The Sun.
London, England, 1839-06-17 00:00:00

LAW INTELLIGENCE.

COM3ION PLEAS, JUNE 15.

Middlesex Sittings at Nisi Prius, before Mr. Justice
VAUGHAN and a Common Jury.]
GLENNY V. lIIRA Y.
This was an action for a breach of contract.

Mr. Sergeant BumpAs and Mr. MANSELL were counsel
for the plaintiff; Mr. CROWDER and Mr. BUTT fur the de-
fendant.

The plaintiff in this case was the proprietor and publisher
of tt.e Court Gazdte, and the defendant an extensive paper
manufacturer. The declaration alleged that the plaintiff,
requiring, for the purpose of printing the Court Gazette, a
large quantity of paper, equal in quality and goodness to
the paper on which the Court Gazette had previously been
printed, defendant contracted to sell to the plaintiff eighty
reams of paper, equal in quality to a sample which was
given him of the paper on which the Court Gazette had
before been printed, and fit and proper for the purpose ;
but that, notwithstanding that agreement, he had supplied
paper inferior in quality to the sample, and wholly unfit for
use; and it then went on to aver special damage, on ac-
count-of the plaintiff's expectation that he would be obliged
to reprint the numbers of eee Gazette which had been
printed on the defendant's paper. The defendant pleaded
the general issue ; so that the only substantial question
raised in the cause was, whether or not the defendant had
complied with the terms of the contract, by supplying
paper equal to the sample. The evidence, however, went
to a great length, and the case occupied the Court during
the whole of yesterday and to-day.
It appeared, from the evidence on the part of the plain-
tiff, that in the month of December, IS3B, the plaintiff and
defendant had a conversation, in the course of which the
defendant stated that he thought he could supply him with
paper at a lower price than that which he had befor,: paid,
upon which the plaintiff said, throwing down a number of
the Court Gazette, ‘. If you can make the paper like the
sample, you shall send me 80 reams." The defendant un-
dertook to do so, and a number of the Gazette was sent to
him as a sample, together with a written order for 80 reams
of paper, describing the size, and fixing the weight at
from 5616. to 681 b. per ream, and the price 425. 6d. Both
the sample and the written order had been lost, but another
copy of the same number of the Gazette, and an entry on
the defendant's book, with the additional words, "as per
sample," were given in evidence, and upon that the proof
of the contract rested. On the 2d of February, 40 reams
of Mr. Imray's paper were delivered from the Stamp-
office at the office of the Court Gazette, and two
bills for the price of those forty reams, together with
the interest on the stamps, were accepted by the plaintiff.
On the evening of the same day a complaint was
made to the defendant's agent that the paper wag not
nearly so good as that on which the Gazette had before been
printed, and a correspondence ensued between the plaintiff
and defendant, in which the former complained that the
paper was wholly unfit for use, that the sale of his Gazette
was stopped, and the character of the publication ruined ;
but the defendant asserted that no unprejudiced eye could
distinguish any difference between the old and new paper,
and that the lowness of the price ought to have removed
all prejudice. It appeared that Mr. Glenny had formerly
purchased his paper of Mr. Spalding for about is. GI
per ream more than the price of the paper which was the
subject of the present action.
The relative quality of the paper furnished by Mr. Spald-

ing and that furnished by the defendant was the main
question. Several specimens of each sort, both plain and
printed on, were handed to the witnesses for their opinion ;
and it seemed to be generally admitted on both sides that
there was a difference b..,tween the two papers. Several
wholesale stationers, called by the defendant, stated that
the defendant's paper was inferior in texture and manufac-
ture, but to so small an extent, that in their opinion the
difference would nut be perceptible to an ordinary observer,
and certainly not to an extent equivalent to the difference
in price ; they were all clearly of opinion that the sale of
the Gazette coal not have been affected by it.
On the part of the plaintiff, the printer of the Court
Gazette stated that the defendant's paper was very in-
ferior for the purpose of printing on, that it required much
longer time and greater care, and several of the other
witnesses on that side considered it to bo very decidedly
inferior. They stated also that the plaintiff had used only
twenty reams out of the forty which were delivered at the
office. The weight of the defendant's paper was proved
to be sSlbs. per ream, and that of Spalding's 60lbs.

The Learned JUDGE, in summing up the case to the
Jury, said that there appeared to be little doubt, from the
,vidence. that there was a difference between the two sorts
of papers ; and the question then arose whether, sup-
posing that difference to exist, the contract would, in the
estimation of the law, be satisfied ; and he was of opinion
that if they considered the contract between the parties to
have been as it had been stated by the plaintiff, the plain-
tiff was entitled to their verdict it' the defendant did not
actually supply a paper precisely like the sample. The
questions for them to consider were, first. what the con-
tract was ; and, secondly, whether it had been broken;
and if they should come to the conclusion that the
precise contract had been br,keti, then they must
consider the question of ciamagc4; Upoa that
point he must remark, that not a single witness
bad been called to show that the sale of the Gazate had
been injured in the least, or that any numbers had been
reprinted, or any such loss incurred as was averredin the
declaration. The plaintiff sought to recover the amount
of the bills which he had accepted in payment of the fatty
reams delivered, but whether he was entitled to damages
on that account or any other was a question entirely for
them.

The Jury, having retired for a considerable time, came
ihto Cuurt, and inquired of the Learned Judge what amount
of damages would carry costs.
The Learned JUDGE had always felt that he was not at
liberty to answer that question. That was a matter which
the law decided according to the different state of circum-
stances.

The Foreman of the Jury then said that they were of
opinion that the contract was broken.
The Learn,d JUDGE—Then rww you must consider the
question of dan-.ages.
Thy' Jury. after a very short consultation, then found
their verdict fur the plaintiff—D4maaes One Farthing.
Mr. BUTT applied to the Learned Judge to (let tify
Mr. Justice VAUGHAN said that he would consider the
matter.
The Foreman said, that though the Jury thought the
contract was broken, they did not consider the plaintiff en-
titled to his costs.

CENTRAL CRIMINAL COURT