The National Register.
London, England, 1823-01-19 00:00:00

Defendant's dark deposed to being predrill when the pi.•in-
.N traveller called, sod defendant ordered the cream of to tar,
Mr. Percival mentioned the price. When the delenthiot
d Gs. litd. Mr. Percival said he could cot accept of that
_, but would write to his principals, who would write to
defendant in the course atom, whether thee would ',crept the
not, It is only one day's post to Kidderminster. 1 his
Ai the 13th of March, and on the 23d, defendant ordered
another house at Gs. 31r. Percival might have a book in
band, but witness did not see him write. Does not remelt:-
no hotly was present but Mr. Lee and Mr. Percival.
Solicitor General replied. The point reserved for the
; consideration tit' the Court was, this being a veio:d and
. written contract, the statute of frauds requiring that con-
.acts to be binding should be in writing to bind the parties.-..
Supposing the testimony of both witnesses was unimpeachable,
the question was, which of them was to be relied on as correct.
Mr. Percival, the plaintiffs' traveller, was bound to be correct,
and nut the defendant's clerk, who was then employed in
keeping his accounts, end only an accidental witness to what
passed. The accuracy of the testimony given by the two wit-
nesses prepotideiated in favour °rale plaintiff's traveller.
The Lord Chief Justice observed, there was no doubt as to
the cream of tarter, which the plaintiff received, and a .koow-
lodged the order by paying the money into Court ; the only
question was as to the lac dye. It was material to consider
what the order was, it not being a valid contract, nut being in
writing. Yet the defendant's accepting the contract in pert
took the case out of the Statute of Frauds.—His Lordship re
commended in all commercial trausactions to observe the pro-
wiriest* of that wholesome statute; for if the contract in this
case had boen in writing, and signed by the party giving the
order, there would be an end of this dispute.
Till, Jury found for the plaiutiff—Dainages 1581. sal costs.
RHODE, ASSIGNEE, P. PROCTOR, ASSIGNEE.
The Solicitor General stated that this was an issue from the
Vice Chancellor's Court, to try whether certain bills of ex-
change, drawn upon leaks and Co. bankrupts, were well con-
stituted, and whether the plaintiffs were entitled to recover
against the assignees. These bills, several in number, were
for 1,0001.; 8201. ; end 7801.
JONES V. HENDERSON.
This was an action on a charter-party, under which the de-
fendant agreed to carry goods to the West Indies.
It appeared that Jones, who was • ship-chandler at Lime-
house, rPilpped on board the defendant's brig Rase, a large
quantity of dry-goods, consigned to so wet at Jamaica. liy
the conditions of a charter party the defendant undertook to
deliver the goods, and to convey the same with doe care and
caution. The freight was regulated. The ship sailed in March,
1:t21, and met with bad weather before she fell in with the
trade winds. On her arrival at Barbadoes it appeared that
part of the goods stowed in the hold bad shifted, and some de-
stroyed by the working of the ship. The plaintiff's goods were
greatly damaged,aad cam bale of soil-cloth entirely destroyed.
Upon the delivery at Jamaica the loss was estienth--1

~-

-

whit* sera the plaintiff new sought to recover.
The question was, whether the loss was occasioned by bad
package by the plaintiff, or bed stowage on the part of the de-
reuiem. It was oonleoded in support of the plaintiff's case,
that there had been a breach of the conditions of the Charter
Party, inasmuch as the defendant had not conveyed the goods
to the port of destination with doe care. The package of the
goods at the plaintiff 's warehouse was proved to be good. On
the part of the defendant the damage way solely attributed to
the perils of the sea, and the insecurity of the boxes ceotaining
the goods.
The Jury, under all the circumstances, found a verdict for
the defeutlaat.
THURSDAY, JAN. 16.
CRAWSHAN AND taIIEMS V. BADES.
Mr. Scarlett stated that this was an action of trorer brought
by the plaintifs, who were considerable iron-masters, against
the defendant, a carrier, to recover a quantity of iron, which it
WWI alleged the defendant had converted to his own use. It
was intended this iron should be sent to Birmingham, to be
exchanged for a quantity of steel. The defendant having re-
ceived these goods to delayer to llornblower. of Birmingham,
to whom they were directed, by the Paddington boat carrier,
fading Hornblower'a premises under an extent of the Crown,
would not deliver them to him, but detained the iron on 1100111111 i
of a debt due to him by Horublower, and for a lien for carriage
sow set op in defence to this action.
Plaintiff's clerk preyed the delivery to the defendant.
Mr. Horn'dower proved the consignment to him of the iron
in question, which he did not receive.
A letter, addressed to the defendant, was Imre put in, de-
niandiag the delivery of the iron—also defendaut's answer,
claiming a lien.
The value of the iron was estimated at 2001.
'Witness had no opportunity of staking the intended exchange
far steel.
Mr. Hunt, of Staffordshire, purchased the iron ,in question of
the defendant.

Mr. Marryatt, for the defendant, contended there was no
difference between a delivery of goods on sale and a delivery
on barter, as affecting the defendant's tight of lien and stoppage
in transitu.
Robert Howe was clerk to Ilornblower, and was present
when ten lona of iron arrived on the Bth of February ; bcard
some quantity was delivered at the wharf, but did not see it ;
defendant was there, and was anxious to know whet lie should
du, seeing Mr. Hornblower's premises in confusion ; witness
said lie could nut act without Ilornblower's authority, but told
him lie thought lie 1... d better hold the iron ; Mr. liornblower
had quitted the 'troilism and was absent.
The Lord Chief Justice.—The questionis.whether this was a
good delivery, and whether the defendant bud a right to hold
If here was an imperfect delivery, Ilia Lordship thought Horn-
blower's assignees had no right to recover.
One of the Jury.—The assignees, my Lord, perhaps will re-
turn the money received from defendant.
The Lord Chief Justice—l am of opinion the iron not having
been weighed, and no receipt being given, that this wax no de-
livery, although landed ou the premises of llornblower the
bankrupt.
The Jury, under his Lordship's direction, accordingly found
for time plaintiff—damages 2261. 6s.11(1. and costs.:
PENDAIMS e. GEVSN.
Dlr. Park opened the pleadings.
Mr. Scarlett stated that the plaintiff went formerly by the
Name of Steakhouse, entering into partnership with others in
the North Cornwall Hank—each partner was to supply a certain
quantity of stock. The plaintiff supplied his part, but the de-
1, Want and other pertn trot failed to comply with a hood given
fur that purpose; and upon which this action was brou,,ht to
recover the penalty therein set forth of 12,1961. and advances
ainennting to 5,1551. which were secured to the plaintiff by
the bond in question.
Mr. Thurston Collins, subscribing witness, proved defers•
dent's everuthm of the bond.
Tim Jury found s verdict for the phiutiff fur 1.21 H.

p

nereni
tin'•, &al
when Mr
offered 6
price, In
defendan
order or
wu on tl
• ulothe
kis band,
ber ; no
The Si
future co
not a writ
tracts to I
Suppinini