The Sun.
London, England, 1831-02-16 00:00:00

LAW INTELLIGENCE.-(THIS DAY).

COURT OF COMMON PLEAS.

The Court this morning was filled to repletion with ladies,
more than two hundred of whom were supcenaed as witnesses in
the case of _ _ _

PIGGOV v. PATTISON.

The case appeared to excite the most intense curiosity. It was
an action brought under the following circumstances, to recover
compensation in damages from the defendant for falsely repre-
senting the profits of his wife's business, which he sold to the
plaintiff:—The plaintiff (Mr. Piggot) was in business at Co-
ventry, as an upholsterer, and his wife carried on in that town
the trade of a milliner. The defendant's wife previous to her
marriage carried on the millinery business in Chatham.place,
Blackfriars. Mrs. Piggot, following the example of most
country milliners, went to visit the metropolis twice
a year, for the purpose of selecting articles of the newest
fashion to decorate the belles of Coventry, in search of
which she went to the house of the defendant's wife,
at that time Miss Sansom, and finding herself well served, be-
came a regular customer. After this connection had continued
some time, Miss Sansom informed Mrs. Piggot that she (Miss S.)
was going to be married to Mr. Pattison, and consequently did
not intend to carry on her millinery business in Chatham-place.
She at the same time intimated to Mrs. Piggot that she should
be happy for her (Mrs. P.) to become the purchaser. Mrs. Piggot
thinking that she should prefer a London to a country life, com-
municated the determination of Miss S. to Mr. P. The result was,
that inquiries were made as to the nature, extent, and profit of the
business, when the following statement was given by Miss San-
som :—That for the three years preceding, the returns of the bu-
siness had averaged two thousand four hundred pounds per an.
num ; that there was two hundred and fifty private ladies regu-
lar customers ; four hundred and eighty-seven wholesale cus-
tomers, lists of which were produced ; and, finally, that the bu-
siness was exceedingly profitable. This was the statement given
in by the defendant and his wife, and for which they asked, for
the purchase and good-will, the sum of three hundred pounds,
and the stock, fixtures, &c. &c. &c., to be taken at cost price.
They also represented that there could not be the least doubt
but that if Mrs. Piggot purchased the business, she would
be enabled to maintain her family in the most respectable
manner, and save the first year the whole amount of the purchase
money. These representations appeared too flattering to the
plaintiff and his wife to resist, and accordingly negociations were
entered into, and the result was the transfer of the business from
Miss Sansom to Mrs. Piggot, on the terms pkoposed by the former.
Mr. and Mrs. Piggot in consequence gave up their business at
Coventry, and came to reside in Chatham-place, when they found
that the business was not near so extensive or so profitable as had
been represented. In the first year the returns, instead of being
2,4001., only amounted to 1,0901. Instead of there being two
hundred and fifty ladies private customers, and four hundred
and eighty-seven wholesale customers, it turned out there was
only thirty-five of the former, and one hundred and eighty-seven
of the latter. Under these circumstances therefore the present
action was brought.
Mr. Sergeant WILDE said he should prove the above facts,
and then the plaintiff would be entitled to compensation. The
cause, however, would necessarily occupy a long time, as lie
should be obliged to call more than 200 ladies as witnesses.—

;Laughter.) The Learned Counsel, after proving the purchase,
&c., proceeded to call his fair witnesses, a very small propor-
tion of whom had been examined at the time our reporter lett.

COURT OF KING'S BENCH.
BALDWIN v. DIXON.

This was an action on the warranty of a horse. The plaintiff
purchased a horse of the defendant, at his Repository at Bar.
bican, for the sum of 22/. 10s., the defendant at the time of the
sale giving a warranty that the animal was perfectly sound, and
" bright as a star." It shortly afterwards turned out that there
was a malformation of one of the feet, which caused a lameness;
and after trying every remedy to cure it, without effect, the horse
was returned to the defendant. He, however, refused to take it
in, on the ground that there was a notice posted up in his yard,
where the sale took place, that no horse would be taken back
unless returned within three days after the sale.—The verdict
was not returned when our Reporter left the Court.