he had previously made. He was not surprised at the results, considering the general uncertainty of all experiments with oil. His opinion on the general question was by no means altered by what he saw at Messrs Severn and King's. He agreed with Mr Ferriday, as to the great difference between the heat as ascertained by a thermometer placed near the bottom of the boiler, and one near the top. Sometimes there was a variation of 25 degrees. A thermometer placed half-way down the vessel would not be a correct measurement of the heat at the bottom.

Chief Justice DALLAS, in charging the Jury, strongly expatiated on the difficulties in which the question was involved. A vast body of evidence had been laid before the Jury; medical men, chemical men, eminent men in every department of science, had been examined in the course of the trial; but what was the lamentable result? The Jury had heard opinion opposed to opinion, judgment to judgment, theory to theory, and, what was still more extraordinary, they had seen the same experiments producing opposite results. Who should decide this mighty controversy? He professed himself unable to give an opinion. He was not unacquainted with scientific subjects, but the little he knew only convinced him how much was beyond the reach of his knowledge. In such a case as this, where the testimony was conflicting and opposite, he should not be doing justice, if he were to give any opinion of his own. This he would say of science in its present state, that all that belonged to theory was doubtful, and that all that rested on experiment was new. At present little was known of the action of fire, and that little led to contradictory results. But, without delivering any opinion on the question to be decided by the Jury, he might say, that, in a case like the present, where 70,000l. was depending on

the event of the trial, and where it was impossible to impute any intention of fraud, if their opinion should be against the plaintiffs, only because their con duct had been erroneous, were he in the situation of the Jury, he should think it the safest course to decide for the plaintiffs. It was an honest case; and it would be most unfortunate, if, with the purest innocence of intention, the plaintiffs should be subjected to such a loss. There remained now for consideration the point of law. The law was clear; but it would not be necessary to find on that point, if they should decide that the new process was more dangerous than the old; because that would avoid the policy. Therefore, he wished the Jury first to tell him whether there was an increase of danger; and if so, whether the plaintiffs omitted to communicate to the defendants any alteration material to the risk of insurance. He should, with the leave of the Jury, record the ver dict, if for the plaintiffs, in such a manneras to enable the defendants to move, summarily, that it be set aside on the point of law, and that a new verdict be entered for the defendants. This he proposed out of mercy to both par ties, to save the delay and expense of a new trial. His Lordship concluded by complimenting the Jury for the pa tient attention which they had bestow. ed on this long and laborious cause.

The Jury retired at a quarter before 5 o'clock; and, after being absent an hour and three quarters, they return ed to the Court, and, through their foreman, delivered a special verdict, finding, on the first part of the case, "That the fire broke out in the fillhouse, in the corner of the building next to Union Street, and that it was occasioned by the sugar-pan ;" on the second part of the case, "That the new process is less dangerous than the old ;" and on the point of law, "That the introduction of the new apparatus

was not so important as to require notice to be given to the insurance-office."-Damages 15,000l.

Chief-Justice DALLAS said, as he was of opinion, that, under the construction of the policy, the plaintiffs ought to have given the office notice of the introduction of this apparatus, he should give the defendants leave to move summarily to have this verdict set aside, and a new verdict entered for the defendants. His Lordship added that, in his opinion, the Jury had decided on the safe side. After this decision, both on the facts and on the law of the case, it would be for the directors to consider whether their own interest, and their duty to the public, required them to continue the contest any longer.

JAMES MACKCOULL, AGAINST THE PAISLEY UNION COMPANY.

This cause excited an extraordinary interest in Edinburgh. It was generally suspected and believed, that Mackcoull, in conjunction with Huffey White, a person who enjoyed the reputation of being the first housebreaker in Britain, and with another of the name of Harry French, had, in 1811, robbed the Glasgow branch of the Paisley Union Bank of about 20,000l. The robbers were traced to London, and at the house of Scoltock, a smith, who had been employed in manufacturing the false keys, Huffey White was apprehended. In consequence of this catastrophe, a negotiation was opened through a circuitous channel, by which the money was offered to be restored, on condition of White being pardoned, and further proceedings dropped. The Bank agent, without sufficient inquiry or security, assented to this proposal,

and procured a pardon for White. He was then introduced to Mrs Mackcoull, from whom, however, he received, not the 20,000l. but something less than 12,000l., her husband having apparently secreted the rest. Mackcoull was thus exempted from the amnesty, and being apprehended two years after, was brought to Glasgow, and held in confinement. The Bank, however, were not able to collect sufficient evidence to convict, and after being kept in custody for some time, he run his letters against the Lord Advocate, and was liberated.

In 1813, Mackcoull came to Leith, in order to convert part of the stolen notes into bills on London. Here, being recognized by Mr Denovan, he was apprehended, and the bills, to the amount of about 1000l. were taken from him, and afterwards transmitted to the Paisley Bank. After a confinement of about three weeks, Mackcoull was liberated, and seems to have been too happy in making his escape, to advance any complaint about the bills at the time. Some time after, however, he was moved by an almost inconceivable rashness and audacity to commence an action against the Paisley Company for the bills which had been taken from him. This he carried on for a series of years, with the utmost violence and pertinacity, denouncing the Bank-agents as the real authors of the robbery, and the Scots courts as corrupt and abandoned, for delaying to grant him justice. He even stood three personal examinations, in the course of which, though he uttered the most gross falsehoods, he yet avoided making any averment by which he was absolutely committed.

At length, about the end of 1819, he had pushed the affair into such a state, that the Lords could not avoid referring to the Jury Court the question, whether the Bank could

prove their allegation, that Mackcoull had committed the robbery, and had bought the bills in question with notes stolen from them.

The Bank, in the view of this issue, were very considerably embarrassed. They had hitherto been unable to procure any good legal evidence of Mackcoull's guilt; yet, unless they could produce such, they must refund 1000l. with six years' interest, and 800%. expences, and have the mortification of being braved and mastered by a common London thief and pickpocket. In this extremity, they employed Mr Denovan to go over the whole ground which the robbers were understood to have taken from Glasgow to London, by Edinburgh, as well as to make every possible inquiry in the English metropolis. Mr Denovan appears to have executed his commission most ably, and succeeded beyond expectation. He not only traced Mackcoull at almost every step on the road, but in London was able, by persuasion or threats, to induce Mrs Huffey White, Scoltock the blacksmith, and other accomplices, to come down and appear as witnesses. The trial came on upon the 11th May, 1820. Our limits will only allow us to give the principal heads of evidence.

Thomson the porter, and Mr Hamilton, teller of the Bank, proved the fact of the robbery having been committed.

Margaret M'Aulay-Is niece to a person of the name of Stewart, a widow, who, in May of the year 1811, resided at the foot of the Broomielaw, Glasgow: She lived with her at that time, and remembers in that month three gentlemen, who called themselves Moffat, Stone, and Down, coming to Mrs Stewart's house, and taking lodgings. Witness was here asked to describe Mackcoull, which she did, as having large black eyes, black hair, fresh

colour, middle-aged, and stout. [Here the defender was called to be confronted by this witness, but he was not to be found; the obstacle was, however, removed by the witness say. ing she saw Mr Moffat at the door as she came into court.] Mrs Stew. art removed to another house on 28th May, and Mr Moffat and his companions went with her; they stay. ed till Tuesday in the third week of July, when they left; it was Fair week; they had no visitors while they stayed; they went out sometimes in the forenoon, and sometimes in the evening; always dined at home; no one ever dined with them; they had a portmanteau, and a single trunk, and a small box which Mr Moffat [Mackcoull] brought in himself one morning; it was a coarse wooden box, nailed, and about eight or ten inches long; contained, she thought, loose papers; the first night they went out was 28th May, the day on which they removed to the new house, and were out four nights together after twelve, but they generally went out about ten, and came home betwixt eleven and twelve o'clock; always went out before dinner; recollects Mr Moffat going to Liverpool, as he said, and being away a fortnight, and returning; when they finally left Mrs Stewart's, they said they were going to Bristol; she saw Mr Moffat afterwards in Glasgow jail,

David Clachar.-On Sunday morn. ing, before the robbery of the Paisley Union Bank was known, he saw three men sitting on a dyke at the corner of Stirling's road, which is not a great distance from Ingram Street, where the Paisley Union Bank is situated. Mackcoull, whom he identified, was one of them. He saw one of them take a parcel of notes out of a large bundle which they carried, count them, and put them back again. He also saw the same man take a quantity

of silver from his vest pocket, which he counted over and returned to his pocket. The large bundle they carried was tied in a large red and white striped handkerchief or shawl. They had also a smaller parcel wrapped in a checked napkin. They all three rose and went down Taylor Street, as if going to the High Street. As soon as he lost sight of them, he told his wife that he had seen three men who he thought were robbers; this was about four o'clock in the morning.

Alexander Leith, coach-master in Glasgow, sworn.-Remembers, on a Sunday morning, after Glasgow Fair, about four o'clock, in July 1811, of James Stirling coming with three men wanting a chaise. That these three men came into witness's house, where they had, while the chaise was getting ready, two gills of rum and two bowls of milk: That, while drinking, they asked for the nearest way to Edinburgh, but did not tell witness, nor did he ask them, where they were going: That the first of these men was about five feet seven or eight inches in height; stout made, and active; full faced; very ruddy complexion-his nose inclining to purple; large black eyes; short black hair; was dressed in a dark-coloured long coat; bluish striped trowsers or pantaloons, light coloured, full made, with boots under them; full neckcloth, as if stuffed; aged at least forty; had a great coat: That he afterwards saw this person a prisoner in London, charged with rob. bing the Bank, and he then called himself Moffat. The second man was about five feet eight inches in heightlighter made had trowsers or pantaloons, like Moffat-and had a long dark-coloured coat. These two appeared somewhat like gentlemen. The third man was about five feet nine inches high; slender, and not well made; long dark-coloured coat; shoes

and light-coloured stockings - dress and appearance of a tradesman: That the first described person, whom witness afterwards knew to be Moffat, paid him for the rum, and said he would pay the driver for the carriage: That the third described man carried a small black leather portmanteau with straps; and Moffat had a pretty large parcel tied up in a large handkerchief or shawl, over which he had a rough coarse great-coat, like a driver's coat. Witness said, he would carry this parcel to the chaise for them, which he did, although the said person seemed rather reluctant, and he handed it into the chaise: That, when handing it in, the said person observed that the greatcoat was not much worth, but he would soon get a better one: That said parcel might be about the size of two gig cushions laid one above another, and, as he felt, contained parcels, as he thought, of papers: That Moffat seemed to take the whole management: That, on the Monday following, the witness was all day in the country; and in the evening, on his return home, he heard of the robbery of the bank, and just as he heard of it, the chaise which had conveyed the said three men happened to be returning from her trip, and the thought was immediately impressed on the witness's mind, from considering the circumstance of what he supposed to be the contents of the foresaid parcel, and other things of Moffat, and of the other two, that they were the robbers. He had been told before by the driver, of their anxiety for speed; and he communicated his suspicions to the Bank: That, about nine months, or thereabout, after this, the witness went to London for the purpose of identifying James Mackcoull, alias Moffat, who had been apprehended on suspicion of the robbery; and he there, accompanied by a waiter from Wellwyn, saw that person at Bow Street, and