The British Press; or, Morning Literary Advertiser.
London, England, 1825-02-17 00:00:00

COURT OF KING'S BENCH, TUESDAY, FLJ. 16.

EDWARDS V. OILLMORE.
This was an action to recover back the sum of 601. being the
amount of a deposit paid by the plaintiff to the defendant, in part
of the purchase of a public house, called the Rose and Crown ; and
also all such expenses as the plaintiff had been put to in conse-
quence of the defendant not having performed his agreement. The
tarts, as proved by the witnesses for the plaintiff, were, that the
plaintiff was ready to perform his agreement on the day stipulated ;
that an appointment was made for six o'clock in the evening For the
purpose of doing so, when the plaintiff, his broker, and solicitor
attended, for the purpose of taking possession, but that the de-
fendait's broker did not attend until near ten o'clock, when the
plaintiff objected to have the matter gone into at that late hour of
the night.
The LOAD CHILE JUST/et, upon this statement, asked Mr.
Gurney, who was for the defendant, whether he could alter these
facts?
Mr. GURNEY proposed to show that nothing was more common
than to transact business of this sort at a later time of night
than ten o'clock ; indeed to many parties it was more convenient to
transact it in the night time than in the day.
The Loan Curia, JUSTICE said, that he thought ten o'clock
at night a most unreasonable hour to enter upon s business which
must of necessity occupy a considerable time, and he should not
feel the least hesitation in charging the Jury, that if a man made an
appointment to attend to a particular business at six o'clock, and
did not attend for near foto hours afterwards, the opposite party
were justified in concluding that he did not intend to come at
and therefore might abandon the agreement.
Mr. GURNEY objected that the money was not tendered; and
the witness under examination said, that he did not see the
money ; but the money, or that which was equivalent to it, was
ready.
The Lonn Cult!. JUSTICE—WS know how theme things are
managed. If they had not gotlthe precise,amount in money, they
could, no doubt, have got it very shortly.
Mr. GURNEY then took an objection to the record, which was,
that the day upon which the business went off was not the day
fixed by the written agreement, but the day following, which fact,
he contended, ought to have been stated on the record.
Mr. NOLAN, for the defendant, was about to answer this ob-
jection, when he was interrupted by
The Lonn CHIEF JUSTICE, who said it was quite unnecessary.
The declaration stated, that the defendant was not ready at any
time, either before or after the day mentioned in the agreement, to
complete his contract; be, however, took a note of Mr. Gurney's
objection.
A discussion here took plate upon the amount of damages.
The LORD CHIEF JUSTICE said, that the plaintiff was clearly
entitled to recover back the 601. deposit ; then there was a penalty
of 1001. mentioned in the agreement, and his Lordship, looking st
the agreement, thought that that sum ought to be considered as
liquidated damages.
The Jury expressed a wish to give MI., but the LORD CHIEF
JUSTICE thought they could not.
The Jury then found for the plaintiff—Damages 1601.
FOULIS V. INIGNT AND OTHERS.
This was an action brought by 31r. Foulis, the son of the well.
known printer of that name at Glasgow, against Maws. Knight,
Lacey, and Robinson, for the breach of some parmership agree-
ments, entered into between them and the plaintiff; relative to cur-
tain publications.
The Cossmox-Sznonawx was proceeding to state the case,
when he was interrupted by
The LORD CHIEF JUSTICE, who suggested the propriety of a
reference.
The COMMON SERGEANT said that there was a Chancery suit
also pending.
The LORD Carte JUSTICE—That is an additional reason
why the matter should be referred.
Mr. Se•RLITT and Mr. GURNEY, for the defendant, then
consulted together, and agreed to refer all matters in difference to a
gentleman at the bar.

COURT OF COII3ION PLEAS, WEDNESDAY, FEB. 16.

TRICIOS V. WERNHAM.
This 103111111 action on a debt. The defendant pleaded the Statute
of Limitations, bu. it appeared that he gave a promise since to
settle the debt.
The CHIEF Jur!' ler decided that the promise took it out n
the Statute of Limitations, and directed a verdict for the plainti if
_ _

BEST V. OSBORN.
Mr. Sergeant WILDE stated that this was an action on the war-
ranty of a horse, which had been sold by the defendant for
ighty guineas. He understood that Mr. Sergeant Vaughan
conducted the defence to this action, and no man conducted
a bone with a more sporting hand than his Learned Friend.
(Laughter.) The horse was a ehesnut cob, sold under an express
warranty of soundness. The hone, however, turned out to be nerved
in the foot. It was returned, but the defendant refused to take it.
It appeared that the horse belonged to a Mr. Tawrcy, who went to
the plaintiff's servant, and induced him to give up the receipt of
warranty. The receipt passed through several hands and could nut
now be recovered, though notice was given to have it delivered up.
John Stratford Best, son of plaintiff; went to defendant's stables
on the 21st of June last, with his father ; they saw the horse in
question ; be tried the horse, and so did his father; the defendant
was there ; he said that the horse was sound, and the price was 80
guineas ; his father said he would send the money next day by his
groom ; witness rode the horse in the Park, in company with his
friend Mr. Burton, about three weeks afterwards, and learned that
the horse was unsound ; the horse was returned, but defendant te-
' fused to receive him.
Cross-examined—There was a board in the stables of defendant,
stating that no horse warranted would be received six days after it
WAS sold; the defendant's were commission stables; the horse be-
longed to Mr. Tawney, who afterwards said that lie did not mean
it to be warranted; he expressed a wish to have it returned, but
witness's father told him to say that he would keep the horse; his
father was then in bed.
He-examined—His father said that he would keep the horse;
Mr. Tawney did not say that the horse was werecd.
John Thomas, the plaintiff's groom, proved that the receipt of
warranty was obtained from him by the defendant's servant.
John Osborn, son of the defendant, said that he went for the
receipt, by directions of Mr. Tawney.
it good deal of argument ensued respecting the production of
the receipt, and Mr. Sergeant Wilde consented to be nonsuited,
subject to the opinion of the Court above.
Plaintiff noosuited.

---------
OAR dIS v. COSTER ARO OTHERS.
This was an action brought by the plaintiff to recover a compen.
sages In damages on account of an injury he had sustained in con.
sequence of the overthrow of a stage-coach, the property of Ma
defendants.
It appeared that the defendant's coach, which was between Lon-
don and Gloucester, started from the metropolis for the latter place
on the Ist of October. The plaintiff was the only outside pas-
senger, but there was an inside passenger who had two stnall
boxes on the outside of the coach, but not sufficiently weighty to
render the coach top-heavy. In the course of the journear one of
the horses took fright at a waggon, as was supposed. which was
about twenty yards distant. The consequence was, the coach was
overturned, and the plaintiff had his leg broken. The question
now was whether the plaintiffs were liable for the accident which
had occurred.
The surgeon was called to prove the amount of his bill and the
extent of the injury sustained.
Witnesses were also called to support the charge of negligence.
Mr. Sergeant Vauoirwar addressed the Jury for the defendants,
but called no witnesses.
The CHIEN' JUSTICE summed up, and the Jury, after a con-
sultation of five minutes, returned a verdict for defendant.

CONSISTORY COURT, WEDNZSDAY, F. 16.

fit7firre Nir CHRISTOPHER ROBINSON, Knight.
VISCOUNT LISMORE V. VISCOCNTSSS LISMORE.

In this cause the Proctor for Viscount Lismore prayed for leave
to make an alteration in the 11th article of the libel propounded by
his Lordship. It would save the necessity for an additional article.
and would be no inconvenience, as the libel had not yet been ad-
mitted.
Sir C. Ronixso w granted the prayer.
WINVINGTON WINYINGTOV.
. .

In this case the Court was informed, that Sir John Miles Win-
nington had adopted the suggestion of the Court on a former day,
and had stated his intention, before next Term, of employing
Counsel and Proctor, if the cause were allowed to stand over.
Sir C. Itontwsow said, he would expect that something more
effectual should be done before next Court-day, than the mere
notification just made.
TIIE ofricE OP JUDGE PROMOTED BT RUST AND ADAMS V.

TILE REV. DU. CLARICE:

.. -
In this cause the Proctor for Rust and Adams prayed for a re-
laxation of the sequestration.
Sir C. Honixsox—Hu Dr. Clarke had notice or this applies.
tion 7
The Pnoc von said he believed not ; Dr. Clarke was now in
Chelmsford gaol.
Sir C. Rontwsow directed that notice should be given, and the
application made or. a future Court-day.