The British Press; or, Morning Literary Advertiser.
London, England, 1804-12-13 00:00:00

•
trade, was to sail fir*, and the goods were ac-
cordingly put on ho*d of her. In the secoA, th-
BountiAl was wrecked on the coast of Nonhumb• B-
land, and the goods lost. The question, therefore,
solved itself into a point of law ; Whether the deli
very at the wharf was sufficient to make the Defend-
ant liable ? or whether the Plaintiff, not having duly
advertised the Detoddant of the goo,is bei e ship
ped boArd the Adintifill, so as that he might have
an opp 'flunky of saving part of the '7 Argo, was r,):
barred from recovering against the Defendant ?
The Jury accordingly found a verdid for the
Plaintiff, subjed to the point saved.

•

LEE V. MEECOCK.

This was an aftion to recover the sum of .591. Is.
4d. against the Defendant, tor goods sold to one
John Seers, upon the credit of the Defendant.
It appeared in this case that the Plaintiff was a
wholesale and retail linen-draper, in the Borough,
and the Defendant a retail linen-draper, residing in
Drury-lane. On the Ltd of December, 1909, John
Seers called upon the Plaintiff. and having looked
out some goods, told him that, wishing to deal with
him, he came recommended by the Defendant, to
whom he referred for a charafter as to his solvency
and integrity. He then paid for the goods he had
chosen, and said, as he understood the Plaintiff's
was a house of credit, he should come again
and order a greater quantity upon the usual
terms of credit, which he accordingly did. Some
time after, the Plaintiff's man of business met the
Defendant at a Wholesale-house in the City, where
both were transa&ing business, and calling him on
one side, asked him if he might trust Seers, and if he
bore a good charader ? to which the other replied,
that he was a very good young man ; had not been
long in business, but was doing very well, and that
he had trusted him to a large amount : upon which
representation the Plaintiff gave him a further
credit. Some time after, upon applying for pay-
ment of his account, the Plaintiff found that Seers's
goods and property were all sold under Lecution,
at the suit of the Defendant, to whom he had given
a WA-rant of Attorney, upon which Judgment had
been entered, and Execution issued, which covered
the whole of the property.
M. Justice LAWRENCE, who presided in the ab-
sence of Lord Ex tantioaocoil, observed to the
Jury, that, in order to maintain an aCtion against
tne Defendant, the Plaintiff must shew, that he had
made a representation, which was false to his own
knowledge at the time of making it ; and, if the
Defen taint knew he was not fir to be trusted, it would
be fraudulent on his part. But, in this case, it ap-
peace.] otherwise ; he had himself trusted him to a
tarKe amouat, and Seers had obtained two different
parcels of goods from toe Plaintiff, previous to any
en.itkry ma le . and, when application was made to
the Defendant. it AiTeAred to be only with a view
of k rowing whether Seers was to be trusted or not. if
persons were to be made Hanle lit such representa-
tions, they mast shut their mouths, and never give
All n?iiii-n of any one's dealings or charaCter.
Verdi& for the Defendant.

COMMON PLEAS, (iutt.

Sittings at Nis- Prins, before Mr. Justice CH AMINE.
GOWNS AND NZWIERV V. SHAW AND zowAnos.

This was an a,lion on the case brought by the
Plaintiffs, Messrs. Collins and Newbery, venders of
medicine, in Bt. Paul's Church-yard, against the
Defendants, Messrs. Shaw and Edwards. who car-
ried on the same business. The cause of adion was,
that the Defendants had sold, and were still in the
habit of selling, large quantities of cephalic snuff, of
a spurious nature, packed in bottles similar to those
used by the Plaintiffs, a id sealed with the same seal;
and that they were lapped up in a printed paper,
almost verbatim for that used by the Plaintiffs, stat-
ing the snuff that they sold to be the true cephalic
snuff, prepared by Messrs. Collins and Newbery,
St. Paul's Church-yard, with only this difference,
that the cephalic snuff was stated in Collins and
Newbery's bills to be sold at No. 66, St. Paul's
Church-yard.
Serjeant SHEPHERD stated the ease of the Plain-
tiffs, and said that Messrs. Collins and Newbery
had had some time ago taken out a patent for the
exclusive sale of the cephalic snuff invented by them;
that that patent had since expired ; so it was not to
be brought forward for consideration of the Court,
that from the very moment et :he expiration of the
patent, every one who pleased, and who really
could, or fancied they could, prepare cephalic
snuff, were at liberty to make and to sell it, and that
they were not only at liberty to say that their
composition was as good as that prepared by Messrs.
Collins aid Newbery. but that it was infinitely
better ; but the Learned Se'jeant denied that any
Mall was at liberty, even though the pate..t '7 As ex-
pired, to make cephalic snuff, to put it .1. -.intim.
hurtles. to put the same seal on them, and then to
lap them up in printed papers, stating them in be
of the genuine sort, prepared by Collins and New-
bery, St. Paul's Church-yard. He then said he
hoped the Court would not think that any trifiirg
difference that might exist in the wording of the
papers would make any thing gaiast h s (dens; that
he well recolleEted being concerned in a cast of this
kind before, in which the etistinaion set up by the
Defendant's Counsel was, that the figure of Hope on
one seal was looking up to Heaven. and that on the
other was lao.king down at the anchor. He then
said he would prAre that the Defendants had mace
and sold the snuff in the manner he had before told
them, which would no doubt intitle him to their

tie then called Mr. Currier, a merchant, in Lime-
street, who deposed, that he had, in November,
ISO% ordered six dozen bottles of cephalic snuff,
from Shaw and Edwards, that they had been sent
to him, and that there was not a single one of them
ever prepared by Collins and Newbery, though, in
every one of the papers, it stated them to have
been so. The bottles were produced in Court, and
the distinetion proved.
Two witnesses, who had formerly lived as shop-
men to Shaw and Edwards, proved, that they had
often assisted in mixing up cephalic snuff at the De-
fenaaat's house, putting it into bottles like those in
Court, and lapping them up with a paper, which
stated, that they were prepared by Messrs. Collins
and Newbery.
Serj. Coca'. e, in a very ingenious speech, stated
the case of the Defendant he said, th..t the Plain-
tiffs, instead of getting damages, were liable to be
prosecuted by the King's Attorney General, for im-