The British Press; or, Morning Literary Advertiser.
London, England, 1825-01-14 00:00:00

called and produced the books which are kept by the gaugers for
the Ek ChM
Thomas Forward—ls an Excise gauger. In 1823 he was in the
habit of ganging the spirits and wines at Stevens',, in Ivy-lance
The books before him contain the entries of the result of his survey,
Which would enable any person to teU what quantity of spirits and
wines were taken into the premises.
Peter Holland—ls an examiner of the Excise, and has been so
for ten Yeses 4 he knows how the gingers keep their hooka, and can
say by looking at them what quantity of spirits are sent into a
public.house per month. Ile has made out an account from the
books of the quantities delivered at the Ship poblic-house„ from
February, 1822, to 1824. The average taken for o•:- lunar month
this--7 2.13 gallons red wine, 6 5-13 white wine.
ale. Justice LITTLEDALE—There is nothing said about wine
in the agreement.
Mr. BURNET said, it was included under the word spirits.
Witness continued--1 10-13 gallons Cape white wine, 7 7-13 fo-
reign brandy,_ 14 11-26 gallons rum, 9.13 of a gallon of rum
shrub, 1 2-13 gal. British brandy, 3-16 gal. spirits of wine, i pint
of Irish whialty. 79 2-13 British gin, 4 gals. British compounds.
Fuppoßing the prices stated in the paper handed to hint to be con.
rect, the average per month would Ds 821. 15. 4d. Ile could not
:ay by the returns whether the business was a declining, improving,
cr a stationary ot.e.
Fly his Lordship—ln the Excise the general rule is to allow aye
bottles to a gallon. Witness has only once found it to be less
than that.
Charles Henry Law, an Excise gauger, proved the average of
the returns of wines and spirits at the Ship during defendant's
rime, making allowance for what was returned to the distiller, to
ha M. 12s. 4d. per month. Looking at the business from three
months to three months, it was a declining one.
WM. Eaton, Clerk to Vickers and Childs. distillers—He fur-
ni ihetl the selling-prices of wines and spirits to the plaintiff. He
proved that Vickers and Co. had advanced the plaintiff money upon
the representation made by the defendant of the spirit. trade being
18U1. per month, and that as soon as they found the returns hi he
so much leas—never in any month exceeding 501, they called in

their money.
Sarah Archer proved that her hnsband rented the tap at '26s. per
week, snaking about 671. les. per annum.
Joseph Knight. pashas., Newgate-market, said, ht rented all
the mtrecnises, except the tap, at the time Stevens sold the lease to
the plaintiff, at 21,1. a-year.
In his eenn-examinstion, he said that the defendant, in the pre-
sence of the plaintiff, claimed 271., but that he resisted it
justice Liteeenaer :raid, it had been held in the case of
. Heysley and Freeman, that where there was a false affirmation
made respecting the rent, no action would lie, because it was com-
petent for the other party to make inquiries.
31r. SCARLET T said, that that case seemed to be upon a mis-
taken principle, for how could the person know whether the tenant
or landlord told him truly the amount of the rent, when neither of
them could be compelled to produce the lease?
His Lordship said, that the case was certainly a very unheard-of
one at the time, but it had ever since been considered the law, and
he should instruct the jury tofind for the rent separately, that the
defendant may be at liberty to move to reduce the damages.
31r. Ovag EY Tolle to address the Jury on behalf of the defend-
ant. He denied that the plaintiff' had made out a case for any
damages whatever. The Jury would have the goodness to attend
to the remark made by his Lordship, which he thottght was a
complete answer to the whole of the plaintiff's ease; for if
the representations complained of were false, the plaintiff had
it in his power to ascertain their falsehood ; and it was
his own fault if he relied upon the statements of the deferel.
ant. There was no line of business where a greater facility was
afforded than in that of a publican's to ascertain the extent of his
trade; for he possessed documents which might be referred to
at any time, end which would show what were his receipts and
what were his out-goings ; and the party, theeefore, who is about
to take the prenuees has no need of depending upon the
assertion of any person, whether a broker, publican, or
hiewer. But what was the conduct of the plaintiff? Ile had I
received the rent of the tap weekly, and yet no emitpleint
was made to the defendant for months and months after :he misre-
presentation, as was said, had been made. But the cause of the
tailing off of the plaintiff's business was obvious enough. Ile had
charged his brewer, his wine merchant, and his distiller; and thus,
listen procured inferior liquors, people very naturally deserted
his house- and resorted to some other where they could procure
better. The whole of the plaintiff's case was made up of mystery.
The witnesses were chosen from all parts but those where a straight-
ferward course would have taken them. The calculations, too,
that had been made of the amount of returns were altogether upon
a false principle ; they had been made by taking the liquor in
gallons, the wine in bottles, and the porter in butts; whereas the
publican retailed his porter in pints, his wine in negus, and his
spirits in water. Take, for instance, a five shilling bowl of punch_
why, did the Jury think that there was only five per cent. profit
upon that ; was there not rather four shillings out of the fts. ? lie
(Mr. Gurney) did net complain of this, fur persons who go to
public houses do not pay merely for their liquor, but they pay for
:he fire they sit by, the attendance that is shown them, the paper
they reed, and the skill of the landlady in making their grog. if
the plaintiff had any just reasons to complain of the representa-
tions of the defendant, he ought to have shown that in one month
after, or in two or three months e he inund the business to be differ-
ent from what it had been stated to him ; but this he did not do, he
(Mr. G.) contended, therefore, that there was no ground to entitle
him to damages. lie should submit the case to the Jury on the
evidence they then had before them, with this observation, that as
the plaintiff had the means of ascertaining the truth or falsehood of
the representations made to him, there was no probability of his
having been misled by these statements, and if he had been, then
it was entirely owing to his own culpable remissness in not making
the proper and necessary inquiries.
Mr. Justice LTTTLCDALE, in summing up the evidence to the
Jury, observed that there were several points to which he should
direct their attention ; first, whether there was any such represents-
fleas made as complained of by the plaintiff ? secondly, if there
were, whether those representations were true or false ? if true,
there was an end of the case, and the plaintiff must be nonsuited ;
1:3 t if false (and with the defendant's knowledge,) otherwise no action
could lie. The third question was, whether, although false, the
plaintiff ought to recover any thing ? and fourthly, if any thing,
Low much ought lie to recover ? They could have no doubt of the
representations having been made, for abundant evidence had roved
that ; and there was also evidence that they were made contrary
to the facts, and were therefore false, and unquestionably time
falsehood of the tations was within the knowledge of the
defendant, for all t e facts were known to him better most likely
than •to any other individual. The third question therefore .was,
ought-the plaintiff to recover damages ? This action was not on a
warranty, but on a contract. If a man makes a warranty that a
thing is so and so, there he is bound, and the other party is not
obliged to make arty inquiries as to the truth or falsehood of time
thing warsanted—but the question here is one of contract, in which
both pasties are equally bound, and the only poine therefore, that
they have to ascertain Is, has the plaintiff made all that due and
diligent inquiry which it was open fee him to do to learn the truth
of the detendant's statements before he entered into a contract with
him in relation to the circumstances to which those statements refer-
red ? If the plaintiff was induced to make the contract by what the
defendant stated, he had no doubt that the defendant was liable to
an action ; but it did not follow that the plaintiff was entitled to the
same damages as upon a warranty. The plaintiff should not be
called upon to take wenecessary trouble, or unreasonable trouble, to
lied out whether the defendant was practising a deceit upon him,
hot the facts which were in evidence would enable the Jury to my
whether he had taken those precautionary steps which he might
reasonably be expected to do. It certainly appeared to his mind
elmatithe plaintiffmight have done much more to have iuformed
himself as to the facts spoken of by the defendant than he had done.
Id regard to the damages that the Jury might eventually give for
the misrepresentation as to the rent, he begged them to distinguish
what they gave from that which they should find for the other parts
or the awe, as he was strongly of opinion that the action would not
lie for that, arid be therefore wished the Counsel for the de-
-1 indent to move to redime the damages. They were not to take
into consideration what the business of the plaintiff had been since
toe contract. but what it was at the time the representations were
mede, and when the contract was entered into. His Lordship then
spoke as to the mode ef computing the damages by the scale of pro-
tethat was realised, and no: by the gases retume that the plaintiff
made—putting the point in a similar manner as Mr. Scarlett hail
dorm In his opening address.
The JIM, atter consulting about ten minutes in the box, retired
up stairs at 26 minutes after one o'clock ; and, at half-past ten at
night, returned their verdict for the plaintiff—(*ages, 1701.;
•Cests, 40s. The damages were thusetppurtioned :
Per the misrepresentations as to trade - - fl/10
Ditto, as to the Rent - - - -
The Jury came down from their ream at the time mentioned, ap-
parently very much exhausted. After the verdict had been returned,
tbey were told by the officer that they should attend to-morrow, on
which cue of them observed, that if one name was called on (allud-
ing to the one who stood out against the rest on this occasion) he
(Me-speaker) would not answer on his being called.
'pone time atter dark, the officer, who had been sworn to keep
the Jury, was applied cob/ them for candles : he refused their re-
gime, amoriving himself bound by his oath to do as—They
p:msed she application, and he applied to the Court on the subject.
Ife was directed lo furnish candles, but as the materials tor a tire
'Nat in the grate, he ems desired to remove them before the candles
were introduced, lest tbelcry should kindle a fire.

We have just beard of a very melancholy oecurrence
which took place last evening :—JamesApps, boat-builder,
Iv-beam, on Monday evening left home, to call medical
isunce from tbichester for his wife, who was in labour.'
ltfr. Groggen, the gentleman applied to, took the wan in
..‘s variyhadt with him in his gig. When near Birtlham-
'44tige, Appe 'wished to alight, in order to proceed home by
.4 tearer road, •to apprise them of the decter's approach ;,'
hut she .gods fellow never reached home again with life.
fr vat found atber some search, drowned in the canal, not ,
4; from bridge. 'The poor woman, soon afterthe event,
austner to the list of orphans (now fire in number),
doer, we4risat, so ibenotice of benign hen aniy.—bi'igdtoa
?vet.
A gentlman of this, neif,thbourhood was lately coursing,
Alai on turning out poor puss train her form, it was ob-
served she ran very ankwanHy, and, of course, won fell a
'mains to her pui-mers ; on examination it was discovered
that she had a deierwied foot, generally termed a posimei
reef mottos Carrier.