business, nor the purpose for which the shop was leased. The sensational announcement of the defender was such as to excite alarm, and before publishing which the defender would have done well to have satisfied the landlord and got his consent. In addition to the above-quoted words, the still more ominous words were added-"Great reductions have been made in order that the whole may be immediately disposed of. An early call will secure bargains." A landlord is not bound to know the extent and value of the rolling stock in his tenant's premises, or the manner in which he carries on business with the ebb and flow of goods. That the defender had another shop, between which and the pursuer's shop an interchange of stock took place, would rather add to the entanglement of the case, as the pursuer was not bound to get into collision with a competing landlord. The identity of stock might not be free from difficulty, and if he had ventured to carry back stock in John Street, the landlord of that shop might have made reprisals of stock in Methven Street. This was appealed, and after a hearing the Sheriff pronounced the following judgment: The Sheriff having heard parties' procurators on the defender's appeal, and made avizandum with and considered the proof and whole process, affirms the Interlocutor appealed from, and decerns, NOTE. There is no doubt that a landlord who adopts the precautionary measure of a sequestration for rent not due but only current, as laid down in the case of Gordon v. Suttie, "must show good cause for it," or he will certainly have to bear the expense of it himself. The present case is a very peculiar one, and the Sheriff thinks that the circumstances under which the pursuer applied for sequestration were such as to justify that step, especially as the defender refused to find caution for payment of the Whitsunday rent. The sale of the defender's stock of goods, which was so conspicuously advertised, was of such a character as to lead the pursuer naturally to believe that the defender intended to sell off all the goods in his shop, and if the defender did so, the pursuer would then be left without the usual security upon which a landlord relies for payment of his rent. There is no doubt that the defender contemplated selling off all his goods in the shop leased by him from the pursuer, so as to give possession to a new tenant even before the term of Whitsunday. In these circumstances, it is thought that although the defender's personal security may now properly be regarded as having been such as to leave little ground for apprehension as to the ultimate payment of the rent, still the pursuer at the time was justified in preventing the possibility of the real security which he had in virtue of his hypothec from being defeated by a sale advertised in such pressing and peremptory terms as that notified by the defender. for stores furnished to Blyth, master of the barque Wolverine, belonging to the defenders, while at Glasgow. The defence was, that the stores were not supplied on the order of the defenders or their ship's-husband, but solely on the order and responsibility of the master, who is now deceased. A record having been made up, and parties' procurators heard, the Sheriff-Substitute pronounced the following Interlocutor: The Sheriff-Substitute, having heard parties' procurators on the import of the concluded proof and whole cause, Finds it proved, in point of fact, that the articles in the account sued for were ordered by the deceased Peter Blyth, master of the barque Wolverine, from the pursuers, and that the defenders, the owners of the said ship, did not give any authority to the said Peter Blyth to order the said articles, or to the pursuer to furnish the same: Finds that the said articles were furnishings for the use of the cabin during the voyage, or for the said Peter Blyth on his own account, to be sold by him to the men: Finds it proved that the said Peter Blyth received from the owners of the Wolverine an allowance of £5 per month for cabin stores: Finds it proved that the defender, Robert Dunlop, was in the practice of acting, and at the time that the furnishings were ordered was acting, as ship's-husband, or managing owner of the Wolverine, and that this was known in Glasgow to parties connected with shipping: Finds, in point of law, that while the master of a ship in a home port is entitled to order the common and necessary repairs and furnishings of naval stores and daily subsistence for a ship so as to bind both him and the owners, that this power to do so does not extend to extraordinary repairs, or to the victualling of the ship for a voyage: Finds that in the question raised under the present action, Glasgow is to be regarded as the home port: Finds, in point of law, that the articles in the account sued for were not furnishings of the description that a master is entitled to order in a home port, without the authority or sanction of the ship's husband or managing owner, and, therefore, that the said Peter Blyth had not power to bind the owners of the Wolverine, or to render them liable for the furnishings sued for: Therefore assoilzies the defenders from the conclusions of the action: Finds the pursuers liable in expenses, allows an account thereof to be lodged, and remits the same, when lodged, to the auditor of Court to tax and report, and decerns. NOTE.-The Sheriff Substitute has adopted Mr Bell's de. finition of the powers of the master in a home port, supported as it is by the authority of Lord Abinger, as cited at page 104 of Abbott (10th edition). The furnishings were cabin stores for the master, who, under an arrangement which is stated in the proof to be common, received from the owners a monthly sum for cabin money. They were not of the nature of repairs or of naval stores necessary for the voyage or of daily subsistence for the crew. They were not for consump tion in the harbour, and there were no men living on board at the time. They were not of the description of necessaries for which the master possesses the power to pledge the credit of the owners in the home port. The pursuers do not seem to have made any inquiry as to the owners, but to have SHERIFF COURT, RENFREWSHIRE-GREENOCK. received the order on the credit and responsibility of the (SHERIFFS FRASER AND TENNENT.) WRIGHT, DICK, & Co. v. DUNLOP AND OTHERS. Shipmaster, powers of-Stores-Home port.-The master of a barque, having a ship's-husband, ordered stores in a home port. The master died, and the store merchants raised an action against the shipowners for the stores supplied to the master-Held that it was not proved that the master had special powers to order goods in a home port; and that his having done so did not render the owners liable, and action dismissed. THE pursuers, ship-store merchants in Glasgow, sued the defenders, shipowners in Greenock, for £19 14s 9d, master himself. The advice given by Lord Tenterden to parties supplying furnishings to ships, were it followed, would render actions such as this unnecessary. He says (Abbott, p. 29):-"Orders are received from the person, usually the master, in apparent charge and custody of the vessel, against whom personally, unless at the time of dealing, he disclaimed all personal responsibility. The tradesman has a right of action; but if that be unsatisfactory, as it frequently must be, he should, before he seeks his remedy against others, inquire for whose use and benefit his labour was given or his goods supplied; who were the immediate owners, absolute or temporary, at the time the orders were received; under whose authority the captain acted; whose servant or agent he was at the time he gave them; and he may save himself much trouble if, instead of relying blindly on the credit of the ship, or of the owners of the ship,' he be advised to make all these inquiries before he sets to work or parts with the possession of his goods." It does not appear that there is any claim against the owners in this case. The pursuer appealed and reclaimed; thereafter the on the representation of the respondent, to deposit with Sheriff pronounced the following judgment: The Sheriff having considered the reclaiming petition for the pursuers, answers thereto for the defenders', proof productions, and whole process, refuses the prayer of the pursuers' reclaiming petition, dismisses the pursuers' appeal, adheres to the Interlocutor of the Sheriff Substitute appealed against, and decerns: Finds the pursuers liable in additional expenses to the defenders, and allows the same to be added to the account formerly ordered to be lodged, and remits the same, when lodged, to the auditor of Court to tax the same and to report. NOTE. The captain of a vessel in a home port has no power to bind the owners of a vessel for furnishings made upon his order unless he has express or implied authority; there was no express authority in the present case, and the law does not imply such authority except in two cases-First, where there is no ship's husband; and, second, where the furnishings are of such urgent necessity that there is no time to communicate with the ship's-husband. In the present case the furnishings were made at a home port. It is not material in this case to consider whether the furnishings were necessary; the sole question is, with whom did the pursuer contract? Express authority by the owner to the captain is neither averred nor proved. Implied authority there was none, because the only two conditions in which such authority could exist did not take place. There was a ship's husband taking charge of the victualling of the ship, and of procuring all necessary furnishings. It is of no moment that the pursuer did not know this; but besides, he has himself to blame, because he never inquired. In the next place, the furnishings were not of that urgent character which would justify the making them although there was a ship's-husband. They were furnishings to be used in the course of the voyage, and the voyage did not commence until at least four days after they were made. The pursuers had ample time to communicate with the owners or the ship's husband before the vessel sailed. It does not appear from the proof very clearly what became of the articles furnished by the pursuers, nor who consumed them. The Sheriff is not aware of any decision by the Scottish Courts to the effect that if such furnishings had been necessaries, and had been consumed by the crew in the course of the voyage, the owners would not have been liable though the furnishings were made by the order of the captain in a home port where a ship's-husband had been taking charge. That question, however, does not arise in this case. The ground of action is different, and the proof does not afford the means of determining this point. SHERIFF COURT, LANARKSHIRE-GLASGOW. (SHERIFFS SIR A. ALISON AND STRATHERN.) Mrs HAMILTON and HUSBAND, and D. B. M'GREGOR (Dickson Hamilton's Trustee), v. W. L. M·Pпun. Deposit-Pledge.-Articles were deposited in security for a specific purpose, in terms of a letter holograph of the pledge. The specific purpose was not accomplished, but other and subsidiary purposes having a similar end in view were begun. In an action for re-delivery of the pledge, the defence, that the subsidiary purposes were covered by the terms of the letter of deposit, repelled. THIS was a summary action for re-delivery of a gold watch and chain, and a silver watch, deposited in security with the defender. him a silver watch and a gold Geneva watch and chain as security for the expenses to be incurred by him in obtaining sequestration of her son Dickson Hamilton; that D. Hamilton & Co. and Dickson Hamilton were sequestrated on 14th April, 1864, and a trustee appointed, but the sequestration had not been obtained by the respondent, nor had he incurred or become responsible for any part of the expenses for which the estates were liable, or for which the watches and chain were deposited with him, and could not be retained in security by him. The respondent had refused to re-deliver up the watches, and had intimated his intention of selling them, and interdict was craved against disposal of them and for redelivery. Appearance was entered, and the defence was stated in a minute. Preliminary-No title to sue, the articles in question not being the property of the pursuer. On the merits-A denial of the whole averments in the petition; and, in particular, that the articles specified in the petition are or were the property of the pursuer, and that she has any interest in them, and averred that the articles in question belonged to Dickson Hamilton, shipbroker and coal merchant in Glasgow and delivered to the defender for the purpose of taking out sequestration of his estates; that the pursuer employed a law agent, and some steps were taken, but the only creditor (qualified to concur in said petition) of the said Dickson Hamilton having declined, such proceedings were abandoned, and the defender, at the request of the said Dickson Hamilton, procured a trust deed in his favour, and, under this trust deed, entered upon the possession and management of his estate, and in the knowledge of the effects in question, and others held by the pursuer for her son, being his property, incurred considerable expenses in carrying out the provisions of the same, and in raising process of cessio bonorum at the instance of the said Dickson Hamilton; that the defender also intromitted, as trustee, with the funds of the bankrupt, but to a very limited extent; that shortly after said trust deed was granted, by some means or other unknown to the defender, a petition for sequestration of the estates of the said Dickson Hamilton was presented, although in his statement of liabilities no creditor's name appeared who was qualified to concur therein; that the said David Balderston M'Gregor was decerned trustee on said estate, whereupon he requested the defender to deliver over to him, as such trustee, the articles now sued for, and the defender agreed to do so upon receiving payment of the sums expended by him as trustee under the trust deed; that the defender is, and has always been, ready to deliver said effects to the trustee upon being re-paid the sums disbursed by him in connection with the said trust deed. The record was then closed. By Interlocutor of 13th May, 1864, the watches and chain were ordered to be deposited in the clerk's hands. Parties' procurators having been heard, the SheriffSubstitute pronounced the following Interlocutor: Having heard parties' procurators on the closed record, Finds it instructed by the writing No. 6/2 that the female pursuer deposited with the defender the watches and chain in question, as security for the expenses therein specified, he is The petition set forth that the petitioner was induced, therefore barred from challenging her title to claim restitution, he having derived his right qua depositary solely from her, therefore repels the preliminary defence; and, on the merits, Finds that, as on 19th March, 1864, said watches and chain were placed in the defender's hands, "as security for the expenses in the sequestration of her son, Mr Dickson Hamilton," these articles can be retained only for that purpose, and cannot be diverted to any other: Finds it stated in defence, that the defender had attempted to obtain sequestration of the pursuer's son's estates, but had afterwards abandoned the attempt, on finding that he could not procure the requisite concurrence of a creditor, so no expenses had been incurred in the sequestration, in contemplation whereof said articles had been so deposited; and the explanatory statement, that expenses were incurred under a trust deed which the pursuer's son had granted in favour of the defender, and under a process of cessio bonorum, at her son's instance, against his creditors, is irrelevant, because the deposit did not apply to such expenses; therefore repels the defences, and appoints said watches and chain, which were consigned in the hands of the Clerk of Court, under Interlocutor of 13th May last, to be delivered up to the female pursuer as craved: Finds the defender liable in expenses, allows an account thereof to be lodged, and remits the same to the auditor to tax and report, and decerns. NOTE.-There are two principles which plainly rule the decision in this case. The first is that a party cannot be allowed to impugn the title of his own author, wherefore the defender's objection to the female pursuer reclaiming the property in question has been repelled; the second principle is that guarantees or deposits in security must be strictly construed and applied, on which account said property must be held (as expressed in the defender's own acknowledgment) to cover expenses in the intended but abortive sequestration alone, and may not be extended to cover the expenses of any other unexpressed and different proceedings. building Company, Glasgow, and three individual partners named, "at least the only individual partners of the said company known to the pursuer," and concluded for £2000, as reparation for the loss, injury, and damage sustained by the pursuer through the defenders' failure and refusal to build, and complete, finish, launch, and deliver to the pursuer an iron screw-steamer, or vessel, of the description specified in a minute of agreement betwixt the pursuer and defender, dated 21st January, 1864, and relative specification therein mentioned, in breach of the said minute of agreement, and of the contract therein expressed, and here held as repeated, with the interest thereof, at the rate of five pounds per centum per annum, from the 8th day of May current, 1864, till payment, and with expenses. The record was made up by condescendence and defences. The clause in the minute of agreement, out of which the present action has arisen, is as follows:-"The said F. A. Tamplin does hereby promise and agree with and to the said Union Ship-building Company that he, the said F. A. Tamplin, shall duly pay to the said Union Ship-building Company, as and for the price and purchase money for the said screw steamer, the sum of four thousand four hundred and ninety pounds (say £4,490 sterling), such payments to be made by four instalments, at the times stated below, and in manner following, viz.: £750 (say seven hundred and fifty pounds) by approved This was appealed, and, after a hearing, the Sheriff bill at four months when the keel is laid; £750 by appronounced the following judgment: Having heard parties' procurators under the defender's appeal, upon the Interlocutor appealed against, and whole process, in respect the articles in question were lodged by Mr Hamilton with his mother, the female pursuer, and by her deposited with the defender in security of the expenses of the sequestration, in respect when the purpose fel off the defender should have returned the articles to the party from whom he got them, leaving her to account for them to her son, from whom she got them, who is said to be the owner of them, and in respect articles impledged for a specific debt or purpose the right of retention is confined to that particular debt or purpose, and cannot be extended to other or subsequent transactions, dismisses the appeal, and adheres to the Interlocutor appealed against. Act. J. B. CHRISTIE, for R. M'CULLOCH. 14TH OCTOBER, 1864. SHERIFF COURT, LANARKSHIRE-GLASGOW. (SIR A. ALISON AND H. GLASSFORD BELL.) F. A. TAMPLIN, and Mandatory, v. THE UNION Contract. What is an approved Bill? In terms of a contract for building a ship, instalments were to be paid at certain stages of advancement of the vessel in approved bills. On the averment that one of the bills had not been approved of by a bank, the progress of the vessel was stopped. In an action of damages for breach of contract, a proof was allowed of the circumstances under which the bill was refused. QuestionWhat is an approved bill? proved bill at four months when the vessel is plated; £750 when the vessel is launched, and the balance of £2240 by approved bill at four months when the vessel is delivered over, with all certificates and documents necessary to enable the said F. A. Tamplin to register the said vessel in accordance with the law then in force." In Article 3d of the pursuer's condescendence it was averred that on 1st or 2d March, 1864, the defenders, through their agents, Messrs William Gilchrist & Co., sent to the pursuer a certificate that the keel of the vessel had been laid. This was admitted. Art. 5-Of this date (3d March, 1864) the pursuer transmitted to the defenders' agents his promissory note for £750 at four months from date in favour of the defenders' firm. This was also admitted. Art. 6-Of this date (4th March, 1864) the defenders' said agents acknowledged receipt by letter of the said promissory note "to account of screw-steamer now building for you" (pursuer), and thanked him for his prompt attention. The letter acknowledging receipt of the promissory note was admitted-quoad ultra denied. Art. 7-The pursuer's promissory note was thus a bill or note approved by the defenders, and the method of payment selected by them. This was denied. Art. 8-The said promissory note was retained by the defenders without objection till this date (9th April, 1864), or for one month and five days. This was ad mitted. Article 3d of the defenders' statement-It was, inter alia, averred that in transacting with the pursuer they stipulated that the bills to be granted should be approved bills, that is, negotiable documents, such as could be THE summons in this action is called the Union Ship- readily discounted. Hence the agreement of parties expressly provides that the bills to be granted shall be payment, he cannot sue on the original debt till the bill or approved bills. note has become due, and has not been paid, unless it is known at once to be bad, or has been returned to the original payee by a party to whom he indorsed it without money passing, and remained ever since unpaid in the payee's hands." If the debtor may then be immediately proceeded against for the amount of it may be plausibly contended here that the defenders, to whom his debt, notwithstanding his bill or note having been taken, Art. 7-In writing for and receiving the pursuer's bill, the defenders did not accept, and did not intend to accept it as true and full implement of the obligation relating to the bills, or manner of payment contained in the contract, but on the footing of that obligation sub-payment by "an approved bill" had been stipulated, were, sisting entire; the defenders being unable to judge of the character and worth of the bill till it was actually offered for discount. This was denied. Art. 8.--At the time the defenders received the promissory note the rate of discount was high, and in order to save the discount the defenders laid the promissory note aside, and did not present it to their bankers for discount till on or about the 7th April, 1864. It proceeds to aver that, on or about that date, they offered the pursuer's bill for discount, but that it was declined. The pursuer's answer to this Article was, irrelevant, not known and not admitted. The pursuer pleaded-The pursuer having sustained the loss stated through the defenders' breach of contract in question, is entitled to decree in terms of the conclusions of the summons. a fortiori, entitled to call for such payment as soon as they This Interlocutor was appealed, and after a hearing the Sheriff pronounced the following judgment: Having heard parties procurators under the appeal, upon the Interlocutor appealed against, and whole process, for the reasons stated in the following Note, adheres to the Interlocutor appealed against, and dismisses the appeal. certain article of the defender's statement of facts, it would NOTE. As the Interlocutor here only allows a proof of a be premature to express any opinion on the merits of the case further than this, that the proof allowed appears to be relevant and material to the issue, and to relate to a matter The defenders pleaded-(1) The pursuer having, in the first instance, failed to implement his part of the contract, the defenders were and are freed from the performance of their part thereof; (2) The defenders, not having committed any breach of contract, they are not liable in damages; (3) The pursuer having suffered no loss or damage through the actings of the defenders, the present action is unfounded in law; and (4) Generally-farther into the case, it seems sufficient to observe that it the defenders are entitled to absolvitor, with expenses. The record having been closed, parties' procurators were heard. The Sheriff-Substitute then pronounced the following Interlocutor: Having heard parties' procurators, and reviewed the whole process, before further answer allows the defenders a proof pro ut de jure of the averments contained in Article 8th of the statement of facts in the defences No. 7, and allows the pursuer a conjunct probation, reserving to allow him here. after, if necessary, a proof of the alleged loss and damage sustained by him; grants diligence against witnesses and havers, and appoints the cause to be enrolled in the Diet Roll of the 26th instant, to fix a diet of proof. in which parole proof to assist the Court in judging of mer turns very much upon what is understood in mercantile usage Alt. W. R. BUCHAN. 17TH OCTOBER, 1864. NOTE. It was contended for the pursuer at the debate, SHERIFF COURT, LANARKSHIRE-GLASGOW. it. The defenders, on the other hand, maintained that "an that it is no objection to affulavits that the oath has been taken before a J. P. who is a partner of one of the competitors for the office of trustee. THE competitor Houstoun lodged the following objections: 1. The vote of the said Robert Galt, Junior, as mandatory of Crichton, Pollock & Co., Glasgow, is objected to, in respect (1) That the said Robert Galt, Junior, had no mandate to vote; (2) That the oath or claim was sworn to before Robert Galt, Senior, the father and partner in business of the said Robert Galt, Junior, and the said Robert Galt, Senior, is conjunct and confident with the said Robert Galt, Junior, and has an interest in the fees or commission which may be payable to him if appointed trustee in this sequestration. Farther, that the said Robert Galt, Senior, is named as mandatory to act and vote for them in the claim for the said Crichton, Pollock & Co., and other creditors, whose claims are hereinafter objected to. Moreover, that the said Robert Galt, Senior, for the purpose of furthering the interests of his said son, as well as his own, personally waited upon all the creditors who supported the election of the said Robert Galt, Junior, as well as several of those who supported the election of this competitor, at their usual places of business, and canvassed for their votes, even though informed that these had been already promised to this competitor, and upon the representation that he was a Justice of the Peace and a much more respectable and trustworthy person to be trustee than this competitor, and that it would save the creditors all trouble in going in search of a Justice elsewhere, he prevailed upon the said Crichton, Pollock & Co., and the other creditors whose claims and votes are hereinafter objected to (some of whom had previously pledged themselves to support the election of this competitor) then and there to make out a statement of their claims upon blank form of affidavit which he carried with him and which were signed before him as magistrate, and at same time the said Robert Galt, Senior, procured the mandates in favour of himself and son to be subscribed by the deponing creditors. In these circumstances this competitor objects to the oath of the said Crichton, Pollock & Co., and the creditors after-mentioned, in respect of the said Robert Galt, Senior, having disqualified himself by his actings and relationship from competently taking any depositions by the creditors in question, and that the mandates granted under the circumstances were void and insufficient for the purpose of voting. 2. The vote of the said Robert Galt, Junior, as mandatory of James Gemmill, wholesale tea merchant, Glasgow, is objected to in respect of the reasons stated in the preceding objection. 3. The vote of the said Robert Galt, Junior, as mandatory of Elliot, White & Co., soap merchants, Glasgow, is objected to in respect of the reasons stated in the first objection. 4. The vote of the said Robert Galt, Junior, as mandatory of Ferguson & M'Laren, soap manufacturers, Glasgow, is objected to in respect of the reasons stated in the first objection. 5. The vote of the said Robert Galt, Junior, as mandatory of William Gardner, ham curer, Glasgow, is objected to in respect of the reasons stated in the first objection. 6. The vote of John D. Taylor, writer in Glasgow, as mandatory of Smith & Sharp, wholesale grocers, Glasgow, is objected to in respect of the reasons stated in the first objection. 7. The vote of the said Robert Galt, Junior, as mandatory of Wilson, Ferguson & Co., ham curers, Glasgow, is objected to in respect of the reasons stated in the first objection. 8. The vote of the said Robert Galt, Junior, as mandatory of A. & J. Allan, provision merchants, Glasgow, is objected to in respect of the reasons stated in the first objection. 9. The vote of the said Robert Galt, Junior, as mandatory of W. & J. Pettigrew, wholesale provision merchants, Glasgow, is objected to in respect of the reasons stated in the first objection. 10. The vote of the said Robert Galt, Junior, as mandatory of Neil M Donald & Co., provision merchants, Glasgow, is objected to in respect of the reasons stated in the first objection. 11. The vote of the said Robert Galt, Junior, as mandatory of Rae & Walker, tea merchants, Glasgow, is objected to in respect of the reasons stated in the first objection. The competitor Galt lodged the following objections:1. Robert Rennie, farmer, Chapalarroch, Gartmore, county of Stirling-in respect that the deponent is the father of the bankrupt, the said James Rennie, and conjunct and confident with him; that no proper or effectual voucher of the debt claimed has been produced; that the alleged IO U's produced are improbative, defective, and incapable of being founded on in the competition; that the debt claimed is not due by the bankrupt; and that the alleged vouchers were concocted and produced collusively by the deponent and the bankrupt; that, at all events, no interest is due on the alleged debt; and that the oath, mandate, and account are not duly executed, completed, and authenticated. 2. John M'Lean, a partner of Buchanan and M‘Lean, tobacconists, Trongate Street, Glasgow-in respect that the alleged bill founded on has not been produced, the bill in process bearing a different date, and falling due on another day from that specified in the account annexed to the oath; that the bill produced was granted and concocted after the insolvency of the bankrupt; that the debt is not due, at least interest should have been deducted from date of sequestration to date when the bill will fall due; that no proper or effectual voucher of debt has been produced; and that the oath, mandate, and account have not been duly executed, completed, and authenticated. 3. James Fulton, Jun., potatoe merchant, 7 South Coburg Street, Glasgow-in respect the oath, mandate, and account are vitiated, and not duly executed, completed, and authenticated. 4. Jonathan Atkinson, a partner of Atkinson & Stockdale, soap makers, Edgar Street, Liverpool-in respect the oath, mandate, and account are not duly executed, completed, and authenticated, the latter, though held part of oath, not being signed. 5. James Miller, ham curer and provision merchant, Glassford Street, Glasgow-in respect the oath and account do not correspond in date, and the account founded on has not been produced, and that the same, with the mandate, are not duly executed, completed, and authenticated. 6. Richard Lowther, a partner of Lowther, Weir & Co., spice merchants, etc., Virginia Street, Glasgowin respect the oath is vitiated, and the alleged account not produced, the account anucxed not corresponding in date, that the mandate bears a wrong date, and the whole are not duly executed, completed, and authenticated, 7. William Polson, a partner of William Polson & Co., starch manufacturers, Paisley-in respect that the oath, mandate, and account are not duly executed, completed, |