The British Press; or, Morning Literary Advertiser.
London, England, 1818-07-08 00:00:00

•
therefore, that the action was, in fact,,hie own. The
1.1,1444 action wee brought by MI. Wicks, who hod
himself wtnpinred the attorney: Such en objtc.
loft ies that formerly taken Mould net now, there-
fore, be made.
Mr. Joseph Lightfoot was new eelled—and.-
loefore give his evidence fur the Plointiff, was re.'
amine(' by Mr. Trivets°. who appeered fur the
a-fending. adinitted that, on the former
trial lee stated that the scum was his. He nu
Chien, 101 well as et present, en his oath before God..
He iv,.l nothing now 'to do either with the attorney'
.'r the actuno. He wino 'eurspresiorri ea &touter
kit, when, fro the lest time, he heard any thing
of the action. A genes -emote with ihe'sofrpteree.
very erarforemble. for three 'wet, on the Sunday,
a charity vermeil preached for their National
School, to which be subscribed it. He declared,
bent, Gust, he hokiso iuterest in this action.
Ertl Mr. COUTP.
rest tin. 2, North-street, Wal.
Nit ow,. On the 20th of January, 1817. he en.
lereci into a contract with the'Defendent for 3,000/.
3 per cent. rounds. to be delivered on the 27th
of February. He had the money et his
hanker,. Meows. Martin, Stone. and Co.-8i 'Fe-
bruary. to take op the stock. -He made a m to
of the iranmetion at the tidbit.' Gordan also made
un entry of it in a beak of hiik:i
Mr. -Tortilla objected to the minute's being
reed. If it were to be considered as a contract
made ie writing, it Infest have ;If'itamp.
Mr. Justice Assort looked upon it as a mere
note of a veiled amine. to • which the witness
aright refer, to refresh his oweneary.
Witness continued.—lo the course of business
Defendant applied to bite to purchase stock. He
purchased 8,000/. 3 per cents. and was reedy in
lehrwary to finish lots part of the contract. Mr.
Cordon did not come to him on the oppoisioni day.
but he sent a gentlemen about it. About right

slays after the Defendant saw binyon the subject.
Witness said to him, " I purchased stock, on the
27th or t!litli of February, in consequence of your
not fulfilline your agreement, at a loss of 212/. ttis.
mid I must look to yua for the difference." Wit.
toms nurchated at 63 from the Defetidesit in Janu-
ary. but, is Febenery, he was obligstti to bey in et
ens He mid to Gordon, "You are a pretty gen-
tlemen mot to bring the stock yon Bold to me. Yuu
know I sin to gambler in the stocks, and must
have the difference. If you do not pny it, I will
hiring my action against yen." Defendant answered,
" You may do what you like, I hare got no
stork." • •
Crest.e.restineel by Mr. Toretee.
Defendant said he had no comas in his naive,'
sal witness might do as he pleased. Witness ire% r
purchased stock, without having-property to pay
'for it, or stock to ttansfer in lieu of it. He was
nut a gambler is the stock., elthowth he was known
on the Stock Exchange by the familiar appellation
of Joe Liebyboi. Them were a great many purties
pessent, wheat he conversed with the Defendant.
One gentlemen, of the nem, of 'Anderson. would
, ite believed, to prove
.what Cordon said.
r. Anderson was not present ay the tiro conversa-
tion—and witness did nut know abut he would
prove, es he did not bring him .to the Court. He
tadieved the same gentleman was attorney in the
relent as in the last action—but lie had no concerti
pith the action. He had formerly one bargain of
2.0110 t. with Defendant. About a year and a half
ams, he transferred 2,0001. reduced to Defendant.
He might nice received 621. from him, but it could
only have been on account of the variation in the
price, in the sale if stock, on the Defendant gut-
ing in his name. He never received that or any
other sum for tint fulfilliig en engagement like the
present. He had no gambling transactions. if he
a4ld the Di (cildent Oak, or purchased it from
him, hr always had priiiiirty to make good his con-
tract. He was not a Cmiter, but a dealer in stork.
Ile never bought or sold stock for any person but
himself. He purchased for the 27th of February
at 63. He purchased for the settling-day, and that
slay was the 27th of February. On the 27th he
had a competent sum of money at the bankers, or
'stock to deliver, in order to fulfil his part of the
contract. He considered it 11l real transaction—sod
he told the Defendant that he never gambled. He
did not know who the present Plaintiff was—nor
wits he imam that infliction was pending till he re-
_

LtMrd the sarbliteno.!
Mr. Fenn, librakila end keeper of the books in
the Consols Office, Bank of Itoglanol, stated that
Ise had searched the books to ascertaia whether
William Gordon had any 3 per cent. consols in the
Brisk, in the year 1617. sad found that be had
not, nor for sable. time befits.
Cross-examitsed.-irWitiseas could not say whether
the Defendant, at :Trustee, night not hare hod
some. under another MOW.
Mr. Coiothistwr;:kqleek to Messrs. Martin, Stone,
thud CO. witted dtat4eseph Lightfoot cashed et his
employers' house. 70io the 27th of February, 1817,
he hid in their heeds, ready to answer bus draft*,
the saes of 2486/. t
Mr. Tat ratso observed that circumstances might
Neve pat it oat of MriLightfoot's power to fulfil
hit part of the contrair. *There was uncertainty au
his 'ideas well as on thpikjof the Defendant.
Mr. justice Asiorr---0' If it were a clear rime
bargain, on both sitlelOtlll the Defendant would
be liable to the penalty.".•\;.
Mr. Toortna argued, the evidenCe did not
elute's' any one of the counts, inasmuch se no
fixed lime was mentioned, thi bargain having been
Made for seti&sulay. •
Mr. Justice Aslsorr-:-44The period fiked for
ort*ig-day, on the Stock Exchange, is as well.
known 41 that appointed fur fair-day is in a pub-
he msiket."
Mr. Joseph Lightfoot was again celled, and, in
answer, to the iuterrogatories of Mr. Justice An-
se/re, stated, that both he sad Mr. Gordon knew,
1111 the 40th of January, that settliorday was filed
for the *7th of February. Settling-day, or the
V7th of Febraary, be could not lay which, was the
txpeelsiolll Veld.
Mr. hastier Asso??—" The precise thy bring
litihois, whether I say, settling-day or the 27th of
FeNroary, starlets not."
Mr. CIIIITT contended, that, If settling-day
Isapposing that to be the phrase used) were changed,
by Art of Porliement, or by any peculiar circnnt-
Moues, the 27th of February would not then be
the time appointed for fulfilling the bargain, the
contract referring only to setthag-day-.-theritfore