The Express.
London, England, 1858-03-12 00:00:00

THOMPSON V. HICK MAN AND ANOTHAL.

This wee ea seeks tecteght by Mr. James Morley Thomp-
-1100,11 young mom, ea from enrckaat,at De
,Irony near
Blisiom, against Memes.G. H. sad A. Mamma, ironmasters
is the same district, to recover damages lkw a breach of a
waned for the delivery of 250 bas of irra.
Mr. Whatley, Q.C.,and Kr. Kettle. were retained for the
plaintiff; Serjeeat Pigott end Mr. M'Mahoa for the defrnoe.
The plaiatirs evidence wee to the aid that having had •
warrant for the delivery of 250 tone of the dud ndents' iron
offered to him for sale Most the 20th of Clot.lest by the broker
of Mew,. W. T. Riley and Son, he consulted Mr. Jenkins,
Mmes. Rickman's cashier, who recommended the purchase,
and agreed to share in the apecolation. On the 27th plaintiff
mentiamed the matter to Mr. Alfred Hickman, one of the
Scm, who meld it was all right, and they would be happy to
deliver the DOD to him. The warrant wee eccordingly purr-
dimmed on the 28th, and wee in the following form •
"Staffordshire Iron Wharf, Wolverhampton,
" 17th Oct., 1867.
" Warrant for 250 To.. Mebane. Cinder Pigs.

" We hold deliverable to the order of William Riley and
Sons 260 parcels (each containing 2,400 pounds weight) of
oar Bileton Brook gray
to forge cinder pig iron, and will
deliver them free of any usual South Staffordshire
district delivery to the holder of this warrant, provided the
same be endorsed by Wlll. Riley and Son. We have re-
ceived payment ise the said pigs from Messrs. Wm. Riley
end Son. " G. H. and A. HICIMAN..
The purchase mwey, 7601., for the 260 toes, at 21.
pee lon, was paid in bills, part of which, it
peered,ap-
had since been dishonoured. Plaintiff told Mr.
Alfred Hickman on the saw day that he had purchased the
warrant, and readved a promise that ha should have the
km In this erres of the same day the plaintiff copied
from a draft of Jenkins an order to Mews. Hickman and
Ma ix the delivery of fifty tons of the non, and sent it by
Jenkins, who wanted it on account of his portion of the pur-
chase. On eke following morning the plaintiff went to the
office of the defendants, where ha saw this letter lying
before Mr. Alfred Hickman, who promised that the iron
should be delivered at once, but requested plaintiff to leave
the warrant with them, and directed Jenkins to give him an
acknowledgment for it. He did not, however, get
the acknowledgment, and only obtained possession of
the warrant again after the commencement of this
action. Plaintiff also deposed to the delivery of 25 tons on
account of the warrant to a man named Whitehouse on his
order, and to a convocation in which Mr. A. Hickman
acknowledged this delivery and promised to deliver the rest ;
and to an interview on the 14th Nov. with Mr. George Hick-
man, who hinted at the Impending failure of Riley and Son,
who, se it afterwards turned out, had stopped payment on
that day, and said they should deliver no more en that war-
rant. Joseph Whitehouse wan also called to ;trove the
receipt of the 26 tons of iron, and that it was of a quality
corresponding with that mentioned in the warrant, and not
with that referred to in another contract for 100 tons between
the plaintiff and defendants.
Poe the defence Mr. Alfred Hickman distinctly swore
that lashed never seen the delivery order referred to until he
saw it at the office of the plaintiff's solicitor, under a notice to
; that he had never V delivered, and never promised to
vesret any portion of the iron included in the warrant ; that
be hatilad no ewer/tenon whatever about the warrant with
the plaintiff on the two first occasions to which the latter
bad spoken; that the iron delivered to Whitehouse was part
el the 100 tons contract ; and that when the plaintiff showed
him the warrant on the 29th, and pressed for • promise, he
(whams) told him he could make no promise at all.
Hie Lordship—And did you think at the time that, having
sent into the market a contract like this, Mating upon the
face of it that you had been paid for the iron, you were still
not bound to deliver it ?

Witness—l did believe that we were not liable to Thomp-
son, sad that Riley could not enforce the contract because
be had failed to perform normal smiler contracts with us.
In orces-exarnination by 11,. Whateley the witness mid
it was a rare thing in the iron trade to sell them warrants.
His firm had not sold more than three. Thepractios was
introduced by Mr. Samuel Grffilths. He had bought up a
dishonoured bill with the plaintiff's Damson the back, and
had calmed &trader debtor's summons to be leaned on it. He
bad also commenced an action against the plaintiff fur the
recovery of the amount. This was winos the commencement
of the moment action, and at a time when his (witsom's)
firm were seeking the forbearance of their own creditors, and
had had several of their own bills dishonoured.

the de fence,
Mr. What.ley replied on the whole case, commenting with
great severity on the conduct of the defendants, which he
teemed " audacious and dishonest," sad argued from all the
theta that the jury most beam the *views tithe plaintiff,
sad mast disbelieve that gives by the deleadaat, Alfred
iliokmazt. _

Sic lordship munceed up the ease to the jury at =
In miler-
able length, and reelected vary severe tame awn the de-
fendants for attempting to get rid of the pe obliga-
tion which the terms of the warrant which they had given
equitably _lmposed. He rid," The most unblushing
priory had beep committed on one side," and it was for the
jury to comeithe by whom it had been committed. He woe
of opinion that, apart from the two questions which he was
about to submit to this., the plaintiff could legally recover
on this warrant, as it was an agreement to deliver rather
then • centred toga, the latter in common law not being
meignabh to a Med party except when there was a part
execution of the contract, or special agreement or an
agreement in writing. Putting Wm point aside, how-
ever, he submitted to the jury that the two questions
were, whether they believed the evidence of the piste.
tiff that an agreement was some to on Oct. 29 eir the
plaintiff to deliver up the warrant on condition of the defen-
dants delivering the iron, and whether 26 tons delivered to
Whitebait's was a part of the 260 tons for which the warrant
wee given. His lordship next went through all the recta
connected with the cam pointieg out bow extremely impro-
bable was the ease est up by the decendanta, and supported
by the evidenceof Mr. Alfred Hickman and his brother,
end by their cashier, Jenkins, a young married man, who It
appeared in the course of the trial was the only one of two
who bad any capital, who had founded the boo
=awry Compels , at Market Drayton, Shropshire, he being
a cashier to the d is at a salary at 1501. and having,
as he mid, obtained his capital by having bees A yeieg
young man." This company wee commenced in July, 1867,
and was dissolved in the following November.
The jury found the aMensative dboth the lames referred
to them, giving a verdict for the dselease
the amount of the ~rest, lees the oast of 26 tow
delivered to Whit .harts._

ewes,lha wortlisi by a special joiT, excited much
interest ea oomeeted with the trade of &nth Stairerdehire,
seel ocelapied the euwi eight hours.

MIDLAND ClRCUlT.—NcrrnmouAli, MAI= 11.
CZOWV Coos?.—(Before Lad Chid amoeba Campbell.)

0•1101111 1110111121 T.

Ina drawl VA a protW robbsry at
Brinks, am Nottlmlim, as the 11111 et Weber lath
It apperted hoes the widows thee the isseseeke. Mr.
Thome WA di& he the ltelthelthe Desk,