The Express.
London, England, 1863-02-27 00:00:00

COURT OF COMMON PLEAS.—Fis. 26.

&Wily at Nisi Prins in London.--(Before Lord Chief Jae-
tios &le and a Spacial Jury.)

BURGESS V. vamarrinr.—fraz SUPPLY OF inn AT THE

This was an action to recover damages in oonsegnenoe,
u the plaintiff alleged, of his having been induced to pay
two sums of 8001. and 2001. for the privilege of supplying
common Whle4 at the Exhibition, upon certain false repro-
sentationa The defendant, by a plea, denied this state-
ment. . . -

Earl Granville, the Duke of Buckingham, Sir C. W.
Bilks, and other gentlemen connected with the Exhibition,
were in attendance aa witoreaes.
Mr. Lush, Q.C., and Mr. Healey appeared for the plain.
tiff ; and Mr. Hawkins, Q.C., and Mr. Henry James for
the defendant.

il;;Plintiff's counsel stated that his client was a wine
grower at Beckham. and having heard that Mr. Valentin,
the defendant, was going to enter into a contract with the
Commissioners of the Exhibition to supply certain kinds of
wines, he applied to the defendant, with the view of having
wines of his (the plaintiff's) own growth sold there. The
plaintiff sew the defendant at Pans, where he carried on
business, and afterwards in London. He also saw a
M. Veillard, who was introduced at the defendant's
restaurateur. The defendant represented that be had a
contract to supply wine at the Exhibition, and at first 4001.
sou talked of as to be paid by the plaintiff for having his
wince sold there ; afterwards 6004, and then 8001. The
defendant said that other parties were making applications,
and on one occasion, at the Clarendon, he said that some
of the commissioners were is an adjoining room. Ultimately
the plaintiff agreed to pay the 800!. -Very little of the
=tiff's wine, however, was sold, and when M. Veillard
it turned out that he himself was the
contractor, and that the defendant ad supplied him with
62,800 franca at 6 per cent. The plaintiff's case was that if
he had known that M. Veillard and not M. Valentin was
the contractor, be would not have entered into the contract
and paid his money.
M. Valentin said that in October or November, 1861, M.
Veillaal was introduced to him, and be informed witness
that he was about entering into a contract to supply refresh-
ments to the Exhibition, and said if he got it he would • ly
to witness for the supply of wine. He said he ahoald re-
quire advances of money from these be entered into arrange-
manta with, to enable him to pay the commissioners. After
having inquired of three references as to his respectability
witness agreed to supply M. Valiant with wine. The
plaintiff afterwards came to witness and asked to be allowed
to supply ithine wine. Witness said that there existed
between him and M. Veillard an arrangement
that witness should supply the wine. It was ar.
ranged that Mr. Burgess should send samples. The samples
were sent, and it was agreed that Mr. Burgess should supply
wine. Witness said that Mr. Bones must tuppltt money
to meet a part of the expense which he (witness would
incur. The witness entered into the details of e nego-
tiation which followed, end which ended in Mr. Burgeme
agreeing to pay the 8001. and entering into the contract.
He added that he never told Mr. Burgess that he was per-
sonally in communication with the Royal Commissioners, or
that be had any contract with them. He never mid that
be bad just seen some of the oommissioaer" at the Clarendon.
Witness himself sent over to this country wines and spirits
to the amount of about 17,0001., and when M. Veillard
failed witness lost 1,7001. by him.
The Lord Chief Justice left it to the jury to say whether
the plaintiff had been induced to pay his money upon the
false representation by the defendant that he had a contract
with the Royal Commissioners.
The jury found a verdict for the defendant.