The Express.
London, England, 1850-12-10 00:00:00

JUDICIAL COMMITTEE OF THE PRIVY

COUNCIL-YESTERDAY.

The Judicial Committee of the Privy Council assembled
this mornins., and proceeded with the ordinary busiosse of
the present sitting. The noble lords present were Lord
Langdale. Mr. Byron Parke, Dr. Luohington, and the Right
Ron. Bir Rdwaid Ryan.
_

TRACCOORSITDASS AND OTHERS v PITTEMBERDAIS
AND OTHERS —OTIOSE OANBLING.—JuDoxiINT.
This appeal arose out of an action which was brosgbt in
the Supreme Court of Judicature at Bombay, to recover a
large sum of money from the defendants, on 46 different
wager siontrairs as to the average price of Patna opium at
the first government sale at Calcutta in the years 1846 47.
Four buses were raised on the pleadings. First, that the
defendants did not make the contracts : secondly, that the de-
fendants wen induced to enter into the contracts by the fraud
of the plaiotiffs ; thirdly, that the average price of the Patna
opium cold at the said government isle was an average pries
tenanted by the fraud and collusion of the plaintiffs and others;
fourthly, an issue on a long special plea to the effect that
the conditions of the sale which took piece were different
from the usual conditions of the government sales, and from
those In referent* to which the contracts were made. The
learned judge who tried the case was of opinion that the
first and fourth inns must be found for the plaintiffs.
General evidence was given that the defendants made, through
different brokers, a great number of opium bargains with
the plaintiffs for the first government sale of the reason
1846 47, and that those bargains were such as were declared
upon in this action and were of three different kinds, each
well underrood by those who were in the habit of entering
into these speculations. The plaintiffs it appeared were mem-
bers of a copartnership, which under various style/curled
on an extensive butane in many of the principal cities of India.
For many years previous, and up to the end of the year 1846,
the plaintiffs had entered largely into speculations on the
average price of Patna opium at the government sales at
Calcutta; the average price at the first government sale of
each season being that to which those speculations chiefly
had reference. Previously to the season of 1846 7 it had
been customary to hold five government sale, of opium in
each year; the number of sales was in that season increased
to nine, in consequence of which increase in the number of
sales the opium offered at each was reduced in quantity.
The first government sale of the Eason 1846.7 was on
the 26th of August, 1816, advertised for the 30th of
November in the same year. The whole quantity of
Patna opium for sale on that occasion was 1,690 chests.
Of this quantity the French goverment had by convention
with the government of India the right to claim 300 chute
to be withdrawn from the sale, and to be token by the French
government at the average price fetched by the rest. Pre-
viously to the sale the plaintiffs made au enormous number
of " time " bargains at Bombay, Calcutta, and other cities
Wean; and in these bargains the avenge named ranged from
1,33000 or 1,400 rupees a cheet,up to nearly 1,800. In the contracts
declared upon in this
rupees, and the highest 1,7i6 rupee'. In the great majority
of instances the plaintiffs were -buyers, or, in other words,
speculated on the rive in the price; but it was proved that In
some instances they were sellers, and speculated on the fall.
There was in the months of October and November great
excitement in the boners of Bombay ard Calcutta on the
subject of these opium transactions. The sale, as before
stated, was advertised for its 30th of November, and upon
that °ensign representatives of the firm of Oswald, Seal, and
Co , and Macintyre and Co., of Calcutta, atte oded the sale
to bid on behalf of the plaintiff.. On that day, however,
no sale of Patna opium took place, owing to some parties
keepieg op the bidding' for the first lot all through the
day, and running it up to • preposterously extravagant
price, and the government agent finding that those partite
were determined to keep up the biddings until nighe, was
obliged to abandon the design of selling at all on that day,
so that there was no sale whatever on the 30th of November.
Immediately after the Iglus of the intended sale, • letter,
offering 1,800 Tepees per ace for the cpium, was written by
the pieties above mentioned to Mr. Torrees, the secretary to
the beard of opium. The sale was again advertised for the
7th of December, with some new o editions introduced,
chiefly with a slew of preventing a recurrence of the inter-
ruption which had taken pine on the previous occasion. The
sole of the 7'h of Denman was also attended by repie-
tentacle's if the before-mentioned five firms, and also by the
representatives of the plaintiffs. All the parties men-
tioned were commissioned to attend the sole, and bid
up to 1,800 rupees, or thereabou'e, per chest for
the PM& opium. Before the sale the French go-
vernment were Induced, it was alleged, by the payment
of 30,000 rupees, to claim 380 chests, and the whole
quantity of Patna °piens offered at the sale was thus reduced
to 1,390 chute. Oa the 7th of December the sale took place,
and it appeared from a list furnished by the government
agent, and admitted on bolt sides, that, with the i inception
of 75 chests, the whole of the Pates opium was purchased by
the plaintiffs at prices which made the p. price amount
to rather more than 1,793 rupees per chest, and the average
was greatly enhanced, it was alleged, by the efforts of the
plaintiffs' agents. Aseuming that tee plaintiffs acted from
the motive imputed to them by the defer dents, it would
have answered their purpose, it was contended, • great deal
better it other parties had teen the porch' en of the whole
of the drug, provided the ge had been forced up suffi-
ciently high to make the anculaton upon a high average the
pions. The plaintiffs paid the goyt rnment for the whole
of the Patna opium excepting the 75 chests, acd it requited
an immerse • =mond :of capital to enable the plaintiffs to
operate es they did upon the market, for the sum paid by
them to the government exceeded 24 lakhe of rupees. Soon
after the sale this very opium, or at least a portion of it, was
sold by them at 1,200 and 1,300 rupees a chest, so that to
gain by such a transactioa the number and extent of their
wager contracts must have been prodigious.
Mr. Baron Pup delivered the judinent of the council,
and recepitulated the foregoing statement of the facts of
the case. He said the main otoietions in the present appeal
szose epon the second and third pleas, namely, that the
average price of the opium sold was an average price en-
hanced by the fraud and collusion of the respondents, and
that the appellants were induced to enter into than contracts
by the fraud end covin ef the respondents. Another point
relied upon by the appellants wee, that owing_ tei the
change of the day of site, the contract was void. The court
below had been of opinion that the contract bad not beet
avoided by that sot, and the members of the courted con-
curred in that view of the can. The next question was
whether the average price exceeded the fixed sums
named in the contracts ; and that pint raised an issue
whether in fact the average price had been fnuduleatly
swelled, and whether by then means the contract could be
avoided by the appellants on the ground of fraud. The ap-
pellants mu,t have known, at the time the contracts were
entered into, the usual coons of dealing which was adopted
in these sales, and that the average price cf the opium might
be enhanced by deceptive means. It had been alleged that
several persons had attended the sale who were an the employ
cf the respondents, who had raised the biddings to an
inordinately large sum, and it had been said that that cir-
cumstance constituted as illegal corapiracy. The market
was opea to all, and therefore it could not be said that that
was • conspiracy. The nature of the bargain was evidently
understood at the time the contract was entered into, end
the fraud alleged in the declaration was not within the
meaning of the third plea. However much the council
might 'wet these disreputable and unbecoming practices it
could not say that the respondents' proceedings had been
fraudulent or illegal. The respondents were therefore
entitled to recover, and the Judgment of the court below
nest be affirmed, with interest and costs.
Judgment accordingly.

COURT OF QUEEN'S BENCH.—YEarraDAL
13ITTIMMI AT Nun PAIVI AT WILISITISTYI2.—BILTORN LOAD C.UIITBIL

AND A SPECIAL AMT.
81/ITII V. COOL-LIM

Mr. E. James, Q C., Mr. Lusk, and another learned gen.
denten represented the plaintiff; and Mr. Serjeant She.
and Mr. Parry the &Mideast.
Trds was an action to mover compensation in damages for
a libel which charged the plaintiff with the crime of piracy.
The defendant pleaded not guilty. The alleged libel oa
which the action was brought was a letter which appeared in
the Times on the 20th of June, 1850, in the shape of a letter
si‘ned by the defendant. This letter had reference to martial
statements which had been made by the plaintiff ate meeting
of the Pew Society at the london Tavern in the summer of
this par, on the 'object of the then late destruction of
pirates at Borneo, at which meeting, it will be remembered,
Mr Cobden, M.P., was present, and took a conspicuous part
in the proceedings. The letter charged as libellous was as
follows:

TN$ CHARON OP PIRACY AOAINST CAPTAIN AARON
BMIIII.
" TO IRS EDITOR OP THE TINES.
Sir,—On my return to town, after an absence of some
weeks in Scotland, my attention has been drawn to • number
of letters published in the Times relative to Captain Aaron
Smith, but more especially to one that 'Tunic in your
solemn' of the Ist inst., leas • Mr. E. Garbutt to Mr.
M.P. In this letter the writer, afar defending his
friend goes on to state that Captain Cook, on the first trial,
was a wiuiees for the prosecuaion, and on that occasion gave
the whole statement of Lis own capture from the Industry.
Further on he says : Captain Smith arteries/dm published a
narrative of the capture of titi se ships, in which he clearly
shows tat what Cutting Cook had stated was untrue, and
the latter party has never had the seanl.ness to an it or
in anyway to defend himself.'
" Nor, sir, as statements such es these, when given to the
world through the medians of your columns, are calculated
to affect injariously my counter for probity, I must there-
fore beg the favour of your obliging me so far es to bum the
following brief narrative of meta, with a few observations
which I have to offer thereon, in your widely-extended and
influential journal:
" On Weeneeday, August 7, 1822, when in command of
the brig Industry, on a voyage from Jamaica to the Wand
of St. Thom's, I car, after six hours' chase, boarded and
taken potseasion of by a boat from a piratical schooner near,
the island of Cubs, which boat wea commanded by en,
Englishman named Aaron Smith, whom I immediately re-
cognised by his cacti, though his lute was bleckened. This
man, the moment that he set his foot on beard, gavel
direoti-nor that a sentry should be placed on seek hatch-
way, and that no one should be permitted to pumap or
down. All orders which be subsequently gave were strictly
attended to by the pirate crew. Be commenced to bully*
and blackguard myself, even before he came out of the boat,'
for sot heaving to when he first fired. Somewhat irritatedi
at this, asked him who he was that I should obey him ?
His rep.), wee, Yon will soon Sod who X am.' I then
. 'called him by name, but he denied his nano, sod said he '
ad never seen me. Shortly after this I was ordered
by the said Smith to take my skly's sad mew and to
userepas: iwi Waal Ow vomit Una a 11kit