APPENDIX TO CHRONICLE. 251 



Cross-examined. — On the day 

 after the fire he was seen by Mr. 

 Beetham. The looking-glasses 

 were not included in the 1,300/. 

 his estimate of the stock ; he had 

 not said that they were, but that 

 they were worth 500/. The wit- 

 ness had been in the plaintiff's 

 service 11 years. Plaintiff had 

 formerly been in partnership with 

 Mr. Abbott, but Mist failed in 

 1814, and established the Bazaar 

 two years afterwards. There had 

 then been two sales, at which 

 many of the articles were bought 

 in, and many not put up to auc- 

 tion. The Bazaar was closed in 

 Feb. 1817. The witness often 

 went to the premises, where there 

 were some pieces of candle, and 

 a number of phosphorus bottles 

 in earthenware, which had been 

 left unsold. On the day of the 

 fire the witness had gone to the 

 plaintiffs room from a quai'ter to 

 half-past 12 to speak respecting 

 the non-settlement of an account, 

 but he was not there : all then 

 was safe. 



Thomas Wagstaff proved that 

 the value of the stock in November, 

 1816, was 2,000/., and after the 

 last sale there remained about 

 1,4'00/. worth of property on the 

 premises. The fitting up of the 

 Bazaar had cost more than 500/. 

 wages, and part of the materials. 



An account of the stock was 

 produced, made out by Polhill 

 from the books of the plaintiff 

 previous to the fire, not including 

 looking-glasses. All were on the 

 premises at the time of the fire, 

 according to the evidence of Pol- 

 hill, who was recalled to prove 

 the account. 



Mr. James Davenport, an 

 earthenware manufacturer, of 



Longport, in Staffordshire, stated, 

 that very shortly before the fire 

 he was negotiating for the pur- 

 chase of the plaintiff's stock, an 

 account of which had been taken 

 by Polliill ; he left town before it 

 was finished, but having seen a 

 rough estimate, he offered 2,500/. 

 for it to the plaintiff. He thought 

 the bargain would have been a 

 good one ; at least, he had seen 

 enough of the stock to know 

 thathe should not be doing wrong. 

 The plaintiff required 3,500/., 

 besides a further sum for the 

 lease. Soon after the witness 

 left town he heard of the fire, or 

 he should have returned to renew 

 the treaty. 



Cross-examined. — His partner 

 had been assignee under a com- 

 mission against the plaintiff, and 

 the witness was a creditor to the 

 full amount of the sura he 

 offered ; but it was agreed that a 

 certain sum in cash should be 

 given to the plaintiff. 



Mr. Woodhouse, solicitor to 

 the last witness, confirmed his 

 evidence, in some particulars, re- 

 lative to the treaty. It had been 

 agreed in September, 1817, that 

 the commission against the plain- 

 tiff should be superseded. 



Robert Bond proved the value 

 of the fixtures put up for the ba- 

 zaar ; the wood-work only, cost 

 more than 400/. 



Mr. Justice Bayley, in this 

 stage of the cause, put it to Mr. 

 Scarlett, who was on the other 

 side, whether it was meant to be 

 said that any part of the property 

 liad been clandestinely or other- 

 wise removed before the fire. 



Mr. Scarlett answered in the 

 negative, adding, that he meant 

 to show that the property was 



not 



