The Express.
London, England, 1848-08-09 00:00:00

EQUITY COURTS.
Before the Master of the Belk.

BETTS T. BARRI/W.—INJUNCTION TO RESTRAIN SALE or
BR•NOT DISSOLVED.—MSSFTS. Roupell and Cairns movid
to discharge an injunction obtained by the plaintiffs, Messrs.
Betts and Co the brandy merchants, to restrain the de-
fendant, John Barrow, Irons parting with cm taM parcels of
brandy imported by him in the year 1811 Irons Guernsey
and Heligoland, and which it was alleged by the pia ntiffs
he had contracted to sell to them. The defendant, it ap-
peered, had imported about 60,000 gallons of the brandy in
question ; and, atter some dispute and the edatmeneement of
litigation between him and the Commissioners of Customs,
as to the duty payable on the brandy, which in' quality
almost equalled the fine French brandy, the government
agreed to allow the brandy to be admitted for home con-
sumptioa, on paying 7s. 10d. per gallon duty (the rate of
duty payable on British brandy), part of which was to he
remitted, and also on paying certain damages to the de-
fendant; and the brandy was to be marked
with the red permit, the distinctive permit of French
brandy. It appeared that some other parcel+ of their brandy
had been imported by two other partit a ; but suh-equsntly
to its importation an act was passed prohibiting the importa-
tion of brandy front the Channel Islands under similar cir.
cumstances, and it became a great object with the plaintiffs
to buy the brandy in the hands of the deft ndant and the
other importers. Accordingly in May, 1818, they commu-
nicated with the defendant through Mr. James Field, a
broker in the City, as to the put chase of the brandy, and the
I defendant wrote a letter on the 27th of May, proposing to
sell 30,000 gallons to the plaintiffs, on certain terms then in
mentioned, and this letter was forwarded to the p'aintill's
through Mr. Field; and on the 20th of May last bought and
sold notes of that date were, at the ins since of the plaintiffs,
prepared and signed by Field for the sale of 30,000 gallons.
Subsequent negotntions took place for a further quantity of
the brandy, and bought and sold notes, dated 7th of Juno,
for such further quantity, were also prepared and signed by
Field. The defendant objected to the cont. acts as not con-
taining the terms on which he agreed to sell, and repudiated
the authority of Field to (lair into the terms contained in the
notes. The plaintiffs thereupon filed their Lill to restrain the
defendant from disposing of the brandy to any other person,
which, they alleged, would be a serious injury to their trade,
and to have a op- cific performance of the contracts ; and they
obtained, es parte, on the 27th July last, the injunction now
sought to be dissolved. The authority of Field was denied
by the defendant's counsel, and they contended that the
plaintiffs might get redress at law. and did not want the aid
uf equity, if the defendant was bound I,y the contrac.a.—
Meurs. Turner and Harding appeared in support of the in-
junction.—The Master of the ;tells, without calling on Mr.
Roupell to reply, dissolved the iejunotioo with costs, to he
paid by the pl to the defendant, unless, as was alleged,
it was a settled practice not to give costs ahere the notice of
motion did not ask for them, which was the case here. His
lordship slid he would inquire into the practice as to this.