The British Press; or, Morning Literary Advertiser.
London, England, 1826-08-18 00:00:00

be Weia.Nl on by the warehousekeeper's creditors. The col
was merely placed in the warehouse on rent, and be contended
lwas impossible to slippage that Lewis was ever the reputed
or of any of the goods deposited in
ohwien:ratoefhtohLcor. question,

Norman (the broker) was produced to prove tZiat be had s-14.the
plaintiff 2ts bushels of wheat. upt.n the authority of Mr. Davis.,
flue order was given fur the delivery of this timmtity. It w.. also
proved 1114 1011 bushels had been received by the plaintiff. anti
that lie had applied for the remaining ItO bushels, ond was refused
them.

Me Davis was then examined. Ile stated that he had largd
dealings in wheat with heals; that he punt:visa:A two parcels, run.
fairing ao and LIMO bushel., from Lewis, in September, 1144.
'Dine parcels were in Lewis'a warehouse. W was to ray
rent to Lewis for the use of his warehouse, and had atehoriztd Nora
man to sell Situ bushels out of the panel containing 800 bushels.
When the purchase was made from Lewitt he pointed out the par.
eels belonging to Mr. Davis to Isis warchouseman, and tad him
fist those were ]lr. Lavine, and were not to be touched. At that
time a card with witness's initials was stuck in the wheat, and sub.
sequently the witness became dissatisfied, and thotrght the corn
marked out as his did not correspond with the sample!. Ile told
Lewis he would not accept the parcels as those he bad hottght„ but
wateid take them, and endeavour to make sale of diem as security ry
for die acceptances which were out. The witness never acknow-
ledged the wheats were those sold to him ; Lewis always persisted
the wheat, were those sold to witness. Witness never paid Lewit
arty tent for warehousing the wheat. Witness considered Lewis
only as a broker, and he had told witness he Peter made /latex of
wheat on his own account. Witness could not sweat the parcels be
purchased were ever measured to him.
It was subsequently proved that Lewis dealt largely on his own
, account. as well as a factor.
Mr. TAttsituir (with whom were Messrs. MEitewessrwa and
Bestrasi addressed the Jury for the defendants. Ile said Hie
Learned Friend had observed on the hardship of the ease. as re.
spected the plaintiff' but there wee also a hardship elsewhere. The
equity of the case was, dist all die property should be equally di.
vialest amongst die bankrupt's utditovr. llu Learned Fraend, too.
'had eithniued risk the law of James the First was still in force:
but he forgot to state that it had been re-enacted last year, attire
niuch consideration. The effect of that law was, that all geode re.
puled to belong to a trader, in the event of his having the misfire
time lb heroine a bankrupt, should revert to the assignees. In
this case there was oo evidence that the corn was ever measured to
Davis; there was no evidence that a bushel was ever received by
Lewis on account of rent. The only evidence on that point was,
that those who did not like to take their corn front the warehouse at
a moiler time were charged storage. To support the plaintiff's
case it should be proved that it was notorious that the wheat
had not belonged to Lewis, hut there was no evidence to that
effect. There was a nhing (said the Learned Counsel) to prove that
a change of property had taken place. It is true there were initials
placed in the corn, but these may have denoted the ship as well as
the pun teasers and did not sufficiently indicate the change of prie•
puny to prettnt the goods from falling into the hand. of the swag.
nee% Davis swore lie did not acknowledge the wheats in question
as his property, but derived from Lewis the power of selling for his
own security. lie must, therefore, have taken them on Lew is'e
flak, and his possession derived in this way was void. It war. a
material fact that Davis had never settled the rent with beide, nor
waas the rent ever tendered. Davis, therefore, had no tide to the
wheat, and he could not give Collins a better title than he had
himself. Witnesses would be called to prove that the wheat in
question w,ts frequently mixed MIL the alleged sale to Davis.
Ile had bought old English wheat, and the 100 bushels delivered
to C thins were ordinary Irish wheat. The plaintiff too had
failed td prove that Ike aaslgnea ever pesaessed the wheat ; and
under these eiretenstances he confidently submitted that the Jury
Wi44 bound to find for the defendants.
On the pert of the defendants, the Commission of Bankruptcy
was given in evidence, and witnesses called to prove the set of
bankruptcy.
The bankrupt's warehouseman proved that the wheat designated
by Mr. Davis had been mixed at several periods by miler of
Lewis. This witness had kept an account in writing of the mix-
ings. It was also given in evidence that Lewis dealt very largely
on his own account, and not extensively as a broker.
Mr. Sergeant Wont:, in his reply, contended that the evidence
went to prove, that the bankruptcy had been concerted between
the bankrupt and his sisters who was the petitioning Creditor, and
that it was therefore void.
The Learned Juottn, after summing up. observed that he
would not call upon the Jury to decide, generally, for the plaintiff
or the defendant, as this monies case must be ultimately decided
by the Court above. There were some facts, however, which
might be properly submitted to them.
Ceder the direction of the Learned Judge, the Jury then found
a special verdict, subject to the opinion of the Court above.
She above case occupied the Court from nine in the morning
until seven in the evening,.