The British Press; or, Morning Literary Advertiser.
London, England, 1808-12-29 00:00:00

JONES V. HURCOMISE.

Mr. PARK stated, that the Plaintiff was a con.
sideridde silk-tnercer, in Paternuster-row ; that
the Defendant was an oilimia, in St. Paul's Church-
yard ; and that this was an actiou for recovery from
the Defendant of It debt of 1591. for goods sold to
a Mrs. Lainbert, a milliner, at Brighton, front May
to September, 1806.
_upon the assurance of the
Defendant that she was capable of payiii!, for
them; whereas he must, at that time, bevy Couwit
that she was insolvent ; her bills had siuce
heen tilSllo 444444 red, and she had paid her creditors
but three shillings in the pound. The Learned
Counsel, in support of the law upon which the
present action way brought, cited a case of I app a.
Lee, 3 Bosaisquet and Puller, 1.5 i, when it was
held by Mr. Justice Chambre, in a %oink,' action,
that for the referee to keep hack truth was us bad
as to utter falsehood.

(ieorge Kay, showman to the Plaintiff, was at
the house of Air. J .s, a customer of their'., on
the lztli of May, Mph,' where he first saw Alit.
Limilwrt, whom lie solicited to deal with the Plain-
tiff. She accordingly came to the Montano shop
shortly afterwards, and had 131. worth of :mid-.
Mr. Rice Jones, brother to the Plaintiff, referred
himself to the Defendant by his brother's desire,
for the responsibility of Mrs. Lambert. This was
before Any ',vitals were 114.11 t out of his brother's
shop. The Defendant told him he perfectly knew
Mrs. Lambert to be an industrious careful woman,
io very good business, and worth from Jt/01. to
400). Upon this he returited• to his brother, and
heard him order the goods to be rent. lie count
Rot say whether this was on the 14th or 15th of
May, but it must have been berate the tuth, us he
left town on that day.
Lord Et,t.Lsnottourist here intimattol, mist the
immediate credit vas all that parties were liable
for; and he %Ala clear that the Plaintiff could
not recover fur goods sold aftertheil dill of July, in
this instance. a period, when it appeared the Plain-
tiff must possess tit much knowledge of Mrs. 1.11111-
beq's circumstances as the Defendant.

The Counsel for the Plaintiff, upon this, inti-
mated that they were content to go oily for what
was furnished up to that time.
M. Juinea said, he was applied to by Mr. Ray,
and afterwards by the Plaintiff, for the character of
Mrs. Lambert. The Witness told them he knew
very little About her, and referred tuna to the De-
fendant. Ede told the Plaintiff he thought her &m-
-antes:snot very extensive, and adviiied hint to give
her no greet credit.
The delivery of the goods to Mrs. Lambert, and
her insolvency, were then proved in detail.

Mr. ATTORNET-GLNERAL, for the Defendant,
said, that Mrs. Lambert had never referred to the
Defendant fur her character; but that the Plaintiff
had been fishing out, by the angler his brother,
somebody In charge with the recommendation. The.
Defendant had no reason to think Mrs. Lambert
otherwise than solvent.
Mrs. Lambert said she made not to the Defead-
aid an account of her debts awl credits, by wind,
it appeared that she was from ebul. to 3001. distance
from insolvency ; and the Defendant hail since that
period limisell trusted her with 641. Her itirclivitucy
arrew from the unfavourable It 111011 fur trade at
ighton, which the ye.ir litu6 was, and from losses
by robbery which she lied experienced.
Upon her cross-examination, the witness said,
that she came to town in slay, for fear of arrest,
and that alai commimicated this to the Defendant.
At that time rise had not beret robbed. Her losses
by that circuomittiocte amounted to about 1001.

(leorge Uouee, abolition' to the l)efeiulant, re-
membered Mr. Rice Jones cowing to the De-
fendttut's, and it wao a week after Mu. Lambert
went oat of town. In the conversation between
Mr. Jones and the lleleinlant. he heard the De-
feudi.ait say, Mrs. Lambert was able to pap 20s. ti
•the pound, and from -2001. to 3001. to 'pare. Ile
then spoke to her character, and added, s. Now,
do as you plensie." The Witness believed that the
person he pointed to (Mr. Rice Jones) was the per-
son that ended.

Mr. Rice Jones said, he never to his knowledge
saw the last witness brinre. It WWI a little after
three in the afternoon when Mrs. Lambert came to
hesidetlice's. and before four that the witiiess call-
ed on the Defendant. There might have been a
young nom in the shop.
Mr. PARK, in reply, contvmled that the shop-
wan's evidence wos not to be relied upon, for Mr.
Jones could speak to his positively g g , oat of
town on the e2oth, and to an Inquiry being made be-
fore the goods were delivered, whereas the shoonon
spoke wily from memory. The account of Mrs.
Lambert's debts and credits, Mr. Park comrades',
was a'were fabrication, she having put down as
good, all her bad and dabieus debts. rod the De-
fendant could not have beti deceived by it. The
tie!. lie lent her might have been out of Isis pare?
nal regard for her. In the contradictory evidence
which had been given. the Jury ware to recollect,
that one of the witnesses might be mistaken, and
that the other could not.

Lord ELLENNOROUGIII said, the Jury were to
sousider whn ther the credit that woe here given via.
itnmcdiateh consequent to the representation ; and
upon this point, the evitlettee of Bay nod James
supported the contradiction to that of Julie.; for
their evidence proved that the Plaintiff hu►l made
subsequent inquiries as to the character of
Lambed; and was it curt-intent with the common
conduct of man, to go about making funhcr inqui-
ries into the responsibility of a twrson who had
►een served upon an already sufficient guarantee?
—Verdict for the Lliefeuiltusb