The National Register.
London, England, 1822-04-21 00:00:00

THE NATIONAL REGISTER

to recover from the defendant 4071. the amount of their
commission of one per cent, on the price of two East In-
dianten which they hail sold for him.
The defendant contended that lie was not liable to this
demand, inasmuch, as it was not he, lint the purchasers
of the vessels, who had employed the plaintiffs to nego-
tiate the sale.
The usual per centage on sales of this description was
admitted to be one per cent. and it was stated by several
ship brokers, who We've called, to be always paid by the
seller, even though the negotiation should have originated
with the purchaser, the broker being considered as the
aCtilt of both. From the deed of sale it appeared
that 10,01101. had been given for the beneficial interest of
the defendant's contract with the East India Company,
and 'A,1021. for the ships, which wise then in an unfinish-
ed stale.
The Lord Chief Justice directed the jury, if they be-
lieved the evidence, to give the plaintiffs the per centage
on the pi ice of the ships, which in his opinion could not
include the I e,OOOl. which was merely given fur the con-
tract.
The Jury accordingly found a verdict for the plaintiffs
—Damages 3071. Hs.
Lawson and another v. Longster and another.
This was an action brought by Mess's. Doason, ship-
wrights at Lime-moose, against Messrs. Lungste r and
Locke, as joint owners of the ship Ranger, to recover
6471. for repairs done to that vessel.
The deleuilatit Longster suffered Judgment to go by
&laid( ; but Locke resisted the demand, on the ground
that at the time the repairs were dime, he had disposed of
his share to Longster ; and though he had antlered his
name to remain on the register, by way of a collateral
security for the payment of certain bills which he had
received for the amount of the pm chase-muney, yet ;lav-
ing parted with the beneficial interest in the ship, and the
credit having been given to Longster, he was not liable
to this charge.
It appeariug, however, that the defendant had not wholly
parted with his interest in the vessel at the time the repairs
were done, but hod merely executed all agreement to tiails-
ler his share to the other defendant, "lien the last of the
bills should be duly paid, which Wils sal Ulltit the following
year, the Jury ['timid a verdict for the plaintiffs—Damages
8471.

GRANT R. RATNI)GII9.
This was an action brought to recover the sum of intl.
uf an alleged morality of a large quantity of herrings that
ss ere transported to the plaintiff's estate at Jamaica, in the
year ►sll, and sold by the defendant to Aid. Atkins and
Son, the plaintiff's agent.
It was said that the herrings on their nrrival in the West
Indies, were unsound and unlit fur the purposes intended ;
although other herrings of the same cure, bought of the
same defendant by other persons, and alm sent to the West
Indies, turned out to the sat,sfaction of their purchase's.
Mr. Lane, Alderman A tkius's clerk, was called to prove
hat the defendant warranted the hearings to be as good as
any which whirls were in that year sent out to Jamaica;
but on his cross-examination by Mr. Mcarlett, he admitted
that Mr. Saunders positively refused at the time of contract,
in warrant them in is riting, but that he did so verbally.—
It also appeared that Mr. Grant had long since been paid in
account for the ben iug.. and that in tact this action was the
worthy alderman's, although he came into court under Mr.
Grant's colours.
' The evidence for the defence was in complete contradiction
to the statement of Mr. Lane; prim( being given that is war-
' runty ss as cc oci:sl y re fused, und that the het rings appears d
of the finest quality.
The learned Judge, In his charge to the Jury, left It for
them to say which they believed—the plaimill's it 'messes
or the defendant's—tool to give their verdict accordingly.
The Jury returned a verdict for the defendant.
FRIDAY, ♦/ail. 19.
NICHOLLA a. TRLYoRD.

This %cis an action of troser to recover 1311. the value
of certain goods and fixtures which the plaintiff alleged
the defendant hail improperly converted to his own use,
under the following circitinstances:—
The plaintiff formerly resided at Farnham Hall, in
Hertfordshire, but quitted that place about three years
agn, leaving the fixtures in question in the keeping of a
person named Knighton, who continued to reside there
for some lime, but ultimately let the house and most of
the fixtures in question to the present defendant.
The defendant, in reply to the plaintiff's case, con-
tended that he had fairly taken the house and fixtures of
Knighton, and paid him a higher rent in consequence of
having the use of the fixtui es ; and further, that the
plaintiff had left the fixtures with Knighton in pledge for
a much larger HMO due to him than that now claimed.
Mr. Gurney, on the part of the defendant, wa• about
to call witnesses to prove this tact, and called Mr.
Knighton; but
Mr. Campbell, for the plaintiff, objected to this course,
and submitted, that Mr. Knighton was nut a comperesit
wituess; his intetest in the rr.•ult was clear, lie being
himself liable to the defendant, if the plaintiff obtained a
serdiet. _ . .

;‘lr. Gurney declining to release 111 r. Knigton,
The Jo!), under his Lordship's direction, found a ver-
dict for the plaintiff for 701. the value of the fixtures
reinaiiiing on the preinkess when defendant took posses-
sions part of them having been previously removed.