The British Press; or, Morning Literary Advertiser.
London, England, 1825-12-14 00:00:00

LAW INTELLIGENCE.

COURT OF OF CHANCERY, TUESDAY, DEC. 13.

COMMISSION OF REVIEW.
I'IWELL MOVCHETT.
The Court was occupied during the entire of the day in bearing
fustbn arguments in this cause.
VICE-CHANCELLOR'S COURT, Tnespa—, Dec. 13.
His Honour the Vicr-CrtaNcrt.cou was engaged the entir
dse in hearing arz.onents and exceptions in cases of no publi
ir,terest.

COURT OF KING'S BENCH, GUILDHALL,
TUESDAY, DEC. 13.
'Sittings in London beibre Nk bonD CHisr JUSTICE and
Common Juries.

MttRIAL 2..
This was an action on a promissory note for 1001. by the nettled
eedoraee against the second endorsor.
Mr. Gurney and Mr. Lewes conducted the plaintiff's case ; Mr.
Scarlett and Mr. Chitty that of the defendant.
Mr. Gu RStF. Y stated the case very briefly. The bill in question
was drawn by a person of the name of Stevens, and after two en-
doesements came into the hands of the defendant. It would, in the
first instance, be quite sufficient for him to prove the hand-writing
of the parties to the bill.
Mr. Henry Cope, examined by Mr. E. LAwre, proved the
hand-writing of the names on the bill.
Cross-examined by Mr. ScAuter'r-1 do not know Mr. Mu-
riel, the plaintiff; I have heard of his name.
The Nutary proved the protesting of the bill on its non-
patment.
Cross-examined by Mr. SCATtLETT—i do not know Mr. Mu-
riel, the plaintiff.
Mr. SCARLETT addressed the Jury for the defendnnt. If he
was rightly Instructed, he ehould be able to show that thin v as a
case more proper for the Old Bailey than this Court. The plain-
tiff, be said, war a shadowy unsubstantial sort of a person. The
Jury would not fail to remark that neither of the witnesses called
toe the plaintiff knew any thing of him. The bill on which the
present action was brought was one of seven bills, all drawn by
Stevene,sbe whole amounting to 7801. for which 7601., minus UM.,
had been paid, namely 600 L which he.i the Learned Counsel, un-
derstood was 481. per cent. beyond the legal interest. He under-
stood, however, that it was to be set up in defence, that this sum
was pad as commission for getting the bill discounted; that Mr.
Rabin Pollock, who held the hills before they were discounted,
bat whose name was not en the bills, and by, what means they had
come into his possession did not appear, had got them discounted
by wing 3luriel's money. If in, then, said Mr. Scarlett, I shall
Lae a food defence, for the transaction is dearly usurious.
Scalmere being about to call his witnesses,
Mr. Guiltier t rose; aAd said, if you only want us to prove con-
sideration, we tan do that in a moment. For this purpose, he was
reducing • letter • and haying proved the hand-writing, was
about to hand it in for the purpose of being read, hen—
Mr. BCaaLETT said, it was not necessary to read the letter;
he thought they would have called 31r. Robert Pollock, and, as
they hind net, be should.
Mr. Robert Pollock being sworn, before be was examined in
chief,
Mr. Gunter v asked if he had any interest in this bill'—\o.
. If the defendant should succeed in his defence, would he (the
witnee4) derive any benefit'—No.
Examined by Mr. fiCANLETT—There is such a person as 51r.
Muriel ; I know him ; this note wan in Mr. Muriel's Jensen-
sion ; at that time he lived in Southampton-building*, Holborn ;
at present, he is living At Ely, in Cambridgeshire. Ido not know
that be ever lived in Tooley-street. I received this note, and some
where from him. was his agent in this transaction. The whole
amount of the bills wan 760/. for which, and an assignment of a con-
ttneint interval in two houses at Hertley-upon•Thamee, I gave him
5001. The houses were not to be given up, if the notes were paid.
31r. Muriel, and I, sere not to hare the house's: all events.
Crota-examined by Mr. GraNEY—Mr. Stevens is a Was of
straw ; the Mitten In the house% at Henley is not worth a farthing.
lie-examined by Mr. SCARLETT—When I made the bargain,
I understand the sorority was good. I had no doubt whatever that
we should have made a titer two hundred and fifty pounds by the
teansaction. I have had many similar transactions with Mr. Mu-
ral, which were more ptothable.
Mr. Ov este', in reply, said, that on this ease his client would
dearly be entitled to a verdict. Mr. Kinnear, he said, was a most
ingenious person, who had contrived to find out this Mr. Stevens,'
who had !ionic doubtful Inmost in come houses at Henley. and by
bin assistance managed to carry on • pretty considerable business.
The Learned Counsel contended, under all the circumstances, that
the transaction which entitled the plaintiff to bring this action was
net a discountiug for usurious interest, but a clear purchase of
the bal.
The Loan Cutts Jusr lex, in summing up, said that if the
jar/ were of opinion that this transaction was not Basle, but merely
a colour and contrivance to repay a loan of live hundred pounds at
alature day, then the case of miry was made out, and the defer-
dent was entitled to a Verdict. The sale of bills, his Lordship
said, was net a very common question in Courts of Law ; and
when: such cases had recurred, it has not been usual for the seller to
pan his name= the bill. If, on the other hand, the Jury thought
that these notes were given .merely as a collateral security, then
they would find for the plaintiff. The whole question was one of
filet. and was entirely for their consideration.
The Jury, after consulting for about five minutes, gave a verdict
for the plaintiff—damages lOU

summon a jury until the summoning officer received notice from
the Associate, which was usually given on the day previous to the
trial.
Ills LORDSHIP iitapproved of this practice. and said he would
take care that a better regulation should be adopted in future.
Several other Special Jury cruses which wets appointed for this
morning were obliged to be postponed for want of Jurors, and the
Court proceeded to take the Common Juries.

CROWDS/ V. AUSTIN.
This was an action to recover the sum of 29 gitinnut, being the
prier of a brown gelding. sold to the defendant at Aldrhlge's Re-
pository. on account of the plaintiff:
Mr. Sergeant I3PANZIE said the hone was sold without any
warranty. which he should be able to prove by the conditions of
sale; but the defendant had refuted to complete his purchase,
alleging that the borne wan unfound, and that he had purcliated
it on a warranty. If anything gave rise to contradictory swearing
it was a horse calm, which was the most prolitie source of perjury.
The conditions of sale set forth the name of the horse, the number
in the sale, and ha description. The latter was contained in
four letters, which were extremely intelligible to all persons fre-
quenting Repositories. They were, "Dr.— It —Qt." which no-
table hieroglyphics meant that the hone would draw well, was used
for riding, and was quiet. These words by no means amounted
to a warranty of s•rundncas, nor was Mr. Aldridge authoriaed to
give any. If a warranty had been intended it would have been
the duty of the auctioneer to make it publicly known, as it was
a circumstance that always very much enhanced the price. The
sale, however, having taken place, a dispute • then arose upon this
question of warranty; and the defendant refusing its take away
the horse. it wan, atter tome time, resold; and notwithstanding
all the objections made against its reputation, 25 guineas were ob-
tained for it.
_ _ _

M. Aldridge was then called, and proved the sale of the horse
to the defendant, upon the terms stated by the Learned Sergeant.
('rose-examined by 11r. Sergeant V.aunnast—There was no
puffer at the second sale. The letters " Attd.", were written
opposite the description of the horse in his sale-book. which meant
the,. some person would attend the sale for the seller, to prevent
the horse being sold below its fair price, which would relieve him
from all resObmiibility as to price, as it deprived him of the ri,ght
of buying in. The plaintiff's groom attended, and witness looked
at him at the sale for a nod, which meant a bidding. He nodded
two or three times. The horse was knocked down to the defend-
ant, but he refused to take it away, on account of unsoundness.
The horse was what was called a roarer, or else it would have
been worth DO guineas. The horse was resold by consent of the
parties. The loss and commission upon the second sale and the
keep was about 181.
By the Count —The plaintifl's groom bid two or three times.
There were three bidders, two of whom were bona fide, and intend-
ed to purchne, and the third was the groom. The defendant and
the groom continued to bid against each other for some time after
the other person had discontinued to bid. Witness did not
know that Dlr. Austin knew plaintiff's groom was in the room
bidding.
31r. Sergeant SrAN ig pronosed to put in evidence to show that
this was the usual practice at these sales.
The Lone CHIEF JUSTICE could not receive it; and although
the practice was an old one, he was clearly of opinion that it was
illegal, and that the action could not he maintained. Ile would,
however, rather have the question decided by the Judges at West-
minster.tfall.

George Elliott, the plaintiff's groom, was then examined on be-
half the defendant, but he denied having any conversation with
Mr. Austin before the sale respecting the horse.
Crcrss-exarnined—Witness was the person who nodded at the
sale ; he did not represent the horse to he sound. Ht. might have
said that the horse was sound, except a crack in his feet ; this was
previous to the sale.
The LORD Cuter JUSTICE interrupted Mr. Sergeant Vaughan
in his reply, and said there was nothing to go to the Jury, and that
it was his opinion the plaintiff could not recover in this; action. By
the conditions of sale the highest bidder was to be the buyer ; there
was no reservation for the plaintiff to bid either openly or covertly
at the sale, and therefore in case the plaintiff did covertly employ a
person to hid, in order to enhance the price, he would be acting
against these conditions. But it had been proved by Mr. Al-
dridge, who was a very respectable man, and who had given his
evidence with great fairness, that a person was present, and did bid
for the plaitatilf ; the conditions, therefore, were infringed, and the
sale was consequently vitiated, as it was impossible to say that 29
guineas was the next highest prier after the last bidding of the per-
son who bona fide hid at the sale. His Lordship had long been
surprised that the objection had never been taken before to this
practice of puffing, which was nothing less than a gross species of
fraud ; or if in the transacti,ns of the world it did not deserve that
name, it was most undoubtedly a fmud hr the eye of the law. The
plaintiff most be nonsuited, but his Lordship would give him have
to move the Court above to set the nonsuit aside.
Plaintiff nonsuited.

SALMON V. WARD.
This was another home cause.
Mr. Sergeant VAUGHAN' said the riaintiff was a surreal+ re-
siding in London, and the defendant a cider-merchant living in
Devonshire. The latter gentleman being in town in the early
part of the year, understood that the plaintiff had a horse which
he wished to dispose of on account of its having the vice of rearing.
The defendant proposed to exchange a horse of his for it. and
upon the agreement, the plaintiff was to pay the defendant 101. on
the exchange. Subsequently the plaintiff found the horse which
had been sent up to him by the defendant from Devonshire. to be
in every respect unwound ; and he accordingly wrote to Mr. Ward,
and informed him that instead of the horse possessing those good
qualitia which he had represented at the time of the exchange,it was
everything that was bad. The defendant, in his answer, declared,
that the horse was in every respect in as goods condition when he
sent it the plaintiff, as what he had stated : and in his turn coin.
plained that the horse sent to him by the plaintiff was full of
faults. The plaintiff now contended that the representations made
by the dtleodant, together with the letters, amounted to a war.
ranty.
Mr. Sergeant SCA nie, on behalf of the defendant, submitted
to the Court that the letters merely spoke of a representation,
which cud(' not he construed into a warranty.
The Loan CHIEF JUSTICE was of opinion, that if the con.
venation alluded to in the plaintiff's letter did actually take place,
it was an undertaking on the part of the defendant that the horse
was sound: and as the detendant had not in any of his letters de.
Died such conversation, but on the contrary persisted in saying that
the horse was sound., he thought the Jury might infer that such a
conversation did take place.
Mr. Serpent SPAN Kt E then addressed the Jury, and said it was
obvious neither party had acted upon his strict rights ; that the ex.
chazge was upon the mutual representations by each of the gen.
tiemen, who seemed to think his own a paragon of a horse; and
that, as they both dealt upon honour, each ennfirling in the other,
the plaintiff o..ght not to have resorted to law at all. It was quite
clear that the letter written by the plaintiff was intended to entrap
the defendant into some admission that should afford a ground for
this action. The probabilities, however, were all against a war-
ranty having been made.
The Jury founds verdict for the plaintiff—Damages 52/. 4s. 61.,
including the 101. paid by the plaintiff on the exchange, and de-
ducting the money for which the unsound horse had since been
sold.

CONSTRUCTION OF TILE COURT.
In the course of the morning the Loop CHIEF. JUSTICE com-
plained of the extreme inconvenience experienced in this Court
from its ill construction for conveying or compressing the sound of
the voice. On the one hand, the witnesses who were unseen'.
timed to speak in spacious buildings did not raise their voices to a
pitch high enough to be heard, either by the Counsel or the Jury ;
while, on the other hand. die Counsel were generally so loud, that
their voices were generally lost in their own echo. In the first cue,
the Lamed Judge, who, by his propinquity to die witness-box,
was enabled to bear more than the rest of the Court. was obliged to
repeat the answers of the witnesses both to Jury and Counsel; and
in the latter, be as often had occasion to interrupt the f.t2arned Ser.
gwits, as it was frequently impossible for him to distinguish their
legal logic from a continuity of mere unmeani-:g sounds, reverbe-
rating from the walls of the lofty, 111. designed building. This corn-
plaint bad been often repeated, and on a former occasion it was Aug-
, etted by Mr. Sergeant Yell that some curtains or dupery should be
hung loosely about the ceiling, so as to deaden the sound and prevent
the echo. A communication was made to the city authorities on the
subject, and it was understood that some alteration would be made
for the removal of h 0 great and serious an inconvenience ; which
the Lord Chief Justice thought oftentimes occasioned very eon-
, sjderable prejudice to parties, there being no doubt dist much
important testimony was often entirely lost in consequence of the
difficulty of hearing the witnesses. As nothing has ye: Omen done
it is to be hoped the matter wilt be main mentioned. We, bow.
ever, are quite of opinion that the principal cause of the evil is,in
the very disproportionate height of the Courts. The same objection
existed with reference to the Old Raileg New Court, which ties Ted
to a most judicious improvement, by the ceiling being toMeted
serail fact ; and no Court la now bettar'adart4Yor .4Ft•tet4/11ta
clear and distinct enunciation than that ts. It is to be hoped that
the very liberal accommodation which the City Courts at present
afford to the public will not be contracted in the endeavour tore.
move the evil complained of ; as there is r.o feature in the Mini.
nistration of justice more grand and imposing, and perhaps no
circumstance which gives a greater madden to the decisims of a
I Judge and Jury than the presence of a large body of the people.
It dispels the prejudices of ignorance, and in a corresponding
degree insures respect to the laws, and inspires a confidence in the
integrity of those who aro appointed to dispense them.

• '

COURT OF EXCHEQUER*, GRA-T'S
TUESDAY .1J644
(Before the LORD Gutty BARON.]
EXECUTORS OP RIDLEY v. OBER.
This ease canteen to Reargued upon various exceptions takes to a'
report made by the Master, in conformity with a decree of the
Court made in 1821, by which he was ordered:Au report upon the
early value of a house situated in Wevithistthatreet. Crept I&,s to
y 1816. The Master reported that GO/. was the yearly eolith of ihr;,
house from 1801 to 181 G. and it was now excepted that,the year; y
value of the house in question hod varied et shEretelat,periu•ls and
that the Master had unjustly overlooked the verladoa el the
and decided upon a oinsideratiou of tots value M ampi494 voices
the decree lisped to.him.
The Loup CUAEF BARON flip ikcop4rarge bare
been a koigi bnc, it could "be pro e tut tile . seta ittutonly
considered the annual value of the house at the period itentle
port vrasthalfe ; but it testo4llllll4lMeellillie YeMd tonsi.t
dered the variation of value, and telreo4lllll.-1001111‘verwireirsitte

from 1904 to 1519. There woe no clear ground before the COWL
for differing with the blaster, and so far the Court confirmed hit
report.

~