Mr. Peto written orders to the same effect, a compliance therewith would amount to a forfeiture of his bond? Certainly not-ergo, a compliance with such orders from their agent, their mouth-piece, could not operate as a forfeiture.

The Common Sergeant, Mr. Rotch, and Mr. Pattison, followed on the same side.

The Attorney-General, in support of the rule, said, that, admitting, for the sake of argument, that Mr. Laing was invested with all that dispensing power which the other side alleged he had, still no defence had been made out. The argument is, that, according to the contract, Mr. Laing had power to determine in matters of doubt, and that there was a doubt respecting these piles, which warranted Mr. Laing's interference. But, Mr. Peto says himself, that he knew the piles would not answer, and that of this point he entertained no doubt; and the Jury have found that there was a stratum of gravel, into which the piles could have been driven, according to the specification. The defendant having admitted that it was only in cases of doubt that this dispensing power was given, and it having appeared on his own showing that no such doubt existed on the occasion, judgment should be entered up for the Crown.

Nov. 27. The Lord Chief Baron proceeded to give judgment. His lordship said, the great question in this case, in whatever aspect it should be viewed, was the construction of the deed. That was an instrument under seal, and by which the defendant was bound. The defendant's counsel had, therefore, been driven to argue that, by the instrument, their client had a right to act as he had done-on

that alleged right the point in the case turned. If he (the chief baron) had entertained a doubt at all, he should have been unwilling to give any opinion upon the case, without consulting his learned brethren, who were more conversant with pleading than himself. It appeared to him, however, that the learned counsel for the Crown were in the right, because there was one of the issues on which the Crown had been declared entitled to judgment on meritsthose merits which applied to every part of the case, and which were, consequently, decisive of it. The question was, first, should a verdict be entered up on the issue found for his majesty by the jury, namely, that which established that there was a stratum of gravel, into which the piles might and ought, by the terms of the agree ment, to have been driven? The next questions were, whether judgment upon the remaining issues ought not similarly to be entered up for the king? Independent of the arguments of the learned counsel for the Crown, he thought it might be collected from those of the other side, that, unless they could prove sufficient power in the surveyor (Mr. Laing) to order the variances referred to, their case could not be supported. It seemed to him to be sufficient for the general purposes of the cause, to consider what ought to be done respecting the first issue. In that issue the Crown said that Laing (the surveyor), or his clerk of the works, had no power or authority, by the deed, to give any directions varying or altering the piling from the description and mode pointed out in the specification. The defendant affirmed, on the contrary, that Laing, or his

first issue: That there was a stratum of hard gravel into which piles could have been driven; and for the Defendant upon all the others.

Nov. 25.

In Trinity term, the AttorneyGeneral obtained a rule to show cause in the alternative, either why judgment should not be entered up for the Crown, non obstante veredicto, on the issue which was found for the Crown, or why a new trial should not be had on that part of the verdict which found that Mr. Laing had been authorised by the commissioners to direct the buildings, as there was no evidence of any such authority having been intrusted to him. Mr. Scarlett, on behalf of the defendant, obtained a rule, calling on the Crown to show cause why a verdict should not be entered for the defendant, non obstante veredicto, or why a new trial should not be had, on the ground that there was no evidence to support the finding that a stratum of gravel could be found, into which piles could be driven according to the specifications.

In Michaelmas term, Mr. Scarlett showed cause against the rule for the Crown: he read that part of the contract between the Commissioners of the Customs and the defendant, which stated, that where any doubt arose respecting any of the particulars mentioned in the specifications, the Commissioners of the Customs, or their architect, were to direct what might or what might not be admitted; and, if in the progress of the work, the architect should think that the foundation should be sunk deeper, or that any additions should be made, or any of the particulars in the specifica

tions omitted, it should be done, and the builder should make a proportionate charge. The specification placed Mr. Peto generally under the orders of the architect; for every particular was followed up with the words, 66 as may be di

rected;" so that, in fact, it was no specification, for it only specified that some other specification may be given. It was in the power of the architect to alter every particular.

If he had ordered that the piles should be altogether omitted, Mr. Peto was bound to do so; and, consequently, if he had directed that the piles should be cut shorter than was required in the specification, Mr. Peto was bound to follow his directions. The Jury had found that, Mr. Peto had, in no particular, deviated from the original specifications, unless by the directions of Mr. Laing; and by the contract Mr. Peto was liable to be discharged if, in any particular, he acted contrary to Mr. Laing's orders. The intention of the Commissioners, when entering into the contract, was evidently thisthat as far as they could then determine on their plan, it should be according to the specifications, subject to such alterations as they might, during the progress of the work, deem prudent to make. Mr. Laing was the organ of their wishes respecting such alterations. Mr. Peto's judgment was entirely subservient to his. He told Mr. Laing, that the piles would not answer the purpose, and he recommended as a substitute what Mr. Smirke had since adopted. Mr. Peto declined to abide by Mr. Laing's directions in that particular, unless he had his written_orders; and could any one say, that, if the Commissioners had given to

and prisoner, on coming up to him, found him dead, but he did not know whether he had dropt down in a fit, or died a natural death. It was then so dark that witness could not see the dress of the deceased minutely. Witness and Leany then moved the body into Gleddish Wood, and placed it on some stubble. Witness's motive for so doing was to hide the shame of a transaction in which the character of his family might be injured, by its being discovered that a son of his had been guilty of a robbery. Witness returned home between four and five o'clock, leaving Leany to follow him at some distance. In his way home, he saw a person, named Thomas Hawkins, and spoke to him. Witness did not know the cause of his son's death until the following Wednesday, when the coroner's inquest was held. When examined before the inquest, he did not give the same account of the transaction, because he understood that those who helped to move the body would be punished.

John Woodsell proved, that, about eight o'clock, on the morning of the 8th May, he was going into Gleddish Wood, and saw Leany, who told him he had found a dead man (Benjamin Russell), who had been going after a tub of gin, and he (Leany) was to have met him at eight o'clock. He said, he thought the deceased had made away with himself, but said nothing about robbing Mr. Holloway's barn.

John Sheater proved his having a similar conversation with Leany, about nine o'clock, the same morning. Leany told him, he found the deceased lying on his back.

Robert Boules, a blacksmith, proved, that about seven o'clock

in the morning of the 8th of May, he called at Russell's house, and saw his wife; Leany came in soon after; she said she had been greatly alarmed that morning by a noise up stairs, as if somebody had jumped out of the bed. She consideredita token of somebody's death, and hoped nothing had happened to her husband. She said her husband went out, between four and five o'clock in the morning, towards Gleddish Wood, after a tub of spirits, and had ordered Leany to go after him in about half an hour. The prisoner Leany had lodged in Russell's house about six weeks.

Elizabeth Elliot proved having been at Russell's house about one o'clock on the 8th of May; both the prisoners were present. Mrs. Russell said her husband had been in bed with her till between five and six o'clock that morning.

Hilder, a labourer, proved, that he went with the female prisoner to see the body of the deceased the day it was found. She said on the way, she supposed she would be forced to bury him on Wednesday, as she expected he would be very much swelled, because he had eaten so hearty a dinner and supper on Sunday. On their return to her house, witness asked her what time Leany went to bed on Sunday night? She said, why, Hilder? Witness said, "He was not in bed here was he." She replied, "It does not make any odds to you." Witness then said, "Why, Ben (the deceased) was not a-bed here." She said, "Yes, that he was, by the side of me.' Witness then told her he knew that Leany was not a-bed then, as he knew a man who had seen him. She said, "I know who told you that. It was Hawkins, curse him, he may as well keep his mouth

ceedings were concluded, apprehensions were entertained for the safety of the building; the walls cracked in several places, and it appeared to be in a tottering state, and at length the greater part of the building fell. The site was formerly a part of the bed of the river Thames, but it rested upon a solid stratum of hard gravel, which was 12 feet deep, and into which it was necessary that piles should be driven for the support of a building of such weight and magnitude as the new Customhouse. From the specification it appeared that the builder was to provide a necessary number of engines for the purpose of boring down to the gravel, to ascertain the firmness of the foundation; and he was also to drive the piles into two feet of the stratum of gravel, for, unless those piles were driven into this stratum, they would not afford support to the building. These piles were all to be cut the same length, and levelled. Instead, however, of these piles being of the proper length, to reach the sleepers, some were shorter than the others. There was no complaint made of the external appearance of the building. An immense chasm was, however, discovered in the King's warehouses and the Longroom, and before the cause could be ascertained, one pier sunk nine feet, and another four feet. The warehouses then sunk into the cellars, and this circumstance, he was sorry to state, would put the public to an expense of one hundred thousand pounds. The piling was then examined, and it was wonderful how the piers had stood till the work was completed; for instead of the piles being driven two feet into the gravel, they did

not even reach that gravel, and it was impossible, therefore, they could have been the least support to the pier. Upon examination it was ascertained, that, out of one hundred piles, not one exceeded six feet in length. It was impossible, therefore, they could reach the gravel, and the consequence had been, that the whole of the piling had been removed, and a great part of the building had been taken down, to guard against a similar accident to that which had already occurred. The commissioners were dissatisfied with the conduct of Mr. Laing, and they had thought proper to commence proceedings against him. They also thought that his conduct, and that of Mr. Peto, had been such as not to entitle them to their confidence. The accounts were all made up in a hurry; the greater part was demanded, and paid in a hurry; and when the accounts were disputed, they were suffered to remain four years without being rectified by Mr. Peto; and then, when the building falls, Mr. Peto, for the first time, says, it was a mistaken charge, and it was also by mistake that the spandrels were filled up with rubbish instead of brick-work. He had another complaint to make against Mr. Peto, for the improper mode in which he had laid on the roof of the building. The materials for the roof were to have been of the best quality; but it seemed as if Mr. Peto had collected all the old boards he could find in London. Some of those boards were ornamented with play-bills and other papers, and some were pieces of old boards, and in a very decayed state. He also begged to call the attention of the jury to the flooring of the Long-room, and which