The Dorset County Express and Agricultural Gazette.
Dorchester, Dorset, England, 1864-03-08 00:00:00

had been fully done inlaide to, addresses on lehalf of
the temperance cause were delivered by Messrs. Ft.
Hobbs, sod Toyler, which had the effect of bringing
over several converts to the teroperance rstikr, several
pertoos joining the pledge. A resolution in favour of
the Permissive Bill was passed.

•
W a RE:11A11.--11thigait AND ANOTHan r.
.1c ist.MENT.—Tnie ease was tried at our County Court on
Fri.l'y, February 12, before 'l'. Sautidere, Esq., deputi
judge, wlisn after hearing the evidence at gnat I,ugth
its Honor deferred judgment. We have Leen favoured
with the decision, and the following is • brief outlined
the facts of the ease was a plaint brought by the
trustees of the estate and effects of one Waslabourne,
under a deed executed under the provisions of
sec. 192 of the 24th and 25th Via., e. 134, to
recover the sum of £lO 16s. for beer supplied
by Weald/flume, who was a brewer, to the
defendant, eh% it appeared, carried on the %main.. of
a retail beerseller, without however, having an Excise
license. Upon the trial it was partially proved, seal
(to avoid unnecessary delay in the eariminetion of
witnesses) admitted 011 the pert of the defendant, that
at the time the beer was supplied to her, Waslabourne
knew that she intended to sell it again by wail in
contravention of the Bade laws, she having no Excise
license, and in fact having been fined 51.i3 au information
before the justieet, though it dad not appear in evidence
whether any of the ha riled been supplied since the con-
viction. Thesupplying of the beer, and the fairnessof the
amount charged were sot disputed, and the only defence
et up by Mr. Weston, was that the plaintiffs were
not entitled to recover, init.:much as the beer hating
been furnished by Wastibourne with a knowledge that
the defendant intended to retail it in violation of the
Excise laws, which lawn in the instance of beeraho:e are
intended to accomplish not only revenue but pollee
objects, he was a early to an illegal contract, sod so
not entitled,to recover. I suspended my judgment to
consult the authorities upon the subject, and basing
done so, I have come to the conclusion that upon the
frets of this case the plaintiffs are nut entitled to recover.
To render a contract void on the ground of illegality
it must be shown that the party who *oaks to enforce it
has been a participator in the illegality, or derived some
advantage from it. It is not enough that be should
merely know that the defendant snivels to apple the
subject-matter of the contract to an unlawful purpose.
If the contract is of itself of a lawful nature, and it is
sought to impeach it by something that subsequently
takes place, it must be shown that that something was
a term in the contrast, or that the plaiutiff participated
in it. The law seems clearly and well stated in Addison
on contracts, sth ed., page 221, where it timid : " Mere
knowledge, however. on the part of • vendor that •
buyer will make an illegal use of goods sold to him, is
not sufficient to deprive the vendorof his rightof payment
of the price. It is necessary that the vendor should be
• sharer in the illegal transaction, and should reader some
aid beyond that of merely selling the goods."—ln the
caw of Hodgson r. Temple, 5, 'Taunton's reporte,
page 181, where the plaintiff sold spirituous liquor to
another, well knowing they were to be retailed in viola-
tion of the Excise laws, Mansfield, C.J. said : " This
would be carrying the law much further than it has
ever yet been carried. The merely belling goods know-
ing that the buyer will make an illegal no. of them is
not sufficient to deprive the vendor of Ms just right of
payment; but to effect that it is necessary that the
vendor should be a sharer in the illegal transaction."
This case has never been overruled, but on the contrary,
in the resent case of Ritchie v. Smith, 6, Common
Bench reports, 474, 18, LJ.C., page 9, it is cited
with approbetion. Upon the argument hi the present
ease, several eases were cited in support of the objection;
but it will be found upon twinning them that it was
either a part of the contract that the goods were to be
illegally applied, or the plaintiff did something beyond
the mere selling of the goods to promote the illegality
set up. I know of no case (except perhaps that of the
sale of brewers' drugs, Langton e. Hughes, 1 Menke and
Belwyn's reports, page 395, which stands upon its own
peculiar footing,) in which • contract for the sale of
goods is in itself lawful, has been held to be void merely
because the seller knew that the buyer intended to
make an unlawful use of them. If, in the present cane,
the house occupied by the defendat, and wherein she
sold the beer by retail, had been the property of
Washbourne, and any arrangement had been
made whereby she was to carry on the business
of a beerseller without having a license, or
If the vendor, knowing that she had no license,
agreed to supply her with beer, charging her only with
the quantity site sold, the contrast would have been
illegal. But nothing of that kind existe in the present
ease. It merely appeared that Washbourne was aware
that the beer the ddeudant bought of him she intended
to sell in an unlicensed home. I think, therefore that
the contract was not illegal, and that the plaintiffs are
entitled to recover; and 1 direct that judgment be
entered for the plaintiffs with the usual ousts, the
ismouut to he paid by two equal inatalmenta. the first
' at the expiration of one month from the day of the
, hearing of the plaint (12th February), and the second at
' the expiration of one month then next after.--
Hillier and another v. Bagg. for £lO 16s. 3d. and
Hillier and another r. Whiting, far £4 94. 1.1. It
being *greed that the two above cases should follow the
event of the first, I order judgment in each case to be
entered for the plaintiffs, with the same costs to be paid
in the same manner.—THOMAS WILLIAY BAUSDII4B,
deputy-judge.-25tt February, 18134.

BLANDFORD.—Boaovori Poocg, Wednesday,
March 2nd.—Before the Mayor and F. T. Johns, Eaq.
—John Benson and William Coward were summoned
by P.C. Moore, charged with drunk and riotous conduct
on the previous Thursday evening, the 25th February.
The police-constable stated that he was stilt for by
Mrs. Soper, landlady of the White Hone Inn, in con-
sequence of the disturbance made in her house by the
defendants—When he got there be found them both
intoxicatol, and making use of the most disgusting
language to the landlady. Both of the defendants
denied the charge, at the same time stating that the
policeman himself was drunk both on that and the
following evening. This was denied by a witness who
saw the constable the same night, and the Bench con-
sidering the charge fully proved. tined Benton 15a 64.1.
including costs, or 7 days' imprisonment, allowing a
week tom, and Coward lls, including costa. —Money
Pwid-
On Friday last, George Paul and Solomon 13allam,
were brought up in custody of P.C. Hunt, before Lord
Portman, at Bryanstone, charged with stealing sheep-
skins, sod were remanded till the following Tueday.
ELECTION OF AUDITORS AND ASNIBSOILS. —On
Tuesday last Mr. James Ball, coachbuilder, and Mr.
Joseph Stewart, grocer, were elected aasesors ; and
Mr. J. W. Olyde and Mr. H. Stickla.nd were
elected auditors for the borough.
Accipmart.—A slight accident occurred on Monday
last to Mr. Byers s railway van. The horse fell on
coming down Salisbury-street, one of the shafta of the
van was broken, and the harness was partially

injured.
Timrzaaacs 130c1rrv.—We understand the com-
mittee of this society have engaged the services of Yr.
Smith, who will on Wednesday, Much 9th, exhibit
some dims ilving views, subject i—The Bottle ;" and
who will also give some of the incidents in the life of
Whittington.