The National Register.
London, England, 1822-11-04 00:00:00

THE NATION O. ntansTrit

any s:tle of joint stock or politic trey ,1"°'" rc
fuse to 'Nuke the purelantstofiw otarr utast 1,-4 •I dark
purchased at the tnarlwt prier hefurc pC 01111 1011111,1' • . witou.
1..0r11 Chief Justice wan of atitioii,tlint public s,euritics
tnewat only securities of the British thwernwent. The Jury
found a verdict fur the plaintiff for 34,1.

SIIARPE I'. WEYMS.
Thin wan an action to recover a 10%.4 sustained by the plaintiff.
in consequence ..f the negligence of defendant's servants.
It appeared from the evidence, that the plaintilra brig, the
.S'hrp!ierJ, sailed on the Sd of October, 1!i21, from Newcastle.
About four o'clock on the morning of the 2tl of November, •
vessel was ii,en coining down upon their bow. She was hailed.
owl did tint answer. There was every opportunity or going to
windward or leeward of the Shephud, but ahe was antlered to
sieve in the side of that vessel, which occusioned damages
%bleb were the subject of the action. The •east I which did
the damn w a ascertained to be the Mury, of Weymouth.—
After the accident she was lost.

The J.iry found a verdict for the pleintill' for -1001. subject to
a reference an to the rent amount or damage done.

iforrstAs e. IIAYINAN.
This was no action to recover, 15,0001. the balance of a
contract for a large quantity sr tobacco, nettle in August lam.—
The delen Iron bought till hogsheads or tohscco. on board the
Ulysses, from George Town, in the Lnited States. to 13tenien.
at ~si. 6s. par ho•tshead. According to the contract, he was
to pay one fifth of the 'Hooey before the sth of Ats4ast, amd iler
plaintill. was to look for the remainder of the defendant'a cor-
respondents at Bremen, to whom the cargo was consigned.—
Thee cargo did not produce the dill..f:ace, 01 he sought to re-
cover it of the detentleats.

Mr. Alarryatt and Mr. Puller onntended that the defendant
was not hound to pay more than one lifth of the sum stipulated;
but the Lord Chief Justice was of opinion the defendant was
!little, and the Jury fonnd a verdict for the plaiutilf, with leave
fur the defendant to move to enter a nonsuit.
rutnav, Ma. 1.
TAVERN BILLS.

MAINE V. Silt GIIMORY VAG{ TURNIR.
Mr. George opened the pleadings, for rictuala, eating, drink-
ing, waalting, ironing, attendance, :cc. The defendant pleaded
❑ol liable.

Mr. Marrystt stated, that this action was brought by the
executors. Mr. Christopher Crean, who kept the Star Inn. at
Richmond, for lodgings supplied to Ludy Tomer, her sister.
her lady's maid, and coachman; charges for rooms, and stables
for a pair of horses, &c. &c. The plaintiff sent to Sir Gregory
when the bill amounted to 2001. ♦ bill had been given to
Mrs. Crean st live months. This the executors refused. Sir
Get.rge bad been arrested at the suit of the executors. The
promissory note bad been returned long before.
Mrs. Crean, widow, examined.—After her husband's de•
cease she carried on the business, fur the benefit of the execu-
tors, and paid receipts to them. Lydy Turner and servants
came on the 29th of June, 1521. Letters passed between bet
and her husband, to and from. Witness delivered a bill to her
Lady ship of nearly half the 1,11111 j witness wrote to Sir Gregory
fur tine bill, and received an answer from the steward.

Verdict for the Idsiogli 5501. costs, the items of the charge
to be settled oat of Court.

Illi.itl.l:c v. forTTIPIES.

This was an action brought by a merchant in the city of Lon-
don, against the defendant, an importer of French drugs, fur not
delivering a quantity of tallow, which the plairdiff alleged he
agreed to buy, and the defendant agreed to sell.
Mr. Gurney stated the case. The plaintiff, through the
medium of his brother, bought of the defendant, on the 131 h of
December, 1821, 100 casks of St. Petersburg!' tallow, at
per hundred. The tallow was to be d,litortd, but in conse-
quence of a rise in the price, the defendant said he was not
prepared to give it up. On the :slat of January the price wan
51s. Ott that day the clerk to the pkiiiiiirs broker temiercit
511to01. in payment of the tallow parchased, but the defendant's
brother, Edward Pettipier, acting wider the authority of his
brother rrineis, the defendant, said he was not prepared re de-
liver the tallow, and rt-tused the purchase money. Iniler such
circumstances the plaintiff lost the difference in the price tbs.
and iris. ?lie aunt umouutiog to 2961. S►. he sought to recover
in this ettion•

Arinainer, the plaintiff's broker, being called, said lie made
arontrant on the part of Mr. II Oilers, according to instruc-
tions. lie fiequently demanded the tallow but could not oh-
%in it. On the 3lst of January the price rose to 51s. The
plaintiff's name was announced when the tallow was bought.
erns -iamined by Mr. Campbell.—He said the contract
was made with Edward Pettipier, the brother of the defend-
ant, who re►ides at Liverpool. The witness had made many
cohtraeis for the plaintiff. It was not • WI gain fur dilference
of prior. lie considered EJward petlipirr the agent of Lis
brother Francis.

John NVilson, clerk to Mr. Rainer, proved the tender of
5,0001. in bank note's, as the price of the tallow which Edward
Pettipier said Ile, was not prepared to deliver. The lons nut.
tained by nou-delivery amounted to 2961. hs. The bill of gale
wan put in and reed.
Mr. Campbell then addressed the Jury for the defendant.—
Ile lad two prima to submit to the consideration of lbw Jury ;
lust, whether this contract way not entered into with Edward
Pettipier without the author ily of Francis Pettipier, the tte-
fenciatit t The other question was, whether this was a legal
transaction I—lt bad hero decided; in the case of Vl•ardell v.
Carnal, under the sanction of the learned Judge who then pre-
sided, that a bargain, operating as a mere speculation to obtain
the difference of price oecasioned by 21 rite in the market was a
gaining transaction, and the plaintiff could not reenter.
The Lord Chief Justice in Ilia:charge to the Jury, oleo pot
two queetions for their consideration. First, whether t• e con-
tract was made by the authority of the defendant ? If it was
not the plaintiff could not recover. treat, supposing the con
tract to have been made by the authority of the defendant•
they were to consider whether it was the intention of both parties
to speculate on the price of tallow, without any intention to
take the article.

I he Jury fuuoul n I, enliet fur the plsiufilr--n.N.Qe• 2961.

lILAD V. PEITII.IIIII.

ThIS was a similar action, Ittonght by the plaintiff, to recover
1111. alleged to bare been lost by the refolcal of the defendant
to deliver up 100 casks of St. Peterslitirgh tallow, at 4.55. per
hundred weight, according to contract.
Mr. Conley elated this case. Mr. itt..141, the phintilf in Iltia
act. , had actually received 50 of the 100 racks the defendant
lead agreed to sell, and it was impossible to say there was not
an intention to take the rommodity.
amplodl had no avni:able defence to O'er in this race,
and the Jury found a verdict fur the planitilf—llansages 1111.

COURT or COMMON PLEAS.
N ViDA Y, 31#
The Chief Juktice at Guildhall to 11C4( causes tett.ttit.ing
atlri 31:41aaliaa. 'll at us.