The National Register.
London, England, 1822-04-22 00:00:00

THLASU APRIL IS.

111131•Trit A • ro 0T1113.R4 V. TLXPLA
The plaint, s wLo are hip-In °leis, litutigat :his a( tlon

THE NATIONAL REGISTER

to recover from the defendant 4071. the amount of their
commission of one per cent. on the price of two East lu-
diamen which they had sold for hire.
The defendant contended that lie was net liable to this
demand, inasmuch, as it was not he, but the purchasers
of the vessels, who had employed the plaintiffs to nego-
tiate the sale.
The usual per tentage on sales of this description was
admitted to be one per cent. and it was Atwell by several
ship brokers, who were called, to be always paid by the
seller, even though the negotiation should have originated
with the purchaser, the htuker being considered as the
1111 l mat agent of both. From the deed of vale it appeared
that 10,0001. had been given fur the beneficial interest of
the defendant's contract with the East India Company,
and 30,1921. for the skips, which were then iu an unfiiiish-
ed state.
The Lord Chief Justice directed the jury, if they be-
lieved the evidence, to give the plaintille the per tentage
on the pi ice of the ships. which iii his opinion could not ,
include the 10,0001. which was merely given fur the con- I
tract.
The Jury accordingly found a verdict for the plaintiff.
—llamaces 3071. 18s.
Dawson and another v. Longster and another.
This was an action brought by Messrs. Dotson, ship-
wrights at Lime-house, against Messrs. Longster and
Lecke, as joint owners of the ship Ranger, to recover
41471. for repairs done to that vessel.
The defendant Longater suffered Judgment to go by
but Leeke resisted the demand, on the ground
that at the time the repairs were done, he had disposed of
his share to Longster ; arid though lie had suffered his
name to remain on the register, by way of a collateral
security fur the payment of certain bills which lie had
received for the amount of the pitichase-money, yet hav-
ing parted with the beneficial interest in the ship, and the
credit having been given to Longster, lie was nut liable
to this charge.
It appearing, however, that the defendant had not wholly
parted %WI his interest in the vessel at the time the repans
were dune, hut had merely executed an agreement to ti aro-
fer his share to the other defendant, when the last of the
bills should be duly paid, which was nut until the following
year, the Jury found a verdict fur the —Damagis
8471.

_
GRANT V. SAUNDERS.
This w; • an action brought to recover the sum of 40111.
upon an alleged warrant) of a large quantity of herrings that
were transported to the plaiutill's estate nt Jamaica, in the
year ISIT, and Fold by the defendant to Aid. Atkins and
Son, the plaintiff's agent.
It was said that the herrings nn their arrival in the West
Indict:, were unsound and unlit for the purposes intended;
although other herrings of the same cure, bought of the
same defendant by other persons, and p!so sent to the West
Indies, turned out to the satisfaction of their purchase's.
Mr. Lane, Alderman Atkins's cleck, was celled to prove
hat the defendant warranted the herrings to be as good us
any which which were in that year scut out to Jamaica;
but on his cross-examination by Mr. Searlett, he admitted
that Mr. Saunders positively refused at the time of contract,
to warrant them iu writing, but that he did so verbally.—
It also appeared that Mr. Grant had long since been paid in
account for the and Ih a in fact this action was the
worths alderman's, although he came into cow t under Mr.
Grant's colours.

The evidence for Ilia defence was in complete contradiction
to the statemeut of Mr. Lane; proof tieing given that a war-
rants sviti es pre&sly named, and that the herrings appeased
of the :inest quality.
Tile learned Judge, in his charge to the Jury, left It for
them to say which they believed—the" plaintiff's witneows
or the defentlant%—and tit give their verdict accordingly.
The Jury returned a verdict for the defeutlant.
FIIIDAY, APRIL 19.
wiettot.Ls v. TIII.IFORD.

This was an actioi.cf troser to recover I:111. the valne
of certain goods and fixtures which the ;deltoid alleged
the defendant had improperly converted to his own use,
under the following circumstances:—
The plaintiff formerly resided at Farnham Hall, in
Hertfordshire, but quitted that place about three yea's
ago, leaving the fixtures in question in the keeping of a
person named Knighton, who continued to reside there
for sonic time, but ultimately let the house and most of
the fixtures in question to the present defendant.
The defendant, in reply to the plaintiff's ease, con-
tended that he hail fairly taken the house and fixtures of
Knighton, and paid Min a higher rent iii consequence of
having the use of the fixtures ; and further, that the
plaintiff had left the fixtures ;silk Knighton in pledge fur
a ranch larger stun one to him wait that now claimed.
Mr. Gurney, on the mitt of the defendant, was about
to call ss it ties, es to prove this fact, and called Mr.
Knich'un; but
Mr. Campbell, for•me plaintiff. objected to this coarse,
and submitted, that Mr. Knighton wall nut a coinpeient
ssituess; his intere-t in the te•nit was clear, he beim:
himself liable to the defendant, if the plaintiff obtained a
verdict.
Mr. Gurney declining to release Mr. Kotigtoo,
'llll. • , under his Lordship's direction, found a ver-
dict for the plaintiff tor ;01. the value of the fixtures
remaining on the premisess when defendant took lIUSSe6.
sitir,, pall of them having been previously removed.