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

lAT. 10.

The Lord Chief Joistice tried several common jnry enure...—
The only ease affording the least Ilitrit ol was the
following.

ASHLING H. SMITH.
This was an action to recover 921. fur 40 quarters of wheat,
alleged to has t been purchased by the deleodar.t.
It appeared 11,4 the curls was exposed for sale in the market.
A pence moot., Ward off red to become a purchaser, at tiny
shillings a but the plaintill not liking N ard, refused to let bins
have it. S,lllOl bllaJlt time after said to the plaintiff, If yon
don't like Ward, take 495. and you may insert my name." The
plaintilf seceded to the propoiell, awl the corn was delivered--
In April the corn was sold, aril in May the defendant, Smith,
send 11 and with a cheque to pay Cur it. The plain.so 's clerk
smote out the receipt to Smith, on which Ward said it should
have been made out to him ; and on the refusal of the clerk te
alter it, Smith took up the cheque and went away, saying he
would not pay it at all.—Under the above ciroumetances the
action was brimeit, and the question was, whether Smith i.r
Ward were boau)de purchasers of the corn.
The Chief Justice, after the witnesses had been heard• ob.
served, that there Maas no proof that Ward purchased the corn.
The July found a verdict for the pleititilf.
VHSESDA Y, OCT. SO.
IHNIPSoN V. POGSOti.
Mr. M tt stated, that this was an action brought by a
tradesman in London lit recover 651. ss. on a bill of earbaogr,
accepted by a shuttle:l lady of the was of Stanley, who. more
her nisi:hat ge under the insolvent act, hail entered into a matri-
monial engagement with a Capt. Popo°, of the navy, a watt of
property. The band-writing of the defendant being loosed—
Mr. Scarlett, fur the deleodent, stated. that the bill was
given to • Mr. k'olkoaer, a linen-draper, whilst the lady was in
pinion, having been an assistant ate school, Alr. Fulkoner, pro-
suteitig neither to circulate or present Moe bill for payment ; 'mil
the qumitiou we., whether the hueband was liable- fur the debts
of his wife she being discharged ander the insolvent act.
'Choose James Gorwood, ollieer of the lesolvest Court, pro-
ducid the schedule and discharge of Charlotte Isabella Stanley.
lit Om schedule was the article—.. 631.54. to Mr. Folkoner,
linen-draper, 1101 Holborn, for which a bill of exchange was
accepted Ira me:'
Mr. Foll;olier, examined by Mr. !leaden,. -Witness is the
(hewer of a bill, Miss Nutley, when she accepted it, was in

■

prison ; ■ former bill she accepted Vl' At over-due, and she gate
this bill as a renewal ; It sbmisoo, plaintiff's attorney, west
with witness when she was in prison ; she slid she expected
moue) from abroad, and menttioned the name of it Mr. Venial.,
who wag, to pay the debt. \% itness grate flat bill to Simpson
a day or two alter he got it, RII l ntentionod that he must part
with it. Witness owed Simpson, the plaintif. about 1.-111.
—lt wan made payable at Castle-house Hoarding-to:hoof,
Holloway.
Lord Chief Justice.—This is in the nature of a new debt,
be amuse she gives it as a security whilst in prison.
31r Searlett contended the debt was paid.
Lord Chief Justiee.• —This bill is a negotiable security, and it
gels into the hands of a Goma pie holder.
Mr.Bearlelt subtuitted, that a person being, anxious to get
rid of an opposing creditor, gives a bill to a particular creditor,
4r then that party 'could recover, it would lie a fraud 1111011 the'
other creditors, and contended it was epee Jails void in I.tiv.
Mr. Marry.d said, it had been decided in the case of a war-
mt of attorney, given by an insolvent debto►, to et rid of ma
opposing creditor, that it was void. That was a Jillerent ease
from this, where the husband became liable for the acceptance
of his wile. . .

George Frederick Sargent was present when this lady was
dischttrged on the 311th of May ; bile was opposed by Mr.
an attorney ; there was a dismission shout the creditor
Clack having dischar;cd her on the 16th of May; that was a
ground of discussion. Mr. Bullen made the objection, but
the Court overrule) it. Witmess.did not attempt to arrest her
again.
The Lord Chief Justice observed, he thought the Jury would
conclude that her discharge by Clack, on the Muth of tiny, was
a discharg'..:, as likewise g g into custody again st the suit of

William Green, turnkey of the Marshilsea. The Commis-
sioner said to witness, that ho could nut bring her up if she was
not its castody.
His lan-dship said be hoped this lady and her husband would
hate. the benefit of the act, but not to defeat the legal ups•rations
of lulls of exchange. The Jury would say whether the dis-
charge given by Clack on the Itith of May, was not to prevent
her taking the benolit of the act. Likewinu her subsequent
arrest at the suit Of 11.inelt, lie notoppearing a creditor on her
schedule; and he diseltar„ing her on the 30th of May. just two
dais before she Was to be brought up, whether this was not an
improper arrest Mal discharge on the part of Lincli
The Jury found the aliirniative of both. Verdict for the
plaintilf, 631. subject to 'a case, hoW far the plainta could re-
cover un the bill as a beau fits holder.

VUI.SI)N U. TUCKER.
This was an action brought against II e widow and represen-
Wise of the late Air. Tuclecr, an attorney, for negligence and
mi►management in tuaking out a security, by which the plain-
tilYanstained a loss of 2101.

... _
ilie facts appeared to be these :—A person of considerable
property, named Frei:ldleld, left by will a legacy of 41/001. to a
relation, also of the name of Freshlield, in which the plaintill
had a life interest. They expected to come into possession
early in 1820, and Freshlield wanting to borrow money, Wilson
applied on his behalf to the late Mr. Tucker, ut Bartlett 5-
boildirgs, Holborn. es/ was introduced to Mr. Tucker in
I,
May, 1st!). Ile said Fre field wanted to lmrrow money, and
proposed to secure the pa: nent by the assignment of a legacy
under the will of Fresblicid, the abstract of which he produced.
Mr. Tucker said he could not wish for better security, and
told him to come next morning. According to the evil nee of
a Mrs. Watley. who was present at the interview, the plaintiff
requested Mr. Tucker, to go to Doctors' Cononons and examine
the will, and not mind what Prealitield said. Wilson and
Yreslitield came the next morning, and a deed was finally
drawn to rissio Freshfield's interest. It afterwards appeared
that Tucker did nut go to Doctor's Commons to examine the
will, in order to see whether there wns any thing in it which
too assignment of the legacy might affect ; and the consequence
muss, that the deed was made in direct opposition to the will,
which declared, that if 101,y legatee claiming under the will
sh mid bargain, sell, or dispose of his !cowl, he should forfeit
and lose the saute, and it would sink into the testator's resi-
duary property.
The plaintiff, under these clreumstaneea lost his interest in
the legacy, and it was contended (list the loss having been oe-
cssioned by negligence on the part of Mr. Tucker, Ibis rem- ,
sentativex were liable to compensate the plaintiff.
Mr. Puller, for the defendant, called Mr. Webb, clerk tc 'Lk
late Mr. Tucker, who was present when Wilson applies/. hp,..!
Freslitield's business. The witness said no instructiarr'Srao
given by Wilson to go to Doctors' Commons to examine the
will. There aas no application to Mr. Tucker for the purpose
of instructing him to examine the title of the oiliest° the lagacy,
but to prepare the security.
The Lord Chief Justice, in his charge to the Jury, said he
was of opinion in law that it was the duty of an attorney, pre-
paring :1 deed of the above description. to go and see the whole
of the will, unless something took place to lead him to think
such a step unnecessary. 'the question in this cause was, first,
whether they would believe that the woman hail proved on the
part of the plaintiff. If they gave credit to her statement, it
was pros ed that W ilson desired Tacker to go to the Commons ;
Webb, on the other hand, said, that not one word about the
Con 000000 es passed.
The Jury then delivered a verdict for the plaintiff.—Da-
magas 2101.
t11I:I.OW AND MASON t,. Nonni.

The plaintiffs, who were ironmoogers pret- too, to IS2I, when
they dissolved partnership, *ought to reeover 91. and a fraction,
for voila supplied to the defendant, a cabinet-tinker '1 he de-
Gulden( dispiii ell the portuership when the goods were furnished,
but hailing in that point, lo proved t payment to the plaintiffs
of 31. 19s. 9d, w6iah the learned Judge conaidered money paid
on account, and the Jury found • verdict for the balance,
51 Ns. _ .

Several causes were nailed, and, in consegnettee of the ab.
sauce or the attorneys, the Judge ordered them to be struck out
the
THURSDAY, ocy. 31.
C.H.UMBIA N DON DS.—HESDEID-OS I/. RI Cr..

This was an action to recover a lova occasioned by the regnant
of the defendant to observe a contract entered into with the
On the 17th of February, the plaintiff porshaved of the de.
feadant. a broker, in lireselneedle-street. 20001. ten per cent.
Coleouteisee bowls, at 69 per rent. On the nth oe‘t day) new a
was received of the acknowledgment of ti,' Colombian Itepuldio
by the Cortes, in consequence of which, the 81111thi 11/14 to ire
per rent. 'floe defendant the,. refused to make good the Ina
chase, end said he had only one bond of 100111. which lie would
not give up utiles,' the plaintiff would consent to give up the
contract. This he refused to de.

Mr. Merryett for the defendant, contended, that the option
seeld not b • enataiee.l, in , uneryttence of the I,l4Beiill nee-
eetuplitune with the 7th I.isuigio 1111., wLitb insets, skit it iu