Saturday, 26 February 2022

Thomas Barrett, Saracen's Head, Wyebridge, Hereford, England

Hereford Times - Saturday 23 October 1852

Alarming Fire.—Early on Sunday morning, Mr. Barrett the Saracen's Head, Wyebridge, and his family, had a narrow escape from destruction by the means of fire. We are informed that about 3 a.m., Mrs. Barrett awoke with a burning sensation in her throat, and at first attributed it to having eaten something injurious on the previous night, but could not remember that she had done so. While cogitating the matter she became thoroughly awake, and then discovered that the room was full of smoke. She instantly rose, opened the bed-room door, and found that the lower part of the house was on fire. Mrs. Barrett then raised her husband, who had not been awakened by the smoke, and, having partially dressed herself, took their child, and made her escape from the house to that of a neighbour, arousing one or two other neighbours she went. While she was thus engaged, Mr. Barrett ran, barefooted, and with scarcely any clothes on, to the City Gaol, for the engines. The fire-bell speedily rang -the engines were immediately got out, and quickly on the spot—and the exertions of the firemen, aided by a number of respectable citizens chiefly from High Town, soon brought the fire under. It was afterwards found by a policeman that the fire had arisen in the ash-pit which goes down into the cellar, from (it is supposed) some hot cinders having fallen on some oak beams which run across nearly under the fire-place. Had not the fire been discovered early, as it providentially was, the total destruction of the beams would not have been a matter of very long time, and then the house would have probably fallen in, burying the inmates in the ruins, even if the fire should have extended further, which very improbable, the internal part of the house being old. Happily, the damage actually is done comparatively slight.

----------------------------

Some background about Thomas and the Saracen's Head.

Hereford Journal - Wednesday 11 February 1852

The Saracen's Head.

Mr. Gough, member of the committee appointed to inspect and report on the state of these premises, stated that Mr. Stephens, Mr. Hatton, and himself had examined them, and their opinion, after being put in pretty good repair, they may be let at rent of 35l. a-year; but it would take something like a year's rent to put the house into repair. There were several things, such as fixtures and windows, valued at 10L or ]51., that belonged to the tenant, but which ought to be the property of the landlord.

Mr. Hatton, jun., said, the roof of the large room was a very dilapidated state, and he should like to take the opinion of the Town-Clerk or some other professional man as to whose duty it was to make the repairs. By the lease the tenant covenanted to leave the premises in tenantable state of repair, himself, his heirs, or assigns. The original lessee, Mr. Prothero; had left for some years, and the lease had been handed from one tenant to another, being now in the possession of Mr. Davies. He thought himself that not much less than 50l. would be sufficient for all the repairs. A very respectable tenant (Mr. Barrett) had just taken the Saracen's Head for the remainder of the lease ; but he was not willing to run the risk of entering upon the premises without security from the Council that they would continue him as tenant. It was desirable that the matter should be looked into more closely, and he suggested that some gentleman should move a postponement. 

----------------------------


Hereford Times - Saturday 10 April 1852

Publicans' Licenses.—On Monday last, at the Guildhall, the following licenses were transferred ; that of the City Arms Hotel, from the representatives of the late Mrs Mary Humphreys, to Mr. William Smyth ; that of the Kerry Arms, from Mr. William Smyth to Mr. John Hankins; that of the Punch Bowl, from Mr. John Hankins to Mr. William Smyth ; that of the Ship Inn in the Ross road, from Mr. Joseph Morgan to Mr. Samuel Chard ; that of the Saracen's Head, from Mr. William Davies to Mr. Thomas Barrett; that of the Royal George, Widemarsh-street, from Mr. William Barnes to Mr. Robert Witcombe ; and that of the Elephant and Castle, St. Peter's street,from Mr. Charles Watkins to Mr. Benjamin Browning. A license was granted by the Magistrates for the Bowling Green Inn, in Bewell-street. Some objections were made to the charges of the Magistrates' Clerk, by- Mr. Stephens, but Mr. Charles Owen explained to the Magistrates' satisfaction, and the Mayor remarked that Mr. Owen was always very particular in not exceeding the charges to which he was entitled by Act of Parliament. With respect to the notices required to be given by Act of Parliament to Overseers, &c, on the part of any person applying for the transfer of a license, it was stated that Mr. Smyth had served his own notice. Such services were excused on the present occasion ; but the Mayor stated that on all future occasions, it would be deemed indispensable that these notices should be served by the proper officer of the Court ; a fact we are requested to mention. 

----------------------------


The Saracen's Head. Mr. Hatton stated the proceedings which had been taken by the committee in reference to the state of the Saracen's Head, and their inability to come to any arrangement with Mr. Price or Mr. Hiles. The house is in such a dilapidated state that the present tenant, Mr. Barrett, is obliged to stuff rags and other things in the roof to keep out the wet, and to place pails and buckets to catch the water that runs through, notwithstanding this. Mr. Price or Mr. Hiles was the proper person to repair the house, according to the covenant of the lease to leave the house "in a tenantable state of repair." One half of the roof had been repaired, but the other half was left unrepaired. There was an excellent malthouse attached to the house, but from which the kiln and other appurtenances connected with the malting had been taken away, and applied to the party's own use. This he was in a position to prove in a court of justice. He could not consent to public property being sacrificed in this way without trying in a court of law to make parties do that which they had covenanted to do. The Town- Clerk had written to Mr. Price, who had put the matter in the hands of Mr. Gough, from whom a communication had been received stating that Mr. Price was from home, and requesting the matter to be deferred until Monday next. He thought the committee, after the failure of all their attempts, could do no less than ask the Council to instruct the Town-Clerk to take legal proceedings against the party whom he should consider to be liable, in order that the house might be put in proper repair. To restore the kiln and other things which had been taken away from the malthouse, would cost at least 30l.

Mr. Stephens concurred in Mr. Hatton's recommendation, adding that the rain now came in down to the lower floors, threatening to destroy the whole fabric.

In reply to Mr. Myer, Mr. Hatton said that Mr. Price (who it appears was the last holder of the lease, which was granted 40 years ago to Mr. Prothero), was so determined to get his money from the tenant, that threatened to put in an execution immediately upon the half-year's rent becoming due. In consequence of this, the tenant of the Council (Mr. Barrett) was obliged to pay for fixtures which were not fixtures at all. If the fulfilment of the terms of the lease were not enforced, they would sacrifice 60l. or 70l. altogether.

It was agreed, upon the proposition of Mr. Myer, seconded by Mr. Parry, that the Town Clerk be authorised to take legal proceedings against the party who is liable, to enforce the proper repairing of the house, according to the covenant of the lease, and the restoration of all fixtures which have been illegally abstracted ; this resolution not to prevent the committee from accepting any reasonable terms, if such should be offered by Mr. Price or his solicitor. 

----------------------------

Hereford Times - Saturday 11 December 1852

THE LATE CAPTURE OF THE LLANOVER BURGLARS.

TO THE EDITOR OF THE HEREFORD TIMES.

Sir, —Having seen in the columns of your paper of the 27th ult. two letters, hearing the signatures of “Samuel Hawkins,” P.C., of Saint Devereux, and "Walter Prosser," farmer, of Trelough, in the same parish, wherein they take upon themselves all the merit of the capture of the men, taken in this city on the 5th ult., for the late burglary at Llanover, I should esteem a particular favour, having been principally concerned in the capture of one of the burglars, if you will allow me a brief space to make a few remarks upon some of the passages contained in those letters, and to state to the public the real facts of the case regards the capture in which I was concerned. I should have written upon this subject last week, had it not happened that my time of late has been much occupied in the discharge of my duties as one of the Serjeants of the Herefordshire Militia, that I had not time to attend to it at an earlier period. It is not intention to follow Mr. Hawkins (with whom have the most to do) through the details of his letter respecting his suspicions of whom the parties were when he passed them near the parish church of St. Devereux, his complaint against his superior officer (P S. Paine, of the Abbeydore district for not doing as he desired him, &c, &c.; but I shall principally confine myself to writing what occurred relative to the prisoner that was captured near Wyebridge, and to what more immediately concerns myself.


The following are the true facts of the case :—Between six and seven o'clock the evening of the 5th November, P.C. Hawkins called house and requested me to go with him in search of a man, whom he said he was in pursuit of for passing bad money at Trelough, never mentioning to me that he had the least suspicion he was one the men engaged in the burglary at Llanover although in his letter he says he had such suspicion when he previously saw them near the church at St..Devereux. Hawkins told me that the man he was pursuit of was 5 ft. 4 in. in height, whereas the height of the one we captured afterwards proved to be 5 ft. 7 in. I went with Hawkins, as he requested, and he placed me and Mr. Prosser in one of the recesses on Wyebridge, in order that might identify the party if he should pass that way. During the time we were waiting there a great number of persons passed, and among the rest three men, of whom I took particular notice, and one of whom I immediately suspected was the man “wanted” by Hawkins. I immediately crossed from my place of concealment to the opposite side of the road, and after looking each of the men in the face, I called Mr. Prosser and asked him if one of them (the man suspected) was not the man that Hawkins wanted. Mr. Prosser assured me he was perfectly satisfied that neither of them was the man, they were all too tall. Notwithstanding Mr. Prosser's assurance to the contrary, I was pretty sure that the party I had noticed was the man Hawkins wanted, as he continued looking back, and pretended to call to another party behind him ; and at that moment Mr. Prosser turned into the Saracen's Head to take some refreshment. Hawkins then returned from the city, whither he had gone to give information, and asked me if I had seen anything of the man he had given me the description of. I told him that I had seen some men whom I suspected, but Mr. Prosser had assured me they were all taller than the man he was seeking for. Hawkins then invited me into the Saracen's Head to have glass of ale, but, from prudential motives, I declined his invitation, telling him that I would go in and have one when he came out, thinking that, if went in with him, the man might pass in the meantime, and that the capture might thus be prevented. During the time Hawkins remained in the Saracen's Head, the man previously particularly referred to (whose name proved to be Arnold) returned, when he appeared to be much confused. I then followed him into Wyebridge-street, and near the Black Lion met a boy named Wm. Mason, whom I requested to go to the Saracen's Head and tell Hawkins to follow me up Wyebridge-street. Hawkins shortly overtook me, and I told him I thought Arnold was the man he wanted, which I was led to believe from own observations of his conduct. Having heard that he would have to pass through some water on his road from St. Devereux to this city, Hawkins and I felt his trousers, and found they were wet. We brought our prisoner back to the end of the bridge near the Saracen's Head, when he endeavoured to make " a bolt" down the steps to the side of the river, but we prevented him from succeeding in his attempt. Whilst I was holding the prisoner by the right side of the collar, Hawkins having hold of him on the other side, he drew something from his right pocket, which l at first thought was case-knife. I immediately attempted to seise it, as I thought by the handle, but then found it was a pistol, the muzzle of which I endeavoured to avert in a direction not to injure any party, and in struggling for it the cap went off, but the contents the pistol .it being loaded with powder and ball, providentially did not explode. When the cap exploded. P.C. Hawkins cried out most manfully for assistance perhaps thinking he was shot—and Mr. Barrett, landlord of the Saracen's Head, came out and seized the ruffian behind. We then dragged him into the Saracen's Head, where I allowed Hawkins the honour of searching him, of which appeared very desirous. Mr. Barrett knew that I had been stationed on the bridge some time previous, on the “look out" for some party, but he knew not whom. We afterwards conducted the man to the station-house, when we were informed that P.C. Preece had captured another party. In his letter, Hawkins says: I immediately recognised him as one of the parties had seen at St. Devereux ; "whereas the fact was that Hawkins, on seeing him, said he was not one of the men, and requested he might set at liberty. Upon this I tapped Mr. Adams on the shoulder, and told him I was certain he was one of the men who passed over the bridge with the other prisoner, Arnold; I made a request that he might be detained, and he was detained accordingly. I was, sir, well satisfied with the fair and impartial account of the evidence which appeared in one of your previous numbers ; and had not P.C. Hawkins, with his eye on the reward, thought proper to sound on his trumpet the false notes of his own praise, I should not have troubled you with the present remarks, which I declare to be a fair and honest account regards the capture of the prisoner Arnold, but which is strangely at variance with the account supplied to you by Hawkins. Moreover, I would ask why did not Hawkins, if he thought the men were really the perpetrators of the burglary at Llanover, when he saw them at St. Devereux, tell me his suspicions, instead of telling me that he was only in pursuit of one man for passing a bad half crown? And what will all his brother police-officers think of Hawkins when I inform them that, on the Saturday after the capture he went to my house and endeavoured to gain possession from my wife of the pistol I had taken from Arnold, and which he knew I ought to produce in evidence? And ought not Hawkins to have told me that loaded fire-arms had been taken from the prisoner whom Paine had captured, that I might have been more on guard in apprehending another of the gang? I perfectly agree with Mr. Prosser when he says “let merit have its reward” but I do ask you, sir, I do ask the public, whether, after what I have stated, and which I solemnly declare to he the truth it, to .Mr. Samuel Hawkins belongs all the merit capturing Arnold, or whether he ought, as he would wish, to receive the whole of the reward ? What probably would have become of the prisoner Arnold, if had accepted Hawkins's invitation to accompany him drink ale, instead of having looked after the prisoner ? The probability is that he would entirely have escaped.

I am, sir, an unfortunate yuong man who has been in the service of my Queen and Country, from which I was discharged on account of ill health ; and therefore I think it hard that a brother officer in the police-force should endeavour, from selfish motives, to deprive me of just share of the praise and reward due for the capture of one of these daring burglars, and to make the world believe that all the merit belongs to himself.

THOMAS BENNETT,

Member the City Police, and late of her

Majesty's 30th Regt. of Foot.

Hereford, December 6th, 1852. 

----------------------------

Hereford Journal - Wednesday 30 March 1853

LOST.

A BLACK GREYHOUND DOG, about twelve months old, little ticked with white, not quickly discernible; answers to the name of " Tippo." Whoever will bring him to Mr. Barrett, of the Saracen's Head, shall be rewarded for their trouble. If Stolen, whoever will give information of the thief shall, on conviction, receive One Sovereign Reward. 

----------------------------


Hereford Journal - Wednesday 13 April 1853

Henry Smith, railway labourer, was charged with having broken "a jug and two glasses the Saracen's Head Inn, for which he refused to pay. Mr. Barrett, the landlord, did not appear to prosecute, and the defendant was then convicted of having been drunk and using obscene language.—Mr. Bennett told the defendant that the Bench, who had hitherto dealt most leniently with railway labourers, could not permit such conduct as he had been guilty of to go unpunished, particularly when it was committed on the Sabbath. He would now be fined in the small sum of 1s. and costs, or seven days imprisonment, but if he ever came there again he would be fined heavily. 

----------------------------

Hereford Times - Saturday 01 April 1854

City of Hereford.

To inn-keepers and others

Unreserved by Auction, on Friday and Saturday next, April 8th and 9th, 1854.

Mr WILLIAM BOTTRELL will SELL by AUCTION, on Friday and Saturday next, the 8th and 9th days of April, 1854, on the Premises, at the Saracen's Head Inn, Wye-bridge, the property of Thomas Barrett, who is leaving the Premises, the whole of the neat and modern HOUSEHOLD and EFFECTS, likewise the STOCK, in Spirits, Beer and Cider, Casks, Hogsheads, and Barrels, Brewing Utensils, Fixtures, Gas Fittings, &c.-Particulars in bills.

Sale each day punctually at 2 o'clock. [2951

----------------------------


Thomas Barrett, Saracen's Head, near Wye bridge and his extensive preparations for emigrating to Australia

Thanks to a Lost Cousins connection I suspect that the Mr Thomas Barrett of the Saracen's Head, near Wye bridge mentioned in this article, is likely the first child of Francis Barrett and Catherine Pritchard of Herefordshire.

Thomas Barrett was born on 24 Apr 1820 in Burghill, Herefordshire, England and he married Esther SLACK on 10 Feb 1848 in Hereford, Herefordshire, England.

The Mr Pritchard mentioned in the article is likely Edward Pritchard, Thomas Barrett's uncle...

Hereford Times - Saturday 20 August 1853

COUNTY COURT— Thursday, Before J. M. Herbert, Esq. Breach of Contract.—The only case of interest at the County Court, held on Thursday last, was an action for breach of contract, in which Mr. Thomas Barrett, of the Saracen's Head, near Wye bridge, was the plaintiff, and Mr. John Banton, of Ross, the defendant.—Mr. Pritchard, who appeared for the plaintiff, stated that, Mr. Barrett being about relinquishing his business with a view of emigrating to Australia, the defendant entered into agreement to take to the stock, fixtures, &c, of the Saracen's Head a valuation. Mr. W. James, the auctioneer, was appointed valuer on behalf of the plaintiff, and Messrs. Morgan and Son, of Ross, on the part of the defendant. The valuation amounted to £511, and agreement was drawn up in which these words were inserted, " Either party neglecting to fulfil the terms of the contract, is to forfeit the sum of £50 liquidated damages.' The contract, he should show, was afterwards broken the defendant, and the present action was brought to recover the £50 damages under that agreement. What the defence would be, he did not know, but he thought it probable that this sum of £50 would be said to be a penalty and not liquidated damages, and that the plaintiff was only entitled to recover for any actual damage which he might have sustained the non-fulfilment of the contract. The words the agreement, however, were so clear that could not imagine his Honour would have the slightest difficulty in distinguishing between penalty and liquidated damages.—Mr. Lanwarne, for the defendant, said that Mr. Pritchard had quite anticipated the point he was about raise, and quoted several cases, analagous to the present, in which it was decided that, although in the agreements the sums were described as ”liquidated settled damages to be paid and forfeited without deduction”, they were in fact penalties and not liquidated damages. In the case of Davies v. Penton, Chief Justice Abbott made this remark —" A great deal has been said about the different import of the words penalty and stipulated damages, but I am of opinion, and shall always be so until has been otherwise determined by the higher Courts, that, whether the terms penalty or liquidated damage be employed, the party shall only be allowed to recover what damage he has really sustained." Mr. Justice Bayley also says, " Where the sum which is to be accrued for the performance of agreement of which there are several acts, will, some instances, be too much, and others too small a compensation, for the injury thereby sustained, that sum is to be considered a penalty." Now in the present agreement there were no less than five stipulations : first, that he should take to the premises secondly, have the effects valued on cer-day; thirdly, take to the agreement by which the premises are held under the Corporation ; fourthly, pay a particular sum a particular time; and fifthly, that he is to do everything in the agreement or forfeit a penalty £50. He (Mr. Lanwarne) therefore submitted that the plaintiff was only entitled to recover for any actual loss proved to have been sustained. —The Judge remarked that the Courts had always struggled to get at the real amount of damages sustained but he thought the present discussion premature. —Mr. Pritchard, reply to the objection, quoted the case of Lowe v. Pearce, in which the defendant agreed to pay to the plaintiff £1,000 if he married any person but herself, the forfeiture being there held to be liquidated damages and not a penalty. He also quoted Fletcher r. Dowle, and other cases, from which he drew the conclusion that, where the forfeiture was larger than the sum to be paid under the contract, it must be considered penalty and not liquidated damages. In the present instance the forfeiture was £50, the contract £511. —Mr. Lanwarne replied that the cases referred to by Mr. Pritchard quite confirmed the view which he had taken, viz., that where there one specific act, the breach of which incurred a fixed penalty, as in the case of Lowe v. Pearce, it was to be considered liquidated damages; but when there were five or six, the non-performance of any one of which would a breach of the contract, it was considered as a penalty and the party could only claim for actual damage sustained —His Honor was inclined take Mr. Lanwarne's view of the case, and quoted from Chitty very strong opinion of Chief Justice Tindal on the point.—After some discussion, Mr. Wm. James was called, and deposed that he was employed behalf of the plaintiff to value the effects at the Saracen's Head, Messrs. Morgan of Ross being engaged on the part of the defendant, who formerly kept the Royal Hotel tap at Ross; the stock, fixtures, &c., amounted to £511; the defendant was put in possession on the Monday, and remained so until the Wednesday, when he gave up the key to the plaintiff. A proposition was made by the plaintiff that the defendant should pay £140 down, and give joint notes of hand for the payment of the remainder from persons of responsibility, at three, six, and twelve months, and that £100 should remain until it would be more convenient for him to pay it. After making one or two attempts, defendant failed to give the required security, and gave up the premises. The defendant called at his house once or twice before the agreement was prepared, when he told him that the plaintiff's reason for leaving was that he was about to start for Australia ; defendant asked him what he thought the amount of the valuation would be ; he replied he could not tell within £20, but said it would amount as near possible to £500 and that it would be useless for him to think of entering into it unless he could command that sum. His answer was, “I know what my stock will fetch Ross, and I can command £.500 at least. In consequence the contract not being fulfilled, Mr. Barrett had been obliged to keep possession of the house, after having gone the expense of erecting a wooden house, and made extensive preparations for emigrating to Australia; witness' charge for making the valuation was 2 1/2per cent., which, with the stamp, and some other expenses, amounted to £13 10s. 2d. ; he should consider the sum of £50 very inadequate to remunerate the plaintiff for his loss.—Cross-examined : Knew that the plaintiff had gone to considerable expense in making preparations, but could not give any other specific item of loss except the £13 10s. 2d. ; he could not, of course, tell whether the going to Australia would have been an advantage or a disadvantage to the plaintiff, and had not taken into account, in the sum he had mentioned, the probability of his success in Australia ; plaintiff had been at some expense in erecting the wooden house to take with him ; and he did not consider it a saleable article, inasmuch as not one person in a thousand who emigrated to Australia thought of taking a house with them; the defendant was the occupation of the premises, and received the money for what was sold from the Monday afternoon until the Wednesday, it being usual for the incoming tenant to receive all money soon as stock had been taken by the excise officer, but he had been informed by Mr. Barrett that the defendant had handed over all the money which he received; he should say that very good trade is done at the Saracen's Head, but probably not so extensive it was prior the closing of the tram-road. —Mr. Barrett, the plaintiff, deposed that after the agreement was signed and the valuation made, as described Mr. James, he saw the defendant and asked him if he was prepared to pay the amount; he said that Mr. Morgan would be there presently, and they would try and get the matter settled ; Mr. Morgan shortly afterwards came, and the defendant then said that he had been disappointed in letting his house at Ross, and that his stock had not fetched anything like so much he had expected it would; plaintiff offered to take bills for £311, saying that he would leave £100 in his father's hands upon approved security ; defendant took possession on the Monday, and remained there until the Wednesday, receiving the money for the drink which was sold ; on the Wednesday he (plaintiff) met the defendant, Mr. James, and Mr. Morgan, at the Green Dragon, when the former said he could get no one to join him in bills for the amount; plaintiff asked him what was to be done, to which he replied, "You must take to the place again." After some little difficulty, the money which the defendant had received while in possession of the premises was returned; the wooden house, which cost him £29 13s, was partly finished when the defendant threw up the contract, and he (plaintiff) had expended a further sum of £20 on his outfit; altogether he had spent about £60 in making preparations for starting, independently of the expense of the valuation; he had been offered £10 for the house; he was least £30 out pocket, including Mr. James' charge, in consequence of the defendant not fulfilling his contract. —Cross-examined: Saw defendant Ross on the Sunday before the agreement was executed; the forfeiture of £50 was objected to, and the substitution of £5 suggested, to which he would not consent; defendant said that perhaps should be £100 deficient, upon which he (plaintiff) agreed to allow it to stand over for twelve months; had not given up all idea of going to Australia, but had no prospect of letting his house; defendant offered to pay him £140, including bill of £60, which he refused to take, because he knew nothing of the parties by whom it was drawn, and to give bills for the remainder, but this he declined to accept; had never said that he was glad it had ended as it had, and that he would go back into the business; the outfit consisted of boots and shoes and clothes, which are worth, to any one who wanted them, as much he gave for them, but he should find it difficult to dispose of them for half what they had cost; if he ultimately went to Australia, they would available.—Mr. Lanwarne contended that the question for his Honor to decide was the actual amount of damage which the plaintiff sustained. Mr. James had estimated that damage at £50, while the plaintiff himself estimated it at £30. Mr. James's claim of £13 he admitted he could not get rid of; but, with regard to the wooden mansion which the plaintiff had built, he certainly thought it rather a peculiar way of estimating the loss to say that he had been offered £10 for it. If any person about to emigrate required such a thing, he would readily purchase it at a premium of £10 rather than a loss of £20. It would take no harm by remaining for short time—on the other hand, the wood would become more thoroughly seasoned. The plaintiff, he therefore contended, was not entitled to compensation on account of this house. And, with regard to the outfit, a few pairs of boots and shoes were no ill store, and it was well known that articles of that description improved by keeping. -The Judge: But people cannot afford to lie out of their money. Mr Lanwarne: We are consistently told that there is not a better investment for money, if a man wants to make his fortune, than by buying boots and shoes “green” and keeping them hung up until they are seasoned. -The Judge: I have seen such announcements respecting Moses and Sons' clothes; but not boots and shoes. (Laughter.)-Mr Lanwarne: Moses and Sons' clothes will wear to pieces, but is well known that boots and shoes improve by keeping (laughter) ; therefore, I contend that, upon this point also, the plaintiff is not entitled to compensation. His Honor asked the plaintiff was disposed to take the small amount (£30) at once, without his considering the question of liquidated damages.-Mr. Pritchard assented —Mr. Lanwarne hoped, in that case, the defendant would be allowed the house and the stock of boots and shoes and he would not then object to the decision. (Laughter )—His Honor: You can have them by paying -£29 10s. for the house and £20 for the outfit – Judgment was then given for £30 with expenses, £10 of which was paid at once, and the remainder to be paid by monthly instalments of £5.