The Sun.
London, England, 1830-11-19 00:00:00

LAW INTELLIGENCE.

COURT OF KING'S BENCH, Nov. 18.
TUN KING V. HYATT.

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL prayed the judgment of
the Court upon the defendant, Henry Hyatt, who
had pleaded guilty to an information, charging him
with having offered a bribe to an officer of the cue-
toms, to induce him to permit the landing of a quan-
tity of brandy, without paying the duty.

Mr. Justice PAItKE said,—the sentence of the
Court was, that he be imprisoned in his Majesty's
gaol at Dorchester for six calendar months.

EX•PARTE BASKERVILLE, ESQ.

The ATTORNEY-OICIERAL moved for a rule to
show cause why a criminal information should not
be filed against Mr. John Gardner, an apothecary,
residing in Wiltshire, for sending a letter to Thomas
l3askervillo Mynora Bankerville, of Watley House,
Ogborne St. Andrew, in the county of Wilts with
intent to provoke himto fight a duel. The affidavit
of Mr. Baskerviile set forth that he was a magistrate
of Wilts, and that Mr. Gardner was the apothecary
appointed by the parish of Ogborne St. Andrew to
attend the sick poor; that some time in July last,
he (Mr. Baskerville) heard complaints in the parish
against Mr. Gardner for not attending the poor so
regularly us he formerly had done, and thought it
right, in consequence, to call a vestry meeting. A
meeting was accordingly held, and Mr. Gardner and
several other persons attended. Mr. Buskerville
stated that he understood Mr. Gardner had not been
punctual in his attendance upon the poor us he
ought to have been, and mentioned the necessity,
therefore, to cull in another medical man. Mr.
-Baskerville,r in the course of his discussion, said
nothing personally offensive to Mr. Gardner; Mr.
Gardner, however, applied the most abusive lan.
gunge to him-, and became very violent in hii manner.
About a week afterwards he received a letter from
Mr. Gardner, dated Marlborough, August 16, 1830,
in these words, which were clearly meant to provoke
a dad :

" Sto,—.l have been told, but not until to-day, that
you have asked the advice of a friend as to r tha best mode
of clearing yourself of some epithets I applied to you at
our last meeting. , I. was, I must confess, exceedingly sur-
prised to hear that such a friend could have given you the
advice he is repreiented thhave done, nor am I disposed, On
your showing, to believe he did, except,' indeed, he wits
guided by misrepresentations made by you, and WAS over
anxious to get you out of a scrape he had discernment
enough to discover you had no relish for. In point'of birth,
I have no hesitation in asserting that I am your superior;
in rank in society I am at least your triad! ; in general
eitilll346ll so far above you, that I am ashamed to make
the comparison. There is nu term of reproach I applied
to you, that I will not,on a fitting opportunity repeat ;
and now, in addition, tell you that you are poor in prin-
ciple, poOr in intellect,' and poor in spirit. I am, Ise.,
" JOHN G A RDNER."
The Court granted a rule to show cause,
MARZED?I V. WILLIAMS AND OTHERS.

This case came on to be argued upon a rule nisi
for a new trial obtained by. theAtforney-General,
on the part of the defendants, in Hilary Term last.
The action had been brought by Mr. Mantetti, a
wine-merchant, and ship insurance broker, in" the
City, against Messrs. Williams, Deacon, and
the bankers of Hirchin-lane, for not honouring a
cheque of the plaintiff, who was a customer of their
house.. It appeared in evidence at the trial, which
took place before Mr. Justice j.. Parke, at Guildhall,
in December last, that on the evening of the 17th
of December, 1828, the defendants had a balance of
the plaintiff's in their hands of 891. 19s. fid. About
eleven 'o'clock the next morning, a sum of UV. was.
paid in on the plaintiff's account,' increasing the-
hal,ince to 1091. I9s. 9d. In the course of that day
tyre of tle plaintiff's 'cheques were presented at the
defendant's shop , one for 201. (Which was paid),
anti the other (the cheque in question) for 871.75.6 d.
which wait drawn, in 'avow of a M. nooper. It

' was presented about ten minutes before three o'clock. I
The clerk at the counter; arta 'rearing to a book,
told Mr. llooler that there were not sufficient assets
or tr.ie oniotitrg to pay the cheque, that it was ills.
honoured. The clerk, however, said that the plain-
tiff probably expected that it would go through the
clearing-house, which treatit that it would probably
be paid in the t..nurse of the day. Mr. Hooper having
infortned the pleintiffof what had occurred, the latter
wrote to the defendants, remonstrating upon the
non-payment of the cheque. (in referring to the
account, it Was found that the mistake in say;ng
there were not sufficient assets, arose from the cir-
cumstance of there being no entry in the book to
which the clerk referred, of the payment in of the
M. on the morning of the 18th of Decerhber, when
the cheque was presattcd. The defendants wrote to
the plaintiff explaining the mistake ; and when the
cheque was presented on the following day, it was
paid.
On the part of the defendants, the ATTORNEY-
GENERAL submitted at the trial that the plaintiff
must be tionsolteee there being no proof that he hail
sustained any actual damage by the refusal to honour
the cheque. The learned Judge was, however, of
opinion, that as the action was for a breach of duty,
it was maimainablei not withmanding no actual da-
mage had teen sustained ; and he directed the Jury
to find a verdict for nominal damages, if they should
he of opinion that there was reasonable time for the
defendants to have made an entry in their ledger of
the 401. paid in, between eleven o'clock in the
morning, when it was paid in, and three o'clock in
the afternoon, when the cheque was presented. The
bankers, he said, were debtors for the money they
moment they received it, and were bound to pity it
on request, provided they hail reasonable time to
make the necessary entry and ascertain the state of
the account, The fury having, under this direction
of the learned Judge, found a verdict for plaintiff,
with nominal damagea (et the same time negativing
malice), the Attorney-General, in the following
term, obtained is rule nisi to set it aside and enter a
nonsuit, on the ground that as this was an action for
tort, it could not be maintained, unless specific
damage were. proved.
Mr.:BROUGHAM BOW showed cause. The action,
he observed, was for a breach of contract ; and that
there was at least an implied contract could not be
doubted. By the usual custom and course of deal-
ing of bankers, the plaintiff's cheque ought to have
been honoured at the time it was presented. The
refusal to honour it was an injury to the plaintiff, for
though it did not effect him in a pecuniary point of
view, his commercial credit was damnified, and that
was the ground on which the action had been
brought. No special damage had been sustained,
nor was it necessary, the learned Counsel con-
tended, to prove any, to enable the plaintiff to
maintain the action.
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL and Mr. CAMPBELL
(with whom was Mr. JusTtch) were heard in sup-
port of the rule.
1.0111 TENTEIMEN was of opinion that the plain-
tiff was entitled to a verdict for 'tontine) damages.
The Attorney-General had insisted that there was a
difference between an express arid an implied con-
tract; but for his (Lord Tenterden's) part, he could
see no difference : an express contract was proved
by sliming an agreement between parties upon some
purticular transaction ; an implied contract was
shown by the general course of dealing in trade or
commerce, and WILS applicable to general dealings.
A banker contracted with his customers to pay their
cheques when required, provided he had money of
theirs in his hands at the time. That was an im-
plied contract, according to the general course of
dealing between bankers and their customers; and
if it was broken, the customer might maintain an
action for a breach of contract, although no damage
had resulted to him ; or be might bring an action for
the tort, for that wits analogous to an action for a
breach of contract. His Lordship said Inc could not
forbear observing, although it did not appear that
the plaintiff in this ease had sustained any pecun'ary
damage, that it was a discredit to any person in
trade to have his cheques refused, even for a single
day ; and the defendants had shown their want of
confidence in the plaintiff by their refusal to pay his
cheque for so small a sum as WU.
The other judges having expressed their opinions
to the stone effect, the rule was di-charged.

SECOND EDITION.
SUN OFFICE, Seven of Clock.

IMPERIAL PA RLIAM ENT

THIS EVENING.

HOUSE OF LORDS.

The Loan CHANCIMLOR took his seat on the Wooheck
hilly before Five o'clock.

NEGRO SLAVERY.

Petitions were presented against Negro Slavery by Lord
Farnham, the Bari of Carlisle, Lord Bexley, the Bishop of
London, Eal Bathurst, and Lord Whernclide.

THE UNION.

Thy Marquis of ANGLE:SEA presented a petition signed
by upwards of 3,000 persons
,from the manor of Great
Gorman, in the county of Dublin, praying for a repeal of
the Union. The Noble Marquis was decidedly opposed
to the prayer of. the petition; but in . consequence of its
greatimportance heuonsidered it to be his duty to present
it to their Lordships.. The petition was read, nod ordered
to be printed.
STATE OF THE LABOURING POOR.

The Earl of FALNIOUTH gave notice, for the Earl
of Winchilsea, of the postponetnent of the second reading
of his Bill for the Amelioration of the Condition of the
Labouring Poor till Tutsday the nth of December,
The Noble Earl considered, in the present state of the
Councils of his Majesty, it would be unadvisable to bring
the mesone forward it the time proposed.
The House then adjourned to Monday next.