The National Register.
London, England, 1821-02-18 00:00:00

THE NATIONAL REGISTER

- _
chemical tests. li. mg asked the value of defendant's
powder, he said rye varied in price last year from 345.
to 4th. per quarter; but taking it at -10 s. the defendant's
powder would not be worth 2d. per lb.
A return of the seizure and condemnation for want
of claim was read and put in as evidence, winch closed
the case lot the crown.
Mr. Hill addressed the Jury for the defendant. tie
said, that had not the Jury heard something of this
matter out of court, they must be surprised to hear that
any man should be brought into court for having made
a powder, not as an iinitation of coffee, but which might
be used instead of coffee—that no man should be al-
lowed to make his breakfast of any thing like coffee,
unless he had that expensive article. It was very much
the same as if it were sought to recover a penalty from a
own who could not afford to drink wine, because he
presumed to regale himself with porter. The statute
was made because coffee-dealers were in the habit of
mixing other articles with coffee, and thus defrauding
the revenue and the public, but in this case there was
no deception, the article was ,old Mr what it really was,
and it would be monstrous to say in any country we..a. of
Russia or Turkey, that a poor 111.111 ahould go without
his breakfast, rather than mai:e it of a wholesome be-
verign produced from grain of our own production, tiry
consumption of which tended to relieve our agriculture,
which it was known, was in a state of great distress.—
The lea, tied gentleman called the defendant's sou, 'l'.
Hunt, who proved that his his father never called the
breakfast powder coffee, and that he desired the witness
never to call it so. _

Oil his cross-examiaation by the Solicitor General,
he said his father had not given him any reason for de-
siring him not to call the powder cutlee, but he never
did call it so. No other witnesses were called on the
part of the defendant.
The Attorney General said, the law on the case was
sn clear, that verdicts had been found on it by five, six,
or seven juries, beiure whom similar questions had
been brought, without any contrary verdict having been
found.

Mr. ibronGerrow charged the jury. that ihe law on
the case was clear, and if they believed the facts, of
which there could be no doubt, they would find a ve -
diet lin the crown.

The Jury immediately found a verdict fur the crown
on both counts.—Penalties

COURT OF
TUESDAY. FEE. 13.
_DAVIS, V. TAGQ.

This was an action of as. summit, arising out of the sale
of certain articles of jewellery.
The defendant, who is a journeyman jeweller, dab-
bling a little on his own accouut,sold a variety of trinkets,
to wit, a neck-chain, a seal, a ring, a watch-key, and a
pair of ear-rings; warranting the same to be " verritable
gold of Ophir," of the fineness at least of 80$. per ounce.
Some time after the purchase, (ready money having been
paid for the goods), the plaintiff learned from a friend,
who was a jthlq,e of such matters, that he had been
bamboozled. The articles were then submitted to the
inspection of a refiner, and the artist declared, that they
had been bought at nearly twice their value. Mr. Scar-
lett now, seeking to recover seven pounds as the differ-
ence between the actual worth of the jewels, and the
leigned value which had been put upon them by the
de.endant, relied upon the warranty of gold at sus. per
ounce."

John Davis, son of the plaintiff, proved the warranty.;
and evidence was given to show that the trinkets in
question were worth very little more than half the
money that had been paid for theta.
.:tlr. Denman, for the defendant, contended that the
jeweller's words—the 80s. per os.—were not to be taken
as a warranty of the articles, but merely as the words of
course, such as a tradesman would naturally employ for
the recommendation of his goods.
Tile Lord Chief Justice held that the assurance of the
defendant amounted to a warranty , and that a trades-
man had no right in disposing of his wares to indulge
in assertions amounting to falsehood.
The Jury, by consent, found for the plaintiff—
Damages 4411.

WEDNESDAY. TM 14.
STEVENSON V. MOONSET.

Thi> was an action for money had and received.—
'llte defendant, who is an eminent auctioneer, put up to
sale an estate belonging to a gentleman of the name of
Lsdale. The conditions of sale were, that 20 per cent.
deposit should at once be paid upon the amount of the
cost ; the remainder of the purchase money to be forth-
coming within a stated period, at the expiration of
which the title was to be conveyed. Under these con-
Jitions, the plaintiff, Mr.S!eveusots purchased the estate.
he paid 1,5001 as deposit ; but when the time came for
making good the title, it appeared that Mr. Esdale had a
lieu fur sCol. a year upon the property. Mr. Stevenson
insisted that the incumberance should be removed; Mr
Esdale offered an equivalent, which was rejected ; Mr.
Stevenson then declared off his bargain ; and, to recover
back his deposit money, now brought his action against
Mr. Art.
Mr. Gurney, after stating that all the patties—vender,
vendee, and auctioneer—were in chancery, submitted,
fur the defendant, an informality on the part of the
plaintiff. Mr. Stevenson had gisen notice that, unless
by a certain day the title should be made good, he would
abandon the contract; but, after giving that notice, he
entered into neeciations for an agreement. The ne•
gociations, which consisted of a proposal b, Mr. Esdale
to vest stock for the payment of Mr. Esdale a annuity in
the hands of trustees, and of a demand by Mr. Stevenson
of a reduction in the price of the estate—those negoci-
ations certainly did not end in any settlement; but the
mere entering into negociation,Mr. Guittey, contended,
amounted to a wave of the notice of abandonment.

The Lord Chief Justice did not think that any right
had been waved by the subsequent negociation : and
The Jury found fur the plinitifl—Drinages I,buul.