The National Register.
London, England, 1821-12-09 00:00:00

LAW INTELLIGENCE.

.......-
COURT OF KING'S BENCH,
MONDAY, DEC. E.

DAVIS V. HINDIAV.
The parties in this case were cheesemongers, the plain-
tiff residing in Vere-street,Ciare-market, and the defen-
dant in Gray's-inn-lane, and the action was brought to
recover damages fur a loss sustained by giving credit to a
person named Ford, in consequence of a false character
which the defeudaut gave that individual, for the alleged
purpose of entailing him thereby to discharge a debt due
from him to the defendant.
The evidence on the part of the plaintiff proved, that in
July, MO, Ford applied to Davis to be supplied with
nods, stating that up to that time he had dealt with
indley, but in consequence of Hindley not having suffi-
cient stock to supply him, lie wished to purchase goods of
the plaintiff. He referred to Hindley fur character, alto
confirmed all that he bad stated. In reply to the plaintiff's
inquiries Hindley said, there was no standing account
between hint and Ford, and that Ford only owed him for
two tubs of hinter, which were to be paid fur the Monday
following. He added, that Ford was trust-worthy. Upon
this representation the plaintiff was induced w give him
credit to a considerable amount. In December following
Fold was arrested by a creditor, and ultimately, on the
bib of Maid', went tip to take the benefit el the Insolvent
Act, a hen he ass adjudged by tAe Court to be liberated
after eighteen mouths' impriso 1111 l ent. At that time the
delendaut claimed to be creditor to the amount of xfifil.
and further acknowledged that the debt was due at the
time he was represented to have said Furd owed him
nothing except for Iwo tubs of butter. The balance due
from Ford to the plaintiff was 1771. and that situate sought
to recover from the defendant in this action.

Mr. Matryatt, for the delemlant,-contended that his
client had never given Find the character here repre-
sented, and also that credit had not been given Ford upon
what the defendant said. The plaintiff called on a
tradesman named lie iiiiii lugs, with whom Ford also dealt,
to ascertain his character flum that person.--" Chat pay-
ment to the amount of 33241. had been made by Ford to the
plaintiff at different times between July and December,
and that in fact.

The Jury, alter bearing the evidence and tlie aumming
tin from the Judge, found a verdict fur the Oa' 'd—
Damage• 1211.

TUESDAY, DEC. 4.
CHRISTIE V.

This was an action to recover 1401, the amount of credit
given to a person mimed Knight, by the plaintiff, un the
impropet character given him by defendant.
It appeared that at the time Clark recommended Knight,
am a trust-worthy person, lie knew him to be deeply involved
it debt, and that be in fact was a creditor to n considerable
amount.

Witnesses were milled to contradict this statement ; but
the Jury found fur the plaintiff—Datinges 1401.

•TAVI.EY V. DODD.

This was a qui lam action on the statute of the 5511 i of the
late King, which provides that any Or, rseer, Guardian, or
Governor of the Poor, or coy other person, directly or in-
directly, concerned in thy expenditure of the parish money,
who should famish any article towards the supply of the poor,
with a view to profit, should b. .c thereby liable to a
penalty of 1001. The defendant was an inhabitant of Bethnal
Green, a cow keeper, and the charge against him was, that
be bring a qualified governor of the pour, had furnished the
poor-house with milk. It appeared from the evidence, that
by the local-act for the regulation of the poor of that parish,
any parishioner hulling to the amount of 801. per annum,
might, on sending its kis qualification to the vestry clerk,
become and act as a governor of the poor. 'fame defendant
h id been so qualified, but had not acted for the last two years,
■nd it was now proved that the mister of the workhouse had
sent one of the paupers daily to the defendant's house, for
about six months of the time, fur two quarts of milk for the
use of the pauper children, which was paid for quartet ly by
the parish. 'lids was I lie breach of the act alleged agnieht
the defendant. A number of witnesses were called, aiming
whom an, the master of the work-house, who stated, that its
it was discretionary with him to scud where he pleased, he
had vitt to the defendant, because be bad gut the milk
cheaper and better.
The Chief Just ice said, the act in question was a most wise
one; hut, in his o; this ease was not within its meaning.
There was no contract, on the contrary, a person went to
purchase of the deft-Wain, w ithout any solleitation on his
part I and it would be a hard matter indeed to sub ject a
tradesman to a penalty of lOW. because be, beim!, as qualified
governor, might inadverteutly serve a pauper with a ;aloud
of cheese or an ounce of tea. His Lot dship also much
doubted whether the defendant, not having acted for the list
awn years, could be considered as a governor at 4111.-I'l:Liu
tiff non-suited.

WEDNESDAY, DEC. i.
kIIIIIN3 V. BARTON.

This was an action to recover bBl. los. for work and
labour. The defendant pail SOI. into Court. The plain
till, an alectioneer,ll'4:,, in ILOS, applied to by the delete
dent's solicitor to know steal would be the expense of
putting lip an estate, situated in Gloucester, the property
ul the 410*mM:int, to auction in London. The plaintiff
seated, that to do the thing properly, advertising, &c. in-
cluded, would be JUL besides his commission ; but should
the estate he bought in, be should charge as low as pos-
sible.

Thaw statement of the plaintiff's was made known to the
defendant, and the advertisements, particulars, etc. wile
published. The plaintiff afterwards suggested that it wits
desirable he should see the property, Ina the defielidnill's
ugeut objected to the cxpence of a journey down. The
however, said the expellee would be but trilling,
as he was gollig to that past of the tomtit), and would
Dan aside awl look at the pi' nye' . lie accordingly did
10, but ultimately the properly wit not sold by him. Senn
after the plaiuulf tgalismitted his account, amounting to
Wel. lib. in the defendant's agent, and reminded him the
account was not settled.
In reply to Ilits letter lie had one front the defendant,
apologianig fur having suffered the account to stand over
so lung, butt said it was UWilig lu the delay and J.1.411'1,000-
mein he had experit need in getting the pui 'Anise money
fur the estate fu question, bill that lie expected soon to lie
in luau,and would then brute it. Defendant afternsids
came w town, and plaitilitt's son called out him; be agani
uttered the seine eistioe, Old said he would pay the In I as
souls as possible, and at length the plaintiff (nought Illy
Neill evilest.
The defence set tip was, that the plaintiff's hill was an
overcharge. He had said that the expence salsa nut