The British Press; or, Morning Literary Advertiser.
London, England, 1824-07-10 00:00:00

COURT OF KINGS BEACH, FRIDAY, JULY 9.

Yi:tngs ix LOll4lOl, brfiwe Mr. Justice LITTLKDALE and a
Commas, Jetry.

6TItONG v. BROWN.
This was an action tor goods sold and delivered. The plaintiff
had sold to the defendant, through the agency of Wilkins. a
quantity of butter at Otis. per firkin, amounting to u°!, Ills. The
better was delivered. A composition of Os. in the pound was of-'
fired in payment ; but the plaintiff, believing that the insolvency
was fraudulent, refused this offer. The defendant said that in that
case the plaintiff must employ an attorney, anal he would uhtain
no money at al:.
Messrs. CAMPBELL and CHITTY called Witnesses to prove this
case.
COXMON Setnaasyr said his defence was, that the plain.'
tifi' had prechaled his claim by having induced others to agree to
tie composition of &a, upon aitaurance of his own willirgness to
agrce to it. If this defence should fail, he would prove that the
property of the plaintiff io the butter was only to the amount of
25L. the other half being, the property of a person in the country,
according to the plaintiff's own_ admission.
Evidence was given of bosh these branches of defence.
Mr. Justice LITTLEDALE said, that if the plaintiff said to the
other creditors that he would sign the deed of composition, he could
DOS recover, although be had not actually Aped h. It was sulk-
cien: if any one of the creditors was proved to have entered into
thy composition in consequence of the representation of the plain-
tn. It appeared evident that he had not agreed to sign for his
friend in the country, for that he did not consider himself entitled
to treat that half as his property.
Verdict for the plaintiff, 26!.15.
301,ZPIIS V. !EIMER.

Mr. Me RRRRR T said this was an action to recover the amount
of money paid by the plaintiff' for certain .I.ares of stock in the
Equitable Loan flank Society, in the name of the defendant. The
Learned lientleman gave a history of the formation of this Insti-
tution, and of the application for an Act of Parliament, which
failed after the lhll had passed the Lower House, and come to a
third reading in the Upper, on account of the lateness of the period
at which it was brought forward. The defendant had bought ten li
snares for 51. 10s., at a premium of Si. 10s. There was also a de.
posit of IL, and 2/. DK for commission. The amount now gone
for was, in all, Ill!. The plaintiff', 'fiet some objection, had con.
seined to take then in presence of another person, who had offered
to take them. He understood that his Learned Friend was to give
meth learned law on the Act of Parliament, which prevented re.
covery by a Company whose business was a nuisance to the public.
It would be necessary to prove that this Institution was a nureance,
in order to admit the objection. The object was to employ a ca-
pital of 2,000,080/. in advancing loans upon pledgee at about eight
per cent. instead of twenty per cent. which the pawnbrokers took
at pent. This could not be considered as a nuisance to the public.
sempsoti Holdemid, a etock-broker, a dealer in foreign stock,
said that in the month of April last the plaintiff purchased ten
shares in the Equitable Loan Bank Stock, at 51. 10s. each, and
51. 10a. of premium. On the 21st of April the certificates were
issued, and the plaintiff paid GM. 10s., being 5/. 10s. of premium,
and W. per share of deposit.
• Mr. GUMMY mom-examined, to ascertain that the witness had
not himself purchased before the sale. He did not know from
whom he bought them, or any shares which he had bocght. lie
swore these were the very shares he bought on the 7th of April.
lie bought other shares between the 7th and 210.
Abraham 31;chael beet was told by the defendant, Mr.
.fosaphs had bought for him ten shares, at SL 10s. per share.
Mr. Phillips offered to take the shares from the defendant, but
lie refused, without profit.
Slack Bennadi was present when a conversation took place be-
tween the parties, at which the sale was the subject of discussion.
It was on the3JS, and Mr. Pebrer said he would have nothing to
do with the shares, because he had riot received them earlier. 51r.
Josephs said he had not been able to see him on the 21st.
The note of the transaction was read in evidence.
Mr. Hoaxer now objected that it had cot been shown what
this Institution wait, in order to satisfy the Court and Jury that it
did not come within the Act of Parliament, which declared certain
transfers of stock, without ('hatter or Act of Parliament, illegal
and void. The Lord Chancellor, it was known, had uttered a very
strong opinion upon the illegality of such institution!.
Mr. CHITTY contended that, by Sir. Marryatt's own showing,
r greater interne was to be taken than the law allowed. Without
an Am of Parliament this was illegal. The Institution was not
l 711 r fioldsmid was recalled by Mr. Burney, to Rove that the
Institution was to advance money.
ir. Comae objected to hearsay evidence upon the subject.
Winton did not know hum Josephs that it was a compimy to
lend money.
Mr. Levi knew only from newspapers and the prospectus what
tea object of the Company was. Ile never did talk to 51r. Josephs
about it.
51r. Justice LITTLEDALT. said, that from the prospectus he
could see nothing illegal in the Institution.
Mr. Cm ITT e raised another point. The principal had not em-
powered the broker to pay the money, and therefore he could not
be liable as for money paid foe his use and by his order. Ile could
only, therefore, recover 21. 10s. for work and labour. If he sold
the goods himself be ought to bring his action fur goods sold and
delieeroL
Mr. 3IADDYATT argued, that when money was actually paid
upon contract the action lay for money paid.
Mr. Justice LITTLEDALZ said he need not trouble himself fur-
ther, for there was evidence that the shares were bought on the 7114
and paid en the 21st, by the plaintiff; and that between the 7th and
2 let he *old them to the defendant.
Sir. Guairee addressed the Jury.
Thomas Middleton, clerk in the house of Messrs. Fry and Chsp-
man, hotted certificates on the 17th of April. Persons calling for
them could have them on that day. The 17th was the coming-outs
day. hpeonee issued the half. .
Vt.,ma-Caaftlio.4.—He could say nothing of the issue at Spooner's.
Jonathan I.mel Brandon—Knew nothing at all upon the subject.
Mr. ll'etnaU, a stock-broker, had no doubt that the prices were
falling between the 17th and 21st of April.
Arthur Pvc, clerk to hlessnt. Spooner and Attwood, said the
Gen:no-not day was the 15th of April. They were in fact issued
on the 15th.
Cr.e..esana:trd—Those shares were issued by us; they are dated
tee loth. So ne were issued as late es the 20th.
Mr. MAIIRTATT replied upon the evidence. Mr. Pelwer, ■
deh gentleman, resided in town, but his address was not known
Mr...eosephe, who could not therefore be blamed fur not finding
the dere-dant before the 23d.
Sir. Juittior LITTLEDALY summed up. There were some
peons which would come for the consideration of the Court,
viz. ?—ehether the note in evidence might to have a stamp ; whe.'
titer the action for Naomi paid' was thuapetent its this case ; and
whele r the institution was legal. Upon these palms he would not
trouble teem. The question for them swag, whether the plaintiff'
had used due diligence is obtaining the shams and delivering them
to the defendant. The plaintiff's own noes set ford•—•• Bought
tam Ante at el. lOs. premium for the cooks mi." There was no

doubt that they were out on the 17th. They would judge whether
tine diligence had been used by the plaintiff, who had not pre-
sented them for delivery till the 2tlst. If they should find for the
plaintiff, they would find for 67/. 10e. being til. 10e. premium per
share. I!. deposit per share, and .is. commission per share. It ap-
peered that there were 4110.000 shares to be issued. and it was plain
that they could not be all delivered on one dr.y ; but there was no
evidence whatever that the elaintiff had applied.
'fie .lury consulted for some minutes, and found for the plain-
tiff—Damages, 'qr. 10s.
SLANDER.
at.nEnsnst 1.. itawrltOr.Olarw.
Mr. Comm() x-S Fel G r.tw r stated the ease to the Jury on behalf
of the plaihtilf, and called his shopman, who proved That the de-
fendant tame to his master's shop in t Ixfarti-strect, and called 3lr.
Alderson, Mr. Lay, and slr. Ambrose (who had previously been
in the concern when the plaintiff was in their service), thieves and
, esiadlt rs ; that he would ruin the concern; and that it should
I never prosper in Ms ir hands. The witecas added, that the defend-
ant abused hint, and declared that he had obtained goods under
false pretences for hi. employers.
On his errs.-examin4rion by Mr. (Wirers". the witness ad-
shifted that no one knew what was become of Mr. Ambrose, and
es for Mr. Las he never saw hint, and never heard of any one who
had, eacepting his late employer, Mr. Ambrose, whom he had
heard say that Mr. Lay tens in tits business. Mr. Ambrose had a
warehouse in Ahlermanbuty, and shop in Oxford-street, for the
sale of carpets and rugs; he dent into business last September.
and quitted it in .January, when his present ete.;sloyer, the plaintiff
, in this action, had entered upon the concern, he having pre-
viously been shnantan to Mr. Ambrose.
Mr. Gls ns;ty, for the defence, observed to the Jury, that this
actin had been brought for the conimission of a deed which he
ehauld have conceived the greatest isms:llle benefit to the plaintiff.
vie-, taking away his character. By the plaintiff's own ahopman
it appeared, that no one knee- what had become of Mr. Ambrose,
althongh many knew that t'sey had been se-indite: be him ; and as
eor Mr. leiy, there was nothing to prove that hr had ever walked
neon the earth, excepting from die bare asserting of Ambrose.
Ile thought the Jury would pause before they gave any damages
to the plaintiff ; but if they thought that the verdict must go
alainst his client, he was sure they would be of opinion that a
I shilling, or men ssaaner damagt a, would be sufficient.
If is 1401111511 le nlsservesi to she Jury, that the plaintiff did not
mine into Court with a eitazacts r equal to that of many tradesmen
who could lay claim to respectability in the neighbourhood where
:be; had lived for many y: es. Still the words of the defendant
were certainly sianderous, and a verdict must be given against
him.
The Jurr, without Itelsitati:i. returned a verdict for the plaintiff
—Damages, Om. Farthiug —torts, (hue rerthilsg.

—.ow--
COURT cer COMMON PLEAS, rumAy, JCLY 9.

A(ATT V. COLE.
This was an action brought by the plaintiff, as administratrix of
a prrFou named Jendine, for the num of alt. due to the testator.
The defendant 'deaths! the Statute of tallow', and evidence was
given on the other side, to yrove a subsequent acknowledgment.
Jeudine was a 111UFirifil. anti 117 C defendant, an atnutear, was io the
habit of visiting Iris ladgira• to play with him—on those occa-
sions he borrowed the smell sans for which the present action
was brought. This acknos Lahpuent was proved by 31r. Burt,
an attorney, who crated a CinlVCYSatioll with the defendant in
1:k211. when the admission was trade.
The Jury found a verdict for the ylaintifr —Damagen 41!.
GALE 1.. WELLS.
This was an action broui;lit to recover damages for a breach of
contract
Mr. Sergeant V.tenttaw netted, tint the plairdiff is a woollen:.
who contlacted sith the flefetaltim, a ship-owntr, for a supply
of
forty torn of rantwood, from the coati; of Africa, at 12/. per ton.
Between the date of the contract and the time of the arrival of the
wood, tae price Ton from 121 to 17!. per ton, need the defendant,
pct haps calett.-rie•: dust the plot:hill' would be averse to litigation,
refused to delver it. The present action was brought to recover
the diftereneo between the s:ll:lwhich the supply was contracted
for, and the increased price of the article at the time the contract
was broken.
The contract was proved by Mr. Ilea • er, a sworn broker, who
stated that on the arrival of the ship in which the wood had been
shipped, and his rtprlyine; to the detendant for the performance of
the contract, the latter refused to have onything to do with the witnews
-
A witness proved a similar application from the plaintiff to the
defendant, by .ester. %%Awn the defeattant received the letter, he
read it, and then said it wan nut meant fur Ishn. A second letter
VW left for him.
A third white-vs proved the tender of the amount of the contract.
The defendant said, " 1 know laohing of it."
The Captain of the Betty, the ship in which the wood was to be
brou'Ot, stated that he brought home 19 tons of camwooel. Wit.
nose had plenty of nom for more, and could have got more if he
bad given a hiFlter price for it.
(A letter. winch was sent by the defendant to the Captain, was
here put in.]
The defendant. in the instructions contained in this letter, told
the Captain • buy palm oil, ii he thought it would be more advan.
(MMus than camarood. With respect to the latter article, he said,
I think I told you I could make a certainty of 121. a ton for cam-
wood." The letter abounded with novelties in orthography, such
as !iv for leave, dwrght for doubt.
Mt. Sergeant NV lI.DE, on behalf of the defendant contended,
that the contract was made, in the first instance, by the broker, Mr.
Hooper, in his own behalf, and not for the plaintiff. Eig: said the
bought-and-sold note was not in the usual form, and that the en-
tries in the broker's book had been altered. The contract was, be-
sides, informal. Who ever heard of a contract made by a broker
in this shape :—" Bought of Mr. 11-clls, 49 tons of wood. (Signed)
J. Hooper.
The Curry JrsrrcE recalled Mr. Ilooper, who stated, that the
reason he had rot nicntioned the name of the plaintills in the con-
tract was, that the latter had ctsired him not todo so. It was a
common practice for brokers t.• conceal the names of their principal..
as merchants were often desirous of not having it koown that they
were considerable buyer' anti relict-a. . . . .

The CH I. .11:ST ICE Wll3 of opinion that the plaintifTwas en.
titled to a verdict tin- 4/. a ton, the difference between the contract
aad 'he iO.'naad price of the article.
The Jury retired fora short time, and returned with a verdict for
the plaintitr—datnagea
Mr. Sergeant WILDE, before the verdict was delivered, tendered
a bill of exceptions.

HIGH COI= OF DELEUATES, FRIDAY, JULY 9.

CLANK ANDCLAIK

A Commieeinn,cOn.Zititil:gOfiirlSusiiCT Park and Mr. Baron
Bullock, assisted by Doctors Amid. Come. Burnaby, Dau-
beney, Rattling, and Lee, sat this day at the Judges' Chambers,
Sergeant's Is n, Chancery-lane, to hear an appeal in this case,
from the decision of Sir John Nichol in the Prerogative Court of
Canterbury.
The circumstances of the case see these :—The deceased, Fly
Stott. Esq. late of Hart-street, Eloemsbury, died on the Ifith
November. 11:13, aged 7e, leaving behind hint only one daughter,
now Charlotte, the trite of George Dew, on the Ileh May,
1818, he made a will, demosirg of nearly all his property (which
amounted to uptetrils of eteettete) to his two nephews, Thomas
Clark and Ve.km.,}c l lark, who were appointed sole executors,
and leaving only a very trifling portion to Mrs. Dew. Soon after
the death of the thecesed, the Meet's. Clark took out letters of
administration, which were recalled by 3lrs. Dew, on the ground
of the will havit g been obtained Bent the deceased at a time when,
from the infirmity of his mental faculties, he was wholly incapa-
citated from exteutit,g a testamentary ihwitment ; both parties
were, therefore. put upon the proof of their allegations. Mrs.
Dew pleaded that the deceased married her mother in 1771, and
shortly afterwards he became deraeged in his Multi-tee, and was
considered gen traily of a t ureound state of mind; on the birth of
the daughter, the deceased dist-mend a must extraordinary hatred
towards her and began to exhibit very cruel treatment towards her !
mother. who ditd io Nor. Mit; his antipathy to his daughter
increased, and frequently excleitned that site was the property of
ratan from her birth ; he got such etrarge notions of her moral
character, although she was in complete infancy, that his treatment
towards her was the moat extraordinary that can be imagined ; the
deceased then, and far many years afterwards, prartieed as a suf.
geon, and the present venerable Eishepof Durham was orie of his:
patients; cm one occasion, when his Lordship called on hint fur
advice, he related Midi strange stories of his daughter, that his
Lordship got up to leave the house ; the detenaed. however, played
Lie back against the dour to prevent his Leitehip's leaving the
room until he finished his tale, and then his Lordship was set at
liberty. He thee obtained the assistance of two clergymen, the
Ifey. Daniel Wilson, and the Rev. Iliumas Bartlett, whom he im-
plored to turn the mind of his infent daughter. whom he was
treating very eritily ; the daughter was compelled to fle from the
roof of her parrot to another persoo for protection ; and in a short
time was sent to school, ocieteionally vieitine her father, until at
lenggtth she obtained a situation as governess in the family of
Abbott, F:sq. of Blackheath ; from thence she went into the family
lof E. Dew, Esq. of thiildfued-street, Russel-square, whose son she
married in 1816. The allegation concludes with stating, that the
deceased, from the time tit his daughter's birth until his death,
was of an unwittud state of mist', and wholly incapable of makiee
3 proper disietotioa of iris properly. end prayed that the will
alleged to have been exectitial Ir. Mar.lthit, might be declared null
tied void, and that the deceased might be nalared to here (lied
inteidate. The elieeation on behalf of the nephews contended, that
the will was truly and legal), executed, at a time when the
deceased was in a sane state Minim!. . . . .

.....
The case h.s been heard before Sir John Nichol. who decided
against the admission o an allegation ; from which decision the
party provirlant commenced this appeal.
Counsel haring been heart, on both sides. the Court was cleared
for the Judges to cor.sitler thtir judgment : in ai,out a quarter of
an hour the doors were again opened, and the decision declared to
be against the appeal.
Counsel for lark and Clark, I)ra. Adams and Lushir....vm, and
Mr. John IVillianis ; Proctor, Mr. Cm:l:heart.
Counsel for 31e. Dew, Drs. Jenner and Thillimarn, and Mr.
Couanort-Sergennt ; Proctor, 3lr. Jenner.