The National Register.
London, England, 1822-11-11 00:00:00

au potion was tried, in which Smith was defestlant. and &lama
pliisitiff. The greotest indulgence was @hewn to Smith, in-
',much as he was allowed to es:to:toe a witness out of the re-
gular order of proceedings.—The Jory found a •erdict for the
pkiatifT, and nest day Mr. Briggs happening to be where the
dtfeudant resided, saw hint with a mob of persons, and beard
bun utter the following words:—" County Court! County
Court ! the Deputy Sherilt of the County, Drips, tries causes
unjustly in the County County Court.-1 had nut a fair trial,
and Briggs is a d—d rogue, scoundrel, and Tell
him 1 say so."

The Lord Chief Justice.—Perhaps a rule to show cause may
hare the effect of bringing this person to reason. Take a rule
to show cause.

FRIDAY, NOY. 8.
JONES R. BI.ACC.

Sergeant Onslow moved (or a rule to sh,w cause why the
verdict given for the plaintiff iu this cue should not be set
aside, and a new trial granted.
It wu an action tried before Mr. Justice Park, at the last as.
ailed at C::eliusfurd, The plaintiff was a sheep dealer in Wales,
sod he sought to recover fur 64 sheep sold to the defendant, •
■ publican in Essex, at the rate of 23a. per head.
. .

flte plaintiff called two Welob drovers, who proved the
delivery of the sheep to the defendant.
One of the witnesses said something about a bill of exchange,
and the defence was, that no sale of the sheep had taken place,
Just u the Jury were going to give their verdict, the learned
Judge said, you have not produced the bill of exchange, and
the Jury found a verdict Cur the plaintiff.
The learned Sergeant contended that the direction of the
Jud ,e was wroug, and consequently that the verdict ought not
to stand.

Itlr. Justice Bsale•—what became of the sheep ?
Sergeant Onslow—The defendant ultimately hail them.
Mr. Justice pay ley —lf you bad the sheep you ought to pay
for them. . .

Mr. Sergeant Onslow said he made his application solely on
the ground of misdirection.
The Coart granted a rule to stew cause.
HOFFMAN F. HEYWARD.
Mr. Marryalt moved to set aside the verdict in this case for
the I.laintiff. and to enter a nonsuit.
It was an action upon a contract for a quantity of tobacco,
shipped for George Town, in America, and consigned to a house
at Bremen. The ship in the course of her voyage touched at
an English port, and during the time she remained there the
contract was made. The contract was made on the following
terms :—The defendants were to take the cargo at the rate of
Ins. 6d. per cwt. The total amount of price was 15,0001.;
31001., one fifth of the price, was to be paid on the Saturday
following, and fur the other four fifths the sellers were to look to
their correspondents at Bremen, to whom the tobacco was con-
sioed. Itappears that the proceeds at Bremen did not amount
to the remaining four fifths of the price, and the plaintiffs
sought to recover the deliciency of the defendants. The Jury
found a verdict for the plaintiff, and the following question was
reserved for the consideration of the Corm, namely, whether
the defendants were responsible for the deficiency, or whether
Vic payment of 31.101. did not einoerate them from the pay-
ment of the remaining price.
Mr. 3.lmoryalt contended upon the facts, that the loss ought
to fall on the seller, and not the purchaser.
The Lord Chief Justine—l bad no doubt on this poiot at the
trial. It appeared to me that a man sold a commodity at a spe-
cific price, and both knew it was going to a foreign market.—
An agreement was entered into between them, that if the com-
modity sold for more than the price contracted for, the buyer
was to have it. If it sold fur less, the buyer was to make it
goo.l. That was the construction I put on it, and I still think
the buyer ought to make good the deficiency.
Judges 11a)ley, llolroyd, and Best were of the same opinion,
and the motion was refueed.