for dEl,700 or £ 1,800. The plaintiff, seeing this, at once gave up the idea of getting this phu carried out, and said that unless it were altered and reduced considerably, it would be useless to him. They had been so misled that they really could do nothing with it. He called the defendant, Richard Lovell Cranch, book-keeper to the Mon- mouth Old Bank, at Monmouth,not manager, Mr. Rowlands What must the manager be if this is the book-keeper? (laughter). Witness said that having called at the plain- tiff's office in Newport, and received a return visit from him at Monmouth, they agreed that the plaintiff should make a plan of a house which be wanted to be built for £80L). When plaintiff looked at defen- dant's sketch, he said the house might cost something more. Witness asked then about the commission, and he (plaintiff), said he would take the basis of £800, in order to show that he could keep down the expense to that sum: he would take live per cent. on £ 800, i.e. £40. Told him the house must be completed by the 29th September last. At every subsequent interview, witness told plaintiff that whatever alterations were were in the plans, he must not go beyond the price first agreed upon. Plaintiff did not say there would be any additional cost. But when tenders were sent in he found that they all far exceeded £800, and he aban- doned the idea of building the house. Cross-examined by Mr. Rowlands The plaintiff told him that no matter what alterations he (defen- dant) made in the plans it was immaterial to him (plaintiff) what they were. The house was not to cost more than £800. He had said that whatever additions he made- there should bo a corresponding deduction in something else. Additions were made, and he saw no dediTction to correspond. Mr, Llewelyn, foreman to Messrs. Collins, builders, who are now building the Grammar School, at Mon- mouth, had read the specifications and looked at the plans of a house prepared by the plaintiff for the defendant, and he theoght they could not be carried out usader £ 2,000. Mr. Charles Morgan, a builder at Monmoutb, said he had seen the plans and specifications in question, and tendered for £ li,7S5. Cross-examined Had never seen the first set of plans. His Honour I cannot conceive that any man of common sense would expect that these- alterations would be carried out, without any addition being made to the cost. Judgmeat reserved. A Jrsx CASE. ATTION FOR FALSIC EMPRISONMEOT.. Treasure v. Smith.—Mr. Bowen Rowlands (instruc- ted by Messrs. Gibbs and Llewellyn) appeared for the plaintiff, and Mr. Carter (instructed by Mr. Clifton. of Bristol) for She defendant. It was a case in "Nhich the plaintiff, Aimelia Treasure, claimed from the defen- dant, Abraham Smith, £ 50 damages for alleged false imprisonment. The learned counsel for the prosecution, in opening the case to the jury, remarked that the action had I been commenced in a higher Court, and removed here because the plaintiff could not give security for the costs. The defendant had on two distinct occasions given prisoner into custody. On the first occasion the police inspector had refused to take the charge, and on the second, the plaintiff did not appear before the magistrates to prosecute. There was in the pleadings a count for malicious prosecution as well as two oounts for false imprisonment, but that portion would be abandoned. Amelia Treasure said I was 17 years of age on the 10th of last February. I was brought up by my aunt, Mrs Moseley. I went into Mr. Smith's service on the 2nd of June, 1J7.7. Had been in service before that with Mr. Owen, the station-mister, Tredegar Junction. The defendant lived part of his time at Rose Cottage, Maindee, and the Eagle Inn, Dock-street. 1 lived at both places myself also, and was the only servant. There was a person named Mrs. Morgan who came in to work occraionally. 1 served in the bar sometimes. On Sunday morning, the 25th November, I went from the Eagle Inn to Rose Cottage the defendant was then in bed m1 mistress was- in the parlour.. Mrs. Morgan came, therefore I left. I returned to the Eagle about mid-day, and Mrs. Morgan had then left. At half-past IS the defendantaame downstairs, opened the bar door, aad entered. Ee called me and asked if I bad been to the till. I saic1: no. He said there had been no one else there but myself. He said ihere was 4s. missing. I said I had not) had it. Then he went into the kitchen, and searched for the money.. He found half-a-sovereign in a bag in the bandbox-on the dresser. Mrs. Smith was then in the parlour. The defendant asked me whose half-sovereign it was, and I 3aid it was uot mine, it is mistress's. My master threw it downstairs towards the parlour. The kitchen is upstairs. He searched my bedroom and two other bedrooms, but found no more money he said he would find it 2f it was there.. He said there was no one in the house to have it besides me. I said "for. all you know, master." 1 told him that Mrs Mbrgan had been there. I remember a policeman coming there, and Mr. Smith telling him that he had lost 4s., and said that Mrs. Morgan and li had been these.. He also said he did not know whick. of us had it" and gave both of us into custody. 1 said "I have not bad it, sir." The policeman took us to the station when we were given in charge Mrs. Morgan also said she had not got it. At the police-station she saw an inspector, and we were ordered to turn our pockets out.. I had a purse and a farthing,, and the iuspector told us to go away. 1 wed to Rose Cottage, and weat back to the Eagle that night. Mr. Smith then told me that. L ought to have told him that Mrs. Morgan had come there. Next Wednesday, the 28th October, the day of the Tredegar Cattle Show, at closing time,, my master shut up the bar, and took out the knob of the door. Arthur Morgan,, a gunner, was- there, and my master went out with him. I atayedt in the parlour all the time master was away. Wheil. he returned ia about twenty minutes ie asked me if I had been in the bar, and l said Do. He said there were three sovereigns missing, and that three shillings were put in their place. I said How could I get in when you know that. you locked the door ?" He told me that I had something to open the door. I had nothing. He then opened the door with a scissors, and said I had done the same thing. I had never seen the door opened in that way before. Some time before this he said I wish I knew that msui from Brecon, I exchanged two sovereigns for him. He said he would give me in charge again. A policeman came by and I was given into his charge. Master had not searched anywhere, but when I went to the lock-up I was searched and the same Sarthing was found upon me. I was kept in the cell until Friday, when I was taken before the magistrates. Mr. Smith did not appear against me, and I was discharged- I went to fetch my clothes, packed them up, and went to Maindee. Before packing up I offered to let my mistress search my box, but she refused. Having got the clothes from Rose Cottage, I returned again to the Eagle, and put the clothes in a box, and after having had my tea, I went home. There were no wages due to me. My wages were 15s per month. I have not had a place since, but I have tried to get one. Cross-examined by Mr Carter During the time master was out on the Wednesday night, I had time to take the sovereigns away, if 1 felt so inclined, but I did not do it. I did, about that time, send a parcel to my aunt. Tt was a bundle of flannel which her mistress had paid for and deducted from her wages. Mary Moseley, said I am Amelia's aunt, and as I knew Mr and Mrs Smith, I took the girl to their place at Rose Cottage, and after she had been there a. month on trial, they kept her, and Mr and Mrs Smith said they liked her very well. I had a parcel of flaunelfrom my niece, but there was nothing else in the flannel. Inspector George Wilcox, said P.C. Dimond brought the plaintiff and Mrs Morgan to the Town- hall on Sunday. I asked Mr Smith what the charge was. He said he had taken a bowl from the counter on the previous night there was in it a florin and some small silver. Mrs Smith took it down again in the morning, and when he got up, he missed a florin and two shillings. There not being sufficient evidence against them, I took upon myself the re- sponsibility of dismissing the charge. Mrs Morgan said something about Mrs Smith having lent her some money. P.C. Charles Wallace, said: I took Amelia Treasure in charge on the Wednesday night in ques- tion. I went to the Eagle, and searched the premises, and also the girl's box, but found no money. P.S. Winmill, said I took the charge against prisoner and entered it. The prosecutor did not appear at the Court on the following Friday. David Owen, station-master, Tredegar Junction, said Amelia Treasure was in my service for two months, before she entered the service of Mr Smith. Had known her for many years, and never heard any- thing against hsr character. This being the case for the prosecution, Mr Carter addressed the jury for the defence, and called Abraham Smith, who said: I kept the Eagle Tavern, for six months, and now occupy the Masonic Hotel. The plaintiff came to live with me about Midsummer, 1877. Up to November last she went on very well, but about three weeks before this time in November, she commenced keeping company w»th a soldier. I missed about 12s from a box upstairs, and of course I kept a close watch. On the Sunday in question I put the money in the bowl, and took it upstairs. In the morning I gave thebowl to my wife, to take down I again. I did not know that Mrs Morgan cleaned the bar in the morning. I got up on Sunday about a quarter befor twelve. As soon as 1 got down stairs 1 went to the till. No customers had been in—there was then 9s in the till, and 4s were gone. 1 said to plaintiff, IJhave lust 48 from the till, aud there is no one in the house but yoa and the missus." She said she had not got it. I found the money upstairs in the bandbox witness said she put it there. She subsequently said Master you'll tind out where the money has gone," and went on the bed and cried. I asked her if anyone else had been in the house, and she only cried, You'll find out." I asked the missus if any one had been in the house, and she said Yes, Mrs Morgan has been outside the bar and cleaning." She also added that no one had been in the bar. Mrs Morgan was brought in, and she again cried, and said to the servant girl for God's sake Minnie, if you have got the money, say so, and I'll pay it out of my master's wages. I gave them in charge to a policeman, and as there was no money found, the girl stopped on with me as before. On I the Wednesday night, when 1 locked the door and went out, there were two sovereigns and two half sovereigns in the tin cover of a mustard box. There was silver in the bowl, but I did not count it. I put the knob and the spindle of the door in my pocket and went out with Morgan, the soldier. We went over to the house of Mr Gibbou, but Morgan went out for about ten minutes, and then returned when we left, Morgan went to the Barracks, and I went to the Eagle. There was no one but Amelia Treasure in the house then. I went to the bar, and said Minnie, has anyone been here?" and she said "No." 1 found the sovereigns changed for shillings. Having I seen the scissors, I said you must have opened the door with this, and she said No." I did the same thing myself in her presence. I gave her in charge. I There were two doors into the bar-oue was bolted on the inside, when I went out, and when the police- man searched the house, he found that bolt undone. Cross-examined by Mr Rowlands I was not quite sober on the Wednesday night. (Langhter.) Mrs. Susan Smith, wife of the last witness, said On Sunday, the 25th of November, I took the bowl of money from the drawer up stairs, and put it in the bar. I took none of the money. Mrs. Morgan and the plaintiff were in the house during that morning while my husband was in bed. Mrs. Morgan was cleaning the outside of the bar. Cross-examined Bad lent Mrs. Morgan 3s. at that time. My husband told me he had missed 12s., but I don't know anything. The half-sovereign found in a bag on the dresser wa& mine, and not the master's. .His Honour Settled upon you before marriage I suppose. (Laughter. )> Elizabeth Ann Morgan said I am a married woman, andlocuasioually worked as charwoman for Mrs. Smith. On the Sunday in question I was there in the house cleaning, but I never was in the bar, and I did not take the money. I know a soldier named Morgan by sight he once asked aie to tell Amelia Treasure to come and see him, or to Fend him money to get some drink. This was a day or two after I was given in charge by Mr. Smith. Cross-examined: She did not give me the no>iey, she only said, Where- the dickens does he tMn>k I am to get it." (Laughter.); The learned Counsel then addressed the jury, and His Honour in summing up said, the jury would have-to consider whether a robbery had taken plaue on the date in question, and if so, had the defendant any reasonable ground for suspecting the plaintiff. The jury retired to consider their verdict, and on their returning into Court,.25 minutes later, they said they were of opinion thahhe£2 was stolen, but not the 4s. they were not of opinion that there was suffi i mt gr<<Md for suspicion they therefore gave a ve- diet for the plaintiff, and awarded her X5 damages, with co its as upon X5. CLAIIM FOR COAL.—Harris and Lloyd v. Stream.- This was a case in which plaintiffs, a firm of coal merchants, claimed a sum of money for coal supplied to the defendant as manager of the Star cf Gwent newspaper. Defendant admitted his liability, but claimed a set off.-Plaintiff objected to zC4 of this set off, on the ground that they had given no order for the eontinuation of the advertisement. Defendant said it had been ordered to be continued.—Judgment for the defendant, without costs.
THE JEWEL ROBBERY AT NEWPORT.
THE JEWEL ROBBERY AT NEWPORT. A.b the borough police-court, on Monday, before W. Evans, A. J. Stevens, and T. P. Wansbrougb, Esqrs., Edward Summerhayes was brought up on remand charged with breaking open a box and stealing a large quantity of jewellery, the property of Kats Ba'sell. Mr. Graham appeared for the prosecution and Mr. A. J. David, who had been instructed to appear for the defendant, sent a note to the Chairman, asking that the case might be adjourned, as he was engaged elsewhere at the time. Mr Graham opposed' the application, and'the Bench intimated that they would proceed with the case. Mr. Oliver soon afterwards appeared in Court, and intimated that he had been requested to defend the prisoner. Mr. Graham, in opening the case, gave an outline of what the evidence would be, and called the piostcu- trix, Kate Russell, who aaid I have resided at Seaton Vill, Barnard Town, since Friday, October 4th. I I came from London on that day. The horoe a ljoins the road leading from. Newport to Caerleon. Amongst my luggage I had a large travelling trunk, whkh was atepositedinmybedBoom. Within that box I kept my dressing-bag, locked up. That contained jewellery and X2 or zC3 in money. On Wednesday, the 16th, I left home at seven o'clook in the evening the win- dows of my bedroom had been opened but my maid had them closed down, and fastened them. On my road to the theatne: I met prisoner in the street-this was from six to ten minutea past T—near the Isca Inn. He was going towards his home, at Seaton Villa. I asked him had he got my dog, and he asked me whether he should take it home or not, and I told him be might take it home, as I was going to the theatre. The prisoner said he was going home the prisoner lives ai Seaton Villa, and, as far as I know, be occupies it. While at the theatre, near half-past nine, I had a communication which caused me to take a cab aod go to. Seaton Villa. I was accompanied by my maid and Mrs. Williams. When I arrired at Seaton Villa I saw prisoner close to the cab near the door of the house. I asked him if the policeman was there, and lie said the police had been there, but they had left. I asked to get into the house, and the pri- soner in some way let me in when I got into my room I found that my travelling trunk was broken open, my dressing bag taken, with its contents in jewellery and money. Since then P.C. Badger has shown me the bag and jewellery, which I identify as my own the money is there alao—jES 9s lid. Cross-examined by Mr. Oliver 1 did not find that the windows were fastened r when I saw prisoner at the door he did not appear in any way confused. Eliza Spinx, the maid of Mr?. Russell, said On Wednesday, the 16th October, at the request of my mistress, 1 closed the windows of the front bedroom, and fastened them. This was just before we left the house-about five minntea to seven. The travelling trunk was in the bedroom, perfectly safe at that time. We met the prisoner between Seaton Villa and the Isca Inn. I and my mistress went to the theatre, and I returned with her and Mrs. Williams in a cab at about half-past nine. I went to the Town-ball for a policeman, and went back in the cab with Sergeant Brooks, aud found that the travelling trunk had been broken open, and the dressing bag taken, with the jetvels. I picked up a po^ket-handerchief [produced] in the room. It was marked with blood. 1 found a hatchet wrapped in paper in the coal cellar. [Hatchet produced.] lli;revvas a lot of loose paper thrown over it Cross-examined When we left the house the only persons in the house were Mrs. Williams and her ser- vant am quite sure that I fastened the front win- dows the hatchet did appear to me as if it had been concealed. Mary Ann Best said I have been living at Seaton Villa with Mrs. Williams and Summerhayes. I know Summerhayes he lives in the house with Mrs. Wil- liams I only saw him on the morning of the 16th. In the evening of that day I remember hearing the dogs barking, and a noise upstairs. It was dark, and I think it was just after eight o'clock. I went up- stairs with a lighted candle, and went into Mrs. Russell's room. When I got there I saw all the things pulled about, and the lady's trunk had been brokeu open. I heard a noise in the back room when I was upstairs. I ran down directly, and ran out of the house, and when I got round the corner I saw Mr. Summerhayes. He was leaning against the kitchen window. The back room in which I heard the noise is over the kitchen, and the window looking out from that room is above the kitchen window. I told him then that there was a noise upstairs he asked me what was the matter, and where his "missus" was. I was frightened, aad ran home to my mother's house, across the road. I know the hatchet produced I had used it on Tuesday morning, and I looked for it on Wednesday afternoon, but could not find it. It had a handle when 1 used it (but there was none now.) It was in the coal-house in the passage on Tuesday, and I left it outside the door of the wood-house. Cross-examined Summerhayes was looking in the window when I saw him outside. He spoke first to me I was very much frightened at the tune, but am not mistaken as to his standing at the window. Mary Ann Williams said I am a married woman, and am the wife of Samuel Williams, who left me several years ago. I occupy Seatan Villa, which is my own house. Summerhayes had been living with me at that house for about eighteeen months Mrs Russell took apartments at my house some weeks ago. On Wednesday the 16th October, when Mrs Kua-ell aud her maid went to the theatre, I wa" \*leep 011 he b,d j 1 WP8 rut so her. Wheu I awoke I came dowu- '« stairs it was dark. I don't know what time it was. I did not know whether Mr3 Russell was in her room I or not. I heard a Doiae upstairs, and I sent the little girl up with a candle, to see what it was. She came downstairs screaming, and I took the candle from her and went upstairs. I went into Mrs Russell's room, and found the box broken open. I went out to fetch a policeman, and took back with me P.C. Badger, When I came out of the house, 1 met Summerhayes at the door he asked me '• What is the matter, and where are you going." I said "some one has broken into the house. I êL:n going to fetch a policeman and Mrs Russell." I and the policeman looked over the houae, but found ho one. I went to town to fetch Mrs Russell I sent into the theatre for her. I had a few words with Summerhayes on Wednesday morning, and I cut him with a carving knife, and his nose bled. I cannot swear that the handkerchief produced is the one he had in his possession. He did not use the handkerchief when 1 cut him. After the robbery he told me he was going away early on the following morning to Bristol. Cross-examined I know prisoner had a post-card in the morning calling him away. From the time I heard a noise upstairs to the time I saw Ted" Summerhayes, I could not say how much time had elapsed, but it was very short. Summerhayes is a butcher, and he is my deputy-husband I suppose. P.S. Brooks said: At 9.50 p.m., on Wednesday night last, from information I received, I went to Seaton Villa. Prisoner was standing at the doer. I went upstairs to the front bedroom, and found the box broken open. The back window was opeu, and the bottom part pushed up as far as it would go. I saw Mrs Russell and her maid the latter found the handkerchief produced, and handed it to the police. I found a pair of tongs in the room with the top bent. I examined the window, but saw no mark of the window having been opened from the outside also looked at the downstairs window, and there were no marks on it. The back bedroom window was open, but no marks could be found on that either. I came to the Town-hall with Mrs Russell and her maid, and afterwards brought prisoner here in custody, and eharged him ou suspicion with breaking open a box, and charged him with stealing a bag containing a quantity of jewellery. He said "Are you going to detain me I said "Yes." I searched him, and found two pocket handkerchiefs, similar to the one produced, only without bloood on them, a large pocket knife, one sovereign, half-a-crown, a fourpenny a°* F'reaeh coin. I afterwards went back to the house in the morning, and found the print of a heel of a man's left boot on the outside of the kitchen window, in Bishop-street. This is the window where he was seen looking in. Part of the tip of the boot was missing, and I afterwards saw the prisoner's boot, which corresponded to the mark. That impression could not have been made by walking-the mark was too deep. There were also marks on the wall, as though a man's foot had struck it. Cross-examined There was nothing but the size of the heel to show that it was the mark of the prisoner's boot. Inspector Curtis said On Thursday morning, at three a.m., I went with Sergeant Jones to Seaton Villa. I examined the bedroom and box. And in the daylight next morning I went outside with Sergeants Brooks and Jones, aud on the ground in Bishop-street, outside the kitchen window of Seaton Villa, 1 picked up the carpenter's tool produced. It looked like a swivel. It was close by the print of the heel of the boot. I made an impression of the heel of prisoner's boot on some soft earth, and after comparing t')em, I have no doubt that ths prints are the same. ° I after- wards went upstairs and found the marks on the box were such as could be made with the tool now pro- duced. Great violence must have been used in forcing the box open. 0 James Griffiths said I am a carpenter and builder, residing at Richmond-terrace, Maindee, and have a carpenter's shop at the back of my house. Summer- hayes is in the habit of coming to my workshop the last time I saw him there was on Monday morning the 14th inst.. I missed tool No. 4, of the description of the one produced by the police. The prisoner was in the shop when witness was at his breakfast. The tool, when in my possession, was not bent as it is now. Crof ..examined I cannot swear that that is my tool, but to the best of my knowledge it is. It is by the same maker as my other tools, and I have misled that size. I occasionally send workmen to work at Mrs Williams s house. My boy was down there that night" and the night before, but he did not work there. I have not had any workmen at Mrs Williams's house since the 4th of October. Detective Sergeant Jones said On Thursday morn- ing last, I went to the house in question with Inspec- tor Curtis. On Thursday evening again I went there myself, and found that the bottom of the box was broken. I asked tor the cho-pper and hammer, and the marks indicated to me that the box had been broken with them. In the garden, under the window I fouud a piece of timber, which was, it appeal s to mel a piece of the handle ot the hatchet. It has been burut, I am told, at the house. The distant e from Mrj Williams's house to the place where the jewellery vvai found is 33. yards. Cross-examined: There were marks of the carpen- ters' tool ou the box. P.C. Badger said At 8.40 on Wednesday night, Mrs. Williams reported to me that the house had been broken open. I went there with her; I found the front window open; I got in through it, and in the passage found Summerhayes, Mrs. Williams, and the servant gIe-I. I examined the house in the presence of Summerhayes and Mrs. Williams. I found the back window open. I went into the front room and found the box with a large hole in it, and a pair of tongs by the side of it. On Friday at half-past three, I went to the place, and close by the two villas of which Seaton Villa is one, there was a box where the masons h id bee* using mortar, and on lifting this up I found in it the bag of jewellery I produce. I went into the house and asked Mrs. Russell if the jewellery was hers, and I then took them to the Town-hall. The bag contained 8 rings, horse-shoe pendant with diamonds in it, 8 bracelets. 3 neckchains, 3 brooches, 3 lockets, gold earringsv gold watch and chain, and various other articles. The Bench What are they valued at ? Mr. Graham £ 200. Witness, continuing When the prisoner was charged with stealing the jewellery he said he knew nfr.hing of it. Mrs. Williams was re-called at the request of Mr. Oliver, and said A box belonging to me and a chest of drawers in the same room had been opeutd. The front window on the ground floor was found open when the robbery was first discovered. The back doors were always open there was no lock—in fact, we only fasten it with a piece of stick. I had to go as far as Newport bridge before I met P.C. Badger. This beinp, the case for the prosecution, Mr. Oliver s-ubmitted that there was no case made out there Wiis nothing to connect the robbery with the prisoner. Begarding the handkerchiefs he pointed out that there w as a difference between those in the prisoner s p aion and the one found in the room. The hatchet had been thrown on the ground, and it might have ha I its handle broken, and it might very easily, by the force with which it was thrown, have buried itself in the paper. Prisoner had plenty of cnances to tuk.; any tools he liked to do anything, and had he felt so disposed he might have found better tools with which to open a box than had been used on this occasion. Surely the fact that the jewellry had been found within a certain distance of the prisoner's house did not prove that he had placed it there. In fact, judging from the evidence adduced, he could not have had time to put it there at all. He asked what, then, was lure to connect the prisoner with the theft in any way. The Bench retired to consider the case, and on their return into Court, about 15 minutes later, the Chair- man said thrt although the case amounted to one of suspicion, still they thought that the prisoner was not sufficiently connected with the robbery by the evidence adduced, and they must dismiss the case. During the hearing the Court was crowded with spectators, and at the close a large number of people stood in the street waiting to see the prisoner and the prosecutrix.
[No title]
RECKITT'S PARIS" BLUE.—The marked superiority of this Laundry Blue over all others, and the quick appre- ciation of its merits by the Public, has been attended by the usual result, viz.: a flood of imitations: the merit of the latter mainly consists in the ingenuity exerted, not simply in imitating the square shape but making the general appearance of the wrappers resemble that of the genuine article. The Manufacturers beg therefore to caution all buyers to see Reckitt's Paris Blue" on each packet.
Advertising
ORDERS and ADVERTISEMENTS for the MERLIN are Received by the undermentioned AGENTS iii-LON DO N.-a Aiiiiaii, i" 11, Clements-lane. BAKKEU, U., & SONS, 8, Uirchin-lane 1 BuHIUIXTK, J., & Co., 35a, 3loor}?ate-stroet i BAILEY, A. H. & Co., Royal Exchange. UUOSSLKY, C. II., 17, .Moorj?ate-street, Bank.: OLARKE, W. J., jun., 81, (jracechurch-street, DHACON, S. Leadenhall-struet. EYKK Co., Bouverie-street, Fleet-street, Gukk.y, U., 117, Chancery-Ialle. I K.NUTHT, A. 14., & Co 3, Abohurch-lane, Luiiioari«gtreek HOOPER £ CULL, Georse-street, .Mansion House. KIXGSBUKY & Co., 12, Clements-lane. MKXCHIM & Co., M, Clements-lane. MITCHELL «JC Co., 12, Red Lion-court, Fleet-street MAY, C. H., 7S, Gracechurch-street. ltEY-NELL A Sox 44, Chancery-lane. llouEKTs, C. C., Ij, Change-alley, Cornhill. S'riiKJiT iiuos., 5, Serle-sti'L'Ot, Lincolu't^mn, SI KEKT, G., ;t. Uonilmi VICKKKS, W..j.. 5. i":iw!a.s.i:w". JI»ii>. ii fc l'loet-Lane, i ¡.