Answers 1767

A N S W E R S F O R THOMAS WI L SON Inspecto r of Yarn, appointed by the Trustees for improving Manufactures in Scotland, T O T H E P E T I T I O N of Patrick Somervlle Flax-dresser in Leith. ✓ The subject of the petition now to be answered is of considerable importance, tho' not in the respect which the petitioner insi sts upon. It will be evident, that the judgment he complains of can be attended with no dangerous consequences to fair traders; but, on the o- ther hand, such a decision as he desires would almost intire- ly defeat the salutary purposes of the statutes made for the improvement of the linen-manufacture. The respondent is an officer appointed by the trustees, for the special purpose of inspecting linen-yarn. By his commisio n, dated in the 176 1, and signed and sealed by a quorum of the board, particularly by the present Lord President, Lord Kaimes, and the late Lord Prestongrange, he is authorised and directed, “ by all legal ways and means, to search for, seize, carry off, detain, and bring to trial, illegal reels and unstatuteable yarn; and to prosecute transgressors of the law concerning reels and yarn.” Un­ der der this commission, the respondent has for several years discharged his duty to the satisfaction of his constituents, and without reproach from any concerned in the manufac­ ture.. But of late it has become a more common and extensive trade, for persons to interpose themselves in the sale of yarn between the spinners and the weavers, or manufacturers. T hese persons called hawkers, such as this petitioner is, deal both in employing people to spin yarn from the flax, and in buying up small parcels of yarn where they can get it, which they afterwards transport to different places, and sell to the manufacturers: In particular, they frequently send large parcels of yarn from this part to the country to G lasgow and Paisley., &c. This branch of trade, however beneficial in some respects, has been found to afford a cover to many frauds in the reeling and making up of yarn. These frauds, to the great discredit and hurt of the manufacture, having been disco- vered in sundry instances, occasioned loud complaints from the manufacturers, particularly from those about G lasgow, which merited the particular notice of the trustees. Hence they were pleased to enjoin the respondent specially, as well as their own officers, not to allow any linen-yarn to be transported from place to place, without a proper examina­ tion, and being satisfied of its sufficiency. These special orders ju stly made the respondent very at­ tentive in the discharge of his duty; the effect of which being felt by those yarn-hawkers, they seem to have resolved, if possible, to tire him out by tedious and expensive law­ suits. Accordingly this is the second plea of the kind which has been of late brought before your Lordships; al- tho’ the first, at the instance of;one Arthur, was not pushed to a decision; and the utmost care was taken, in the case which now occurs, to guard against every quibble and captious objection which had been thrown out against that former seizure. The / 1 0 The true date of the fact relative to the seizure now in question stands thus. In April 1765 the respondent, when going his rounds as yarn-inspector, observed two matts or bales of linen-yarn lying at the Corn-market among the carrier’s other goods, ready to be transported to Glasgow. The respondent, a- greeable to his duty, inquired at the carrier to whom the yarn belonged? and the carrier answered, That he did not know. The respondent thereupon acquainted the carrier of his orders to inspect the yarn before he could allow it to be transported; and as it could not be saf ely inspected on the Street, he desired the carrier to remove it to a proper place. The carrier thereupon took it into a cellar which was almost full of coals and Straw, and quite dark; so that the yarn could not be inspected there; and the mistress of the house absolutely refused to give the respondent the use of a room for that purpose. In this Situation the respondent could do no more than ex­ amine a few spyndles at the door of the cellar, in presence of neutral persons; and having found it extremely faulty, he applied by petition to the magistrates of Edinburgh, set- ting forth the fact, and praying a warrant to transport the yarn to a proper place for having it thoroughly examined in prefence of James Maxwell the G lasgow carrier, who had the charge of it, or of any other person he should appoint; and in case of Maxwell’s refusal, to authorise the respond­ ent to transport the yarn to such place, and to take inspection thereof in prefence of two persons called to assist and to se­ parate the faulty from what was sufficient. The desire of this petition being granted, the yarn was transported to a proper room in the Potter-row, where it was immediately examined by the respondent, in presence and with the asi stance of two persons, weavers by trade, who had no interest in the affair. During the course of this examination, the petitioner Mr Somervile having got notice o f of what had happened, came to the room, acknowledged the yarn to be his, and desired the respondent to be favour­ able. Accordingly the respondent gave him even more in­ dulgence than he was intitled to, by seizing none as faulty unless it wanted more than four threads in each cutt; and the good being thus separated from the bad, it appeared that there was 32 spyndles grossly faulty, and that 118 spyndles were held as sufficient, although many o f them were defi­ cient in tale as well as mixt in the quality; so that if the respondent had been rigorous, he might at least have seized a score of spyndles more than he did. Immediately upon the close of the examination, the respondent, with the two men who had assisted him, went to the petitioner at Leith, acquainted him of the result, and offered him back the 118 spyndles, which, after some deliberation, the petitioner ac­ cepted of. The respondent thereupon brought his action, as the law directs, before the sheriff of the county, against the peti­ tioner, concluding for condemnation of the said 32 spyn­ dles, and also for having the petitioner subjected in a fine or penalty for each of the said spyndles, agreeable to the statutes. The sheriff allowed the respondent a proof of his libel. The respondent accordingly brought a most clear and satisfactory proof of the circumstances of the seizure, and of the quality and quantity of the yarn under trial, as above stated. In particular, he proved, That as the ex­ amination, at the time of seizure, lasted two days, at the close of the first day the whole yarn was sealed up by the respondent, and the key of the room given to one of the assi stants; and that, at their return next morning, they found the seals entire, and thereupon proceeded in the examina­ tion: That most of the yarn seized wanted much morej than four or five threads in each cutt, and some of it from 10 to 50 threads in the cutt, and was likewise mixt yarn of different colours and different grills in the same slips, ■! which which are all separate causes of condemnation. Nor did the respondent rest the proof, as he might have done, upon the examination thus taken at the time of the seizure; but as at the close of it the yarn seized had been again sealed u p so the same inspectors did again open the seals and ex­ amine it of new during the dependence and immediately before they deponed, and thereby confirmed the exactness of their first inspection in all points; and they likewise ad­ hered thereto when re-examined upon oath by the sheriff Upon advising th is proof, on the 23d of October 1 765, the late s heriff-substitute pronounced this interlocutor: Finds it proven, t hat the pursuer found 32 spyndles of yarn ill counted, or made up contrary to law, which be­ longed to the defender Patrick Somerville, and that a- mong the baggage of the Glasgow carrier; therefore for­ feits the said 32 spyndles yarn to the pursuer; and also forfeits the said defender in the sum of L. 3: 4: 0 Ster­ ling, payable to the pursuer.” The penalty thus imposed was the lowest that the law allows, namely, two shillings Sterling for each spyndle over and above the forfeiture of the yarn. Against this interlocutor the respondent presented first one and then a second reclaiming petition, drawn by a lawyer at great length; but both were refused, and the in­ terlocutor adhered to by the present sheriff-depute. N o t sa tisfied w ith th is judgment, the petitioner, at the distance of about a year from the seizure, presented a bill of suspension; which having been advised with answers, &c. by Lord Auchinleck, his Lordship refus ed the same, so far as concerned the forfeiture of the yarn; but passed the bill a s t o t h e L. 3: 4: 0 S t e r l in g, beingthe amount of the pe- nalties. The petitioner now reclaims against the refusal of the bill as to the forfeiture of the yarn, and these answers are humbly offered to his petition. Before Before considering the arguments used by the petitioner, it is proper to submit to your Lordships a preliminary ob­ jection to the competency of this application in the way of suspension. The statute of the 13th of K ing George I. For better regulation of the linen-manufacture, § 3 1. provides, That all offences against the act (which comprehends this case) excepting the counterfeiting stamps or marks, shall be determined by one or more justices of the peace, ma- gistrates of boroughs within their respective jurisdictions, subject to an appeal to the quarter-sessions, who are im- pow ered to hear and finally determine in the same. ' And by the subsequent act of the 24th of the late King, § 25. the same power is continued to the ju stices and magistrates. And it is further provided, “ That all offences against this and the foresaid act shall and may also be heard and fi­ nally determined by any of his Majesty ’s sheriffs or stew- art deputes or substitutes, subject only to an appeal to the Lords of Judiciary on their circuit-courts.” Hence it is apparent, that it was the intention of the le- gislature to prevent either the officers or the private dealers from being distressed by expensive and tedious actions in the supreme courts relative to the execution of the law. This too is further confirmed by a clause in the above mentioned section of the statute of the 13th George I. directing the penalties imposed by the inferior judges to be recovered by a warrant of poinding; which warrant for poinding (says the statute) "shall not be stopt or sifted by any suspension, s i s t, or other process whatsoever, except an appeal entered in manner therein mentioned.” It is indeed true, that the county of Edinburgh not being within the district of any circuit-court of judiciary, there does not seem the same opportunity of appealing from the sheriff to such circuit-court as in other counties. But it is submitted, that either an appeal must be held, as in this case, competent to the high court of judiciary, or that no apel appeal whatever lies, and the s heriff's judgment is to be held as final. But even supposing, that, in this special cafe, the Sheriff’s judgment might be subject to your Lordships review in the way of suspension; yet the petitioner’s application comes too late, and your Lordships can now give no relief, without a plain departure from the positive rule of the statute. By the 27th section of the act of the 24th of the late King, referring to the other statute of the 1 3th of George I. it is expressly pro­ vided, "That all actions shall be commenced for offences a- gainst this act, and the said former act, within twelve months after the commission of such offence; and all ac­ tions to be commenced for the same, shall cease ande- termine, and are hereby dis charged from, and after the expi­ ration of eight fu ll months from the commencement of the su it; and if any appeal, either from the magistrates or justices o f the peace, to the quarter-sessions, or from the sheriff or stewart-deputes, or their substitutes, to the cir­ cuit-court, s hall not be determined at the expiration of eight months from the commencement of the action, the s entence ap­ pealed from shall take place, and be put in execution, as i f no appeal had been entered against the said sentence.” Thus the statute has expressly confined the whole proceed­ ings, both in the first and second instance, to the space of eight months; and consequently, i f your Lordships can at all review the sentence of the sheriff of this county, it must be upon the same footing, and under the same limitation, as a review before the circuit-court upon appeals from she- riffs of other counties. Now, the present action was com­ menced before the sheriff, upon the 18th May 1764, and was concluded by sentence on the 23d October thereafter, being within the period of five months; so that the petitioner had still three months more to apply for a review i f competent. But, instead of doing so, he endeavoured to continue the dependence before the sheriff for some time, and did not pre- | • sent sent his bill of suspension sooner than the 9th April 1766, being about eleven months after the commencement of the action. Again, the Lord Ordinary’s interlocutor now under review, was pronounced on the 11th of November last, be­ ing near 23 months from the date of the sheriff 's sentence; and as some months more may be passed before this petition and answers are advised; so, instead of eight months from the commencement of the action, it may in this way be a- bove two years before the cause is finally concluded. The respondent apprehends, that this is adverse to the meaning and even express words of the statute; and therefore, that the eight months being long ago elapsed, it is not now com­ petent for your Lordships to interpose in this matter. But supposing that no objection lay to the competency of this court, or of the petitioner’s application in hoc statu, the respondent shall proceed to make answers to the petitioner’s arguments, which he hopes will be satisfactory. In the first place, the petitioner has insisted, that the two statutes above mentioned ought to be strictly interpreted, in so far as any methods thereby prescribed are an encroach­ ment on the liberty of the subject; such as, by authorising the entry of a man’s house, and the seizing his person or ef­ fects; and that, altho’ by the 7th section of the act 13th George I. it is declared lawful for the respective officers there­ in after, named to enter ware-houses, &c. and seize all such linen-yarn as they shall find made up contrary to the di­ rections of the act; yet no such officers are appointed for that purpose in the subsequent clauses, other than the tru- stees and ju stices of peace, or magistrates; and that the power of delegation committed to the trustees is limited to four particular cases, none of which apply to the present. And therefore the petitioner concludes, That the trustees could not delegate this power to the respondent; and that the seizure in question was void, as made by him without authority.'J It It is believed few words will be necessary for answering. this ingenious criticism on the acts. These laws relative to the linen-manufacture, instead of being penal, or encroach­ ing on the liberty of the subject, are excellent regulations tending to the public good of the country. So the legisla- ture has expressly declared them to be, by providing, in the 28th sect ion of the act o f the 24th of the late King, “ That all sheriffs and ju stices, &c. shall interpret and put this act, and the said former act, in execution in the most be­ neficial manner, for promoting the linen and hempen ma­ nufactures.” And if any of the inferior judges do other- wise, they are declared punishable by the court of judiciary. It is indeed true that these statutes have imposed certain penalties upon offenders against the regulations therein con­ tained; but these are very moderate, and chiefly take place when the regulation is pointed at, preventing what was an­ tecedently a fraud or wrong, so as only to direct the judge how he shall punish it. Thus, with respect to yarn, the sta- tute did not create and punish as a wrong what did not for­ merly exist as such; for the Scotch acts, 43d Parl. 1661,and 29th Parl. 1693, contain regulations of a sim ilar kind, as to the number of threads in the cut, and cuts in the hefp, to be observed under the pain of confiscation. But indepen­ dent of any acts, it is plain, that one who sells as a spyndle what perhaps does not contain half a spyndle, or who sells as fine and good yarn, what is partly coarse and insufficient, is guilty of a fraud, and punishable at common law. The regulations of the British statutes for detecting and punish- ing such wrongs, cannot therefore be considered as penal or encroaching on the liberty of the subject, but fall to be liberally interpreted and executed conform to the true spirit of the law. Again, that the respondent, and other officers named by the trustees, have full power to execute the branch of the act relative to seizing false yarn, is plain from the least at- C tention tention to it. The section 7th of the first statute, provides, “ That it shall be lawful for the officers herein after-named, or any of them, to search for, and seize yarn,” &c. It re­ mains therefore only to see what kind of officers are after­ wards mentioned in the act; and a variety of them occurs besides the trustees themselves, and inferior judges. Thus, in the section 16th, it is declared lawful “ for all person ap­ pointed by the trustees, or by the ju stices of the peace, by a writing under their hands,” to enter bleachfields, and seize cloth, &c. By section 19th, the trustees are em­ powered to appoint lappers and stamp-masters. And by section 24th, “ All persons authorised and empowered by the said trustees, or any five or more of them, by a writng under their hands and seals for that purpose,” or by a warrant of the ju stices of the peace, or magistrates, are em­ powered to search ware-houses, and seize cloth not stamped, &c. As all these clauses follow after section 7th, authori- sing the officers after-named to search for, and seize yarns, it is impossible to dispute, that every one of these officers, such as lappers, stampmasters, or other persons authorised by writing under the hands and seals of the trustees, may law­ fully make such seizure, besides doing the other branches of duty directed by the statute. It is the commission or ap­ pointment of the trustees that qualifies these officers to act in other respects under this statute; and consequently, there is not the colour of reason for pretending, that an officer specially appointed by the trustees for this particular pur­ pose, has not a sufficient authority for seizing yarn. It is indeed impossible to conceive, that the legislature could mean to authorise the trustees to commision proper persons for inspecting and seizing linen-cloth, lint-feed, and otherways officiating under them, and that, in this matter alone of inspecting and seizing yarn, they should have no such powers; but that either the inferior judges, or what is more extraordinary, the trustees themselves, com- posed posed of several of the nobility and persons of the first di- stinction, should be obliged to search shops and cellars, and to hunt after carriers and hawkers for slips or spyndles of yarn, or otherwise allow this salutary branch of the law to be altogether unexecuted. To the contrary it appears, that the judges of this supreme court, who have acted as trustees ever since those statutes were made, never entertained the least doubt of their powers of delegating this branch of duty to under-officers; and have been in the constant practice of doing s o; the respondent’s commission, in particular, being signed by three of your Lordships number. It is therefore altogether unnecessary to follow the peti­ tioner in his examination of other cases that have been over­ looked, or unprovided for by statutes correctory of our for­ mer law, since the present case is clearly within the statutes in question, agreeable to the plain sense and meaning of them, and according to the constant apprehenfion and prac­ tice of the ablest judges for above forty years past; which is alone sufficient to fix the sense and constru ction of the law, were it doubtful, as it is not. For the same reason, it is still more unnecessary to canvass the grounds of the decision in the case of Colt contra Angus, concerning the supplying an omisio n of the principal sum in a bond of corroboration, as that case is altogether foreign to the one in hand, where there is no occasion for your Lordships giving a commission not authorised by the statutes, far less for your creating a bond or obligation that did not before actually exist. In the second place, the petitioner has argued, That the proviso in the statute of the 13th George I. “ That all per­ sons who shall sell, or expose to sale, or carry, or trans- port, from one part in Scotland to another, any lint, or hemp yarn, made up in another manner than as therein directed, shall forfeit the same,” is repealed by the sub- sequent statute of the 24th of George II. which provides, “ That persons convicted of false reeling, and making up “ yarn. yarn, or exposing to sale, selling or buying yarn, know­ ing the same to be made up or reeled contrary to the di­ rections of the said act, shall, over and above the forfeiting of such yarn, forfeit a sum, not exceeding ten nor less than two shillings Sterling, for every spyndle thereof.’’ The respondent must confess, that he cannot see the least foundation for supposing the said act to contain a repeal of the former. The very title of the last act refutes it, being "An act for explaining, amending, and enforcing an act passed in the 13th year of his late Majest y,”; and the preamble of the last statute mentions, “ That the regulations in the former have been found useful and beneficial, and have been a mean of improving the said manufactures, which might be sti l l brought to greater perfection, and be further extended, if some parts of the said act were ex­ plained, amended, and enforced, and further regulations established." Accordingly, the last act does in no shape take off any of the regulations of the former; but adds to and enforces them; so that both fall to be considered as if they were one and the same statute. The last act indeed superadds a particular penalty upon those who knowingly buy or sell yarn falsely made up; but that is over and above the forfeiture of the yarn, which, by the first statute, was imposed, whether the buyer and seller was in the know­ ledge of it or not, and which forfeiture still remains unalter­ ed by the last statute. 3tio, The petitioner objects to the validity of the respon- dent’s commision, as not being wrote on stamp’d paper, nor signed before witnesses; and that, at any rate, such a general commission was not sufficient to authorise the re­ spondent to make any particular seizure, without a special warrant for that purpose. T o this it is answered, That the respondent’s commision is executed with all the solemnities that are by law requi- site to such commissions. And as to a. special warrant, no such such thing ever was practised, nor does the law require it. The power of searching for and seizing, &c. is, by the acts, vested in the trustees and their officers, authorised by w ri­ ting under their hands and seals, as the respondent according­ ly is. There is nothing in the statute that requires or sup- poses that the commisio n s of the trustees should be grant­ ed or renewed pro re nata, or that an officer, who is once commisioned by them for executing a branch of duty, should need a second more special warrant for taking every particular step of it. Such a rule would render the matter inexplicable, and totally defeat the execution of the law, as to making seizures, as the goods would commonly be car­ ried off before the special warrant could be got. No such thing obtains in the case of revenue-officers searching for and making seizures in the day-time: Neither do the ju stices of the peace and the trustees stand upon the same footing in this respect. The ju stices are only impowered to act in par­ ticular cases, and to issue warrants for seizing, & c. which may need to be occasionally renewed: But the officers of the trustees, having the constant care and inspection of the ma­ nufacture, are specially authorised to act at all times, while their commision s are unrecalled. Accordingly the acts seem to carry a plain distinction between the trustees officer and persons acting only under the warrants of ju stices or magi- strates, the power of the first being permanent, and that of the last only temporary or occasional. 4to, The petitioner objects, That the respondent acted illegally, and even contrary to his instructions, in carrying off more of his yarn than was truly faulty. This objection has been already obviated by the true ac­ count given of the circumstances attending the seizure. The respondent in no shape acted contrary to his instructions, with which, by the bye, the petitioner has no more concern than a smuggler has with the instructions given to a custom- house officer by the commisioners, as it is the public law, D and and not private instru ctions, that must determine questions of this kind. Besides, if the respondent had done wrong by carrying o ff more of the yarn than what was faulty, it could not posib ly afford any reason for reversing the con­ demnation of the false yarn, whatever ground it might give for a claim of damages on account of what was sufficient. But further, when the statute authorises officers to enter ware-houses, and seize such yarn “ as they shall then and there find made up contrary to law,” it plainly supposes, that the officer should have opportunity of inspecting the yarn in such ware-house; but as the statute likewise im- powers officers to seize illegal yarn when transporting, it could never mean to oblige them to inspedt every hank, perhaps of a whole cartful, upon a street or highway. In such a case, even the petitioner himself is forced to admit, that for the benefit of the proprietors, as well as ease of the officer, the officer must be allowed to move the yarn to a convenient place where it can be safely and thoroughly in- spected. Now, the yarn in question was not found by the respon­ dent in a ware-house, but upon the high street, and was from thence moved by the carrier into a dark and dirty cellar, where it was imposib le to inspect it properly. Yet the re­ spondent even there made a shift to inspect a small part of it, and found it extremely insufficient. The impossibility of finishing the inspection at that place might have well justified his afterwards removing it by his own authority; but, to prevent all cavil, he had it removed by the warrant of the Magistrates, and the inspection finished, and what was not seized, returned or offered back to the petitioner with all posib le expedition. 5t0, The petitioner says, That the trial and condemnation in question was irregular, in respect that two skil ful persons should have been appointed by the sheriff to inspect the yarn, and report their opinion upon oath; whereas, the re­ spondent spondent was allowed to bring his own confidents as the only witnesses to its faultiness; and it is added, that even their evidence is defective, as one of them only swears to his examining the one half of the yarn, and the other the other half. The respondent however has already given your Lordships. a view of the procedure had and proof taken before the sheriff, which he apprehends was perfectly regular and suf- ficient. It is very true that the statute of the 13th of Geo. I. § 27. does point out a summary method of trying cloth un­ der seizure, upon request of the owner, within twenty-four hours, by application to the justices or magistrates, and the nomination of persons to visi t and report upon oath; but it does not prohibit a condemnation upon other good evidence taken in the usual manner. The two witnesses whom the petitioner alludes to were nowise confidents of the respon- dent, nor had any benefit from or interest in the matter, although they were called by him as persons of skill to in- spect the yarn. This they did, both at the time of seizure, and upon the day preceeding their first examination as wit­ nesses, and were thereby certain and positive of its faultiness. The petitioner too must be understood to have passed from all objection to them as witnesses, by insi sting to have them re-examined, which was accordingly done. They were then interrogated as to the manner in which they had inspected the yarn the last time they had examined it, and one of them declared, that he then counted sixteen spyndles and a slip of it, and the other fifteen spyndles and three slips. This the peti­ tioner says is only a single witness deposing to each half of the yarn. But it is to be considered, that both of them were present during the two examinations, and as they had both examined the yarn formerly at the time of the seizure, and found it alike faulty upon both trials, their evidence is upon the whole as clear and convincing as the nature of the case can admit with regard to the short reeling of the yarn and to its being mixed. Besides, when this objection was start- " ' / G c ■ ' [fr • ed ed before the sheriff, the yarn being still sealed up, the re* spondent offered to produce it in court and have it again counted there; but the petitioner did not think fit to insist upon it. The petitioner has concluded with some insinuations a- gainst the respondent, as if he acted in this matter only from a view to his own gain, and with a repetition of his reasons for an alteration of the law, in so far as it authorises the seizing yarn from dealers, who may not be in the actual knowledge of its defect. The respondent shall in answer only observe, that while he discharges his duty as an active and diligent officer, your Lordships will attribute his conduct to the best motives. And it has been already observed, that had private gain been his only incitement, he would probably have seized much more of the petitioner’s yarn than he actually did. It is however well known to those concerned, that he has been no less active in detecting the frauds of the spinners, by which he could expect no personal benefit, than those of the dealers and hawkers; that he got some of the spinners pub­ licly punished, and upwards of sixty false reels burnt by the hands of the common hangman. Again, the law, in his humble apprehension, needs no amendment, nor is it in your Lordshi p s power to amend it, if it did so. It imposes penal­ ties on persons directly guilty of the fraud, and likewise for­ feits faulty yarn from dealers, although they are not proved to be in the knowledge of it. This last is a wise and necessa- ry precaution, for making these dealers attentive in detecting the fraud when they get in the yarn in small quantities; and without it, it would be absolutely imposib le to secure the just- ness of yarn, so.necessary for the good of the manufacture. Had this petitioner been as careful as he ought to have been, this seizure would not have been made from him; and as the profits of this trade usually amount to three half-pence per spyndle, in the course of a fortnights transaction, he could could well afford to employ a person to count it, if he did not chuse to do it himself, and could be served in that way at the expence of about a farthing per spyndle. Indeed the faultiness of the yarn in question was so grofs, that it satis- fied the Sheriff of the petitioner’s being necessarily in the knowledge of it; and therefore made him impose a small penalty over the condemnation of the yarn. But this matter of the penalty is not hujus loci; and however it may stand there can be no doubt of the yarn's being ju stly condemned, In respect whereof, &c. DAV. R A E.