The Sun.
London, England, 1830-01-19 00:00:00

LAW INTELLIGENCE.

COURT OF KING'S BENCII, JAN. 18.
EVANS V. KEYMER AND OTHERS.
This was an action of trover to recover the value
of a bill of exchange for 2,169/. Bs., and 23 chests
of indigo. The plaintiff, Mr. Evans, a merchant at
Liverpool, in September, 1828, employed Mr.
Nevett, a commission agent in London, to purchase
for him certain quantities of indigo. Mr. Nevett
made two purchases, one of 91 chests, and the
other of 111 chests. The former were afterwards
put up to auction by Mr. Nevett, at one of the East
India Company's sales, where 23 of the chests
were bought in by the defendants, Messrs. Keymer
and Co., as the brokers of Mr. Nevett. The plaintiff
now sought to recover the value of those 23 chests
from the defendants; but it appearing that the
plaintiff had not paid for the whole of the indigo,
and never had possession of any part of it, this part
of the case failed in the outset.
The facts respecting the bill of exchange drawn
by Nevett on, and accepted by the plaintiff, were
these :--The bill was originally drawn for the pur-
pose of covering two other bills which the plaintiff
had accepted, in respect of some of the payments for
the indigo; but they having been afterwards pro-
vided for in another way, the bill was allowed to re-
main in the hands of Nevett, for the purpose of get-
ting it discounted, in case the plaintiff should re-
quire a remittance of cash. Nevett being under pe-
cuniary embarrassment, and in want of a sum sf
28,000/., applied to Messrs. Gower and Co. to ad-
vance him that sum, on a quantity of indigo, valued
at 25,000/. Messrs. Gower required, in addition
to the security of the indigo, the note of hand of
Nevett, and a guarantee from a third person.—
Nevett having applied to the defendants, Messrs.
Keymer, for their guarantee, they asked for a
counter security from him. He told them that lie
held an acceptance of the plaintiff's for 2,1691. Bs.
(the bill in question), but he had no authority to
part with it ; and had, in fact, agreed not to part
with it, without first writing to the plaintiff and re-
ceiving his consent to do so. The defendants, how-
ever, took the bill, agreeing not to negociate it, pro-
vided Nevett paid the note of hand to Gower and
Co. Nevett had since becoine a bankrupt. Upon
this state of facts,
The AT•TORNEY•GENERAL, for the defendants,
contended that the plaintiff had no property in the
bill, and could not, therefore, maintain trover for it.
Lord TENTERDEN said that this was a question
of law, upon which he would not at present offer
any opinion, but reserve it for the consideration of
the Court above, in case the Jury should decide in
favour of the plaintiff upon the question of fact,
which he should leave to them. His Lordship
then put it to the Jury to say whether the defend-
ants had taken the bill from Nevett with a know-
ledge that he had no authority from the plaintiff to
part with it, telling them that if they decided that
question in the affirmative, their verdict must be for
the plaintiff:
The Jury having found for the plaintiff,
Lord TENTERDEN directed the verdict to be en-
tered for the value of the bill, giving the defend-
ants liberty to move for a nonsuit, or to reduce the
verdict to nominal damages.
WALLACE AND OTHERS V. SMALL AND OTHERS.
This was an action on a charter•party entered into
between the plaintiffs, who were ship-owners, with
the defendants, who were merchants of the city of
London, on the ship Iris, by which the defendants
agreed to load on board that ship at Calcutta, for
her homeward voyage, in the usual and customary
manner of the port, a full and complete cargo of
produce, and to pay for the same according to the
current rat e of freight, to be ascertained by taking
the average rate paid to vessels of the same class and
description loading at Calcutta at the time. The
plaintiffs complained, first, that the defendants had
not put a full and complete cargo on board, accord-
ing to the terms of the charter-party; and next, that
they had not paid for the freight at the rate stipu-
lated. The Iris was registered as of 296 tons bar-
den, and the defendants had put on board of her
280 tons of heavy goods and about 60 tons of light
goods.
The Jury found for the plaintiffs—Damages,
1,1931. SJ.

COURT OF COMMON PLEAS, JAN. 18.
PALMER AND OTHERS, ASSIGNEES OF WHITE AND
METCALF, BANKRUPTS, AGAINST BEESTON AND

OTHERS.
Mr. Serjeant WILDE stated the plaintiffs' case.
This was an action brought to recover the value of
certain goods of which it was alleged that the de7
fendants had improperly obtained possession, under
the following circumstances :—ln 1828, NlThite,
one of the bankrupts, carried on business as a linew-
draper, in Lamb's Conduit-street, and in the early
part of 1829 he was joined in partnership by Met-
calf, at Would appear that debts tO 4 copiderahle

amount were then owing by the house, in which,
up to that period, the business that was carried on
had been exclusively (or nearly so) in the retail de-
partment. After the commencement of the part-
nership, the wholesale business was added to the re-
tail, and there was great reason to believe that that
mode of dealing had been adopted for the purpose
of facilitating the payment of a very considerable
debt at that time due to the defendants. la the
latter end of June last White and Metcalf stopped
payment, and became bankrupts. The equitable
principle of law was, that all creditors should be
treated alike, but in the present instance that prin-
tshad been departed from, and it would be
proved that the bankrupts and the defendants had
arranged their plans in such a way that the defend-
ants should suffer no loss at all, and that the entire
deficiency occasioned by the insolvency of the bank
rupts should fall upon the other creditors. He
trusted that the Jury would, by their verdict, com-
pensate the creditors at large for the loss sustained
by them in consequence of the defendants' acts.
After evidence had been entered into at some
length, it being six o'clock, an adjournment took
place till to-morrow (this day.)