The National Register.
London, England, 1814-03-06 00:00:00

THE NATIONAIL REGISTER.

COURT OP COMMON PLEAS, SATURDAY. MARCH 5. -
BELLAIRS V. WARD.
This was an action to recover 5001. the value of shirting, sold by
Messrs. Smith and Harrison, who were the factors of plaintiffs (the
ttnber Linen Compaq) to the defendants.
The linen in questim it appeared had been sent to Menu. Smith
and Harrison, to be sold on commission, and they had sold it to the
defendant. 'lbis was proved by the evidence of Mr. Smithi who
•had become • insolvent. On the part of the defendant, it was can-
.tended, that Smith and Harrison had been paid the value of the
Upon an investigation of the anode of payment, it turned
out that Smith and Harrison had been indebted to defendant in the
sum of 9651. in payment of which they had given three bills of ex-
change. These bills dr fendant objected to receive, and returned
them. Streftla and H.irriion afterwards liquidated theft debt by_
giving another bill of exchange, which was not objected to, and the
linen which formed the ground of the present action, the defend-
ants at the time knowing the linen to be the property of the plain,
tie; and to have been in the possession of Smith and Harrison only
as factors.

Under these circumstances, the Lord Chief Justice left it for the
Airy to decide whether the return of the three bills objected to by
defendant, could be considered either in law or -justice as a fair
Luna fide payment for the plaintiff's linen. For his own part be
felt it his ditty to state that lie did nut consider it as a valid pay.
ment.—Verdict for the Plaintiff, damages 5001. costs 40s.
The Fit t lugs after Term then ended, and the Court adjourned.
In the Court of King's Bench there were hat two special Jury
cases, neither of which were at all interesting. The Court will not
again sit till a few days before Easter Term, when his Lordship will
try the rewancis of that Term.

COURT OF. KINGS BENCH, TUESDAY, MARCO 1.

WELCH r. IIIOMPEON, ESQ.

This was an action brought by a grazier from the North, against a
gentleman residing at Turnhans-Urern, and possessing a farm at
Notthaw, to recover the sum of SA. being the price of two cows,
sold by one Bunker, as the plaintiff's agent, to one Brown, who
managed the defeioiant's farm. The retire was made at arnet.
as the beasts were on their mend on; and Brown gave thp
plaintiff's agent the name of his master; and it was agreed Oa
Hunker should receive the money on his way home from London.
It appeared that the defendant had given Brown two cheques of
t6l. each. to pay for the cows ' • but brown had misapplied this mo-
ney. It was proved that the defendant had never authorised his
servant to buy any thing for the farm Ivan credit ; but had alwav s
given him money beforehand to pay for his purchases ; and when the
defendant was applied to by the plaintiff for payment fur these cows,
he said, " Why did you tribt my servant he must go to gaol."
Lord Ellenborough laid before the Jury the law as to this subject,
between tradesmen and the masters of servants; no man, he said,
was liable for a debt contracted through the medium of another,
unkss by his authority, express or implied ; and if a master sent
forth his servant to buy goods without money, the law would imply
that he authorised that servant to buy upon the masters credit;
but if the !master gives the servant money enough for the purchase
in question, or always keeps him in rash for any purchase that may
arise, there is then no authority to buy upon credit. The strongest
proof of a master's authorising a servant to purchase upon credit, is
his afterwards paying for articles so purchaser! ; but if it be proved
that the master always gives the servant cash for every purchase
authorised by him, no act of the servant's can pledge the authority
of the master, and that authoiity is expressly negatived by such
rircumitance.—rhe Jury, therefore, found their verdict for the de.
fendant.

WEDNESDAY, MARCH 2.

SMITH V. THE ATLAS INSURANCE COMP ANY.

The Solicitor-General stated the caw for the Prosecution, which
was an action to recover. '2,6001. the slim insured with the defend-
ants on the stock in trade consitmed by the in a house fOrmerly oc-
copied by the plaintiff in Newgitte-street, where lie formerly car-
ried on the bniiness of a clothes salesman. It will be in the recoi-
-1 etion of our readers, that, after the house was burnt (lowa, cer
t circumstances transpired, which, in the. opinion of the Direr-
t •rs of the Atlas Insurance Compans, wairanted them in commenc-
ing a capital prosecution against Mr. Smith, m consequence tit
he was tried for his life at the Old Haab on tal indict mt4it
for arson, at acquitted.

I