The National Register.
London, England, 1822-11-10 00:00:00

TIIE KING •. SMITH.

Mr. Brosgham moved fur leave to file a criminal informlinm
agsinst John Smith, a person residing at Appleby, in the county
of Westmoreland, for outrageous conduct to Mr. Thos. Briggs,
Deputy !Thera and Judge of the County Court, also residing
at Appleby. The application was made on the affidavit of 31r.
Briggs, detailing the circumstances. Mr. Briggs was bolding
a County Court at Ayploby, in August last. Ou that occasion

au action was tried, in which Smith was defendant, and Batson
'plaintiff. Ihe greotest indul6ence was shrwu to Smith, in-
asmuch as he was allowed to examine a witness out of the re-
gular order of proceedings.—The Jury found a verdict for the
plaintiff, and next day Mr. Briggs happening to be where the
defendant resided, saw biro with a mob of persons, and heard
him utter the following words County Court ! County
Court ! the Deputy Sheriff of the County, Ilrig.;s, tries causes
unjustly in the County County Court.-1 had nut a fair trial,
sod Briggs is a d--d rogue, scoundrel, and Tell
him I say so."
The Lord Chief Justice.—Perhaps a rale to show cause may
have the effect of bringing this rrson to reason. Take a rule
to show cause.

FRIDAY, NOV. 8.
JUNE! U. !MACK.

Sergeant Onslow moved fur a rule to thew cause why the
verdict given for the plaintiff iu this case should not he set
aside, and a new trial granted.
It was an action tried before Mr. Justice Park, at the last as-
sizes at Coelmsford, The plaintiff was a sheep dealer in Wales,
and he sought to recover for 6 sheep sold to the defendant, •
a publican in Essex, at the rate of 235. per bead.
The plaintiff called two Welch drovers, who proved the
delivery of the sheep to the defendant.
Oue of the witnesses said something about • bill of exithange,
and the defence was, that no sale of the sheep had taken place,
Just as the Jury were going to give their verdict, the learned
Judge said, you have not produced the bill of exchange, and
the Jury found a verdict for the plaintiff.
Thu learned Sergeant contended that the direction of the
Judge was wrong, and consequently that the verdict ought nut
to stand.
J make Bayley—what became or the sheep ?
Sergeant Onsluw—The defendant ultimately bad them.
Mr. Justice Bayley-11 you had the sheep you ought to pay
for them.
Mr. Sergeant Onslow said be made his application solely on
the ground of misdirection.
The Cosa granted a rule to shew cense.
HOFFMAN V. HEYWARD.
Mr. Marryatt moved to set aside the verdict in this case for
the plaintiff, and to enter a oonsuit.
It was an action upon a contract for a quantity of tobacco,
shipped for George Town, in America, and consigned to • house
at Bremen. The ship in the course of her voyage touched ■t
an English port, and during the time she remained there the
contract was made. The contract was made on the following
terms :—The defendants were to take the cargo at the rate of
6Ss. lid. per cwt. The total amount of price was 11:4,0001. ;
37001, one fifth of the price, was to he paid on the Saturday
following, and for the other four fifths the sellers were to look to
their correspondents at Bremen, to whom the tobacco was con-
signed. It appears that the proceeds at Bremen did nut amount
to the remaining four fifths of the price, and the plaintiffs
sought to recover the deficiency of the defendants. The Jury
found a verdict fur the plaintiff, and the following question was
reserved for the consideration of the Court, namely, whether
the defendants were responsible for the deficiency, or whether
the payment of 31001. did not exonerate them from the pay-
ment of the remaining price.
Mr. Marryatt contended upon the facts, that the loss ought
to fall on the seller, and not the purchaser.
The Enid Chief Justice—l had no doubt on this point at the
trial. It appeared to me that a man scut a commodity at a spe-
cific price, and both knew it was going to a foreign market.—
An agrminent was entered into between them, that if the com-
modity sold fur more than the price contracted fur, the buyer
was t. base it. If it sold for less, the buyer was to make it
good That was the construction I put on it, and I still think
the layer ought to make good the deficiency.
Jidges Bayley, Holroyd, and Best were of the same opinioes
ant.' the motion was refused.