The Sun.
London, England, 1836-02-26 00:00:00

ALLAN V. SMITH AND ANOTHER

Sir F. POLLocK (with whom were Sic W. Follett and
Mr. Holies) stated the case. It was an action brought to
recover a sum of 3351. 45., being the amount of goods ordered
-by the defendants, who are linen drapers at Bristol, from the
plaintiff, a wholesale linen warehouseman, carrying on business
in London. The goods were sent according to sample,
in the month of April, 1835, in two parcels. The
first were sent on the 10th and the second on the 18th ; and
on the 20th of April, after the receipt of the first parcel, the
defendants wrote to say that they were by no means equal to
the sample, and should be sent back. They subsequently
wrote on receipt of the second parcel to say that they would
keep them, as they were nearer in quality to the samples than
the others, and offered to pay for that portion. It would be
his duty to show that the goods were equal to the sample, and
if he established that fact he had no doubt that the Jury would
give him a verdict for the entire sum claimed. In their second
letter the defendants stated that they had lodged the sum of
1021. 13s. 7d., being the value of the second bale sent, and
that more than that they would not pay. The goods returned
still remain at the wharf, the plaintiff having refused to take
them back, as he was satisfied that the order had been properly
executed.

John Morris—l am warehouseman to" the plaintiff, who car-
ries on business in London. The defendants are linen dra-
pers, of Bristol. They are in the habit of paying their ac..
counts by bills. I was at Bristol in 1835, and called upon the
defendants, who gave me an order which I now produce.
The witness here read the order, which was for several bales
of linen canvas and dowlas. I produced to the defendants
samples of the goods. There was one bale for which I had
no sample. The goods were sent, and I have since seen them
at the wharf, after they had been returned, and they are equal
to the sample, but they are very much knocked up, and in a
most inferior condition to what they were when they left our
warehouse. I left no samples, nor did Mr. Smith shew me
any samples of former goods.
George Corderey, a carman in the employment of the
plaintiff, proved having delivered the goods at the Bull Wharf,
in London, addressed to the defendants.

Mr. ERLE, for the defendants, would admit the delivery of
the goods, and their subsequent return.
John A. Allan, son to the plaintiff, recollects sending the
goods to the defendant on the 10th and 18th of April, 1835.
They were sent as they had been received from Scotland, in
the same packages, having merely been examined to ascertain
their quality. I have since seen the goods at the wharf, and
have compared them with the samplM, with which they
correspond.

John Gladstaines.—l belong to a wholesale linen warehouse
in St. Paul's Churchyard. I have seen the goods at the wharf,
about a month ago. The samples were produced by the plain-
tiff's son, a warehouseman. I compared them, and I think the
goods answered the samples, and that the order was well exe-
cuted. Igo entirely from the samples which were produced,
and also from my knowledge of the article.
Mr. Oliver, a wholesale linen-draper, had also compared the
goods at the wharf with the sample, and on the average they
are equal to the sample. Being frequently packed and un-
packed, takes off the finish, and depreciates the value of the
goods.

Mr. Jackson.—l am extensively employed in the sale of
linen-drapery, and think the order remarkably well-executed,
with the exception of the bale of canvas, which would not an-
swer my purpose ; but that bale is also equal-to the sample.
John Haffendcn, linen-draper.—l have compared the goods
with the samples, which I think on the average equal to the
samples. There may be a shade inferior in one instance, and
a shade superior in another ; but the order was well executed,
and would have satisfied me.

E. Robinson calendered goods for manufacturers. I have
compared the goods, and think, with the exception of the can-
vas, they answer the samples. The canvas is calendered,
which enhances its price a farthing a yard; and it depends
upon what purpose it is required, whether it may answer or not.
Mr. ERLE addressed the Jury for the defendants, and con-
tended that the goods were not accordi4; to the sample, in-
asmuch as the plaintiff's witnesses had admitted that the canvas
was calendered, and that the sample was uncalendered.
After a lengthened discussion between the Counsel on both
sides, it was arranged that a verdict should be taken for the
defendant upon the three first issues, subject to the opinion of
the full Court upon the right of the plaintiff to hate a verdict
entered for him.

SHERIFF'S COURT-THURSDAY.

LEIVIS V. MICHAEL BRUCE, ESQ.

This was an action brought by the plaintiff, who sued in
forma pauperis, and has been butler to the defendant and Lady
Parker, his wife, (widow of the late Admiral Sir Peter Par-
ker,) to recover the sum of 57. 12s. for wages. The defend-
ant had pleaded that he was not liable ; that he had tendered
to the plaintiff the sum that was due to him ; that the plain-
tiff had left his service of his own accord • and that the plain-
tiff so misconducted himself that the defendant had discharged
him, and he had no right to the allowance of warning,
(It may be necessary to state that masters may discharge
servants instanter for moral misconduct, wilful disobedience of
orders, and habitual neglect.)
Mr. BELL stated the plaintiff's case.
Mr. C. PHILLIPS addressed the Jury at great _length. lu
the course of his address he stated-that the plaintiff could not
recover, for he bad been guilty of vvilful disobedience. ,
The` SHERIFF summed up, observing that the question wag
.of importance, as regards masters and servants, and would
leave society in an uncomfortable state if a master could not
discharge a servant for misconduct.
•
The Jury returned a verdict for the defendant.

POLICE INTEI,LIGENCE.
BOW-STREET.

Yesterday John Covey, who was lately clerk in the Post-
office at-Colchester, and whose examination on another charge
appeared in our paper this day week, was examined before
Mr. MINSIIULL, charged with stealing a letter containing a 51.
note, the property of John Harrison.
After evidence had been taken, and the prisoner bad declined
saying anything, he was fully committed for trial.