The Sun.
London, England, 1836-06-27 00:00:00

SECONDARIES OFFICE.

RETAI.ICK V. HAWKSS, ESQ., M.P.
Mr. CHITTY, jun., appeared for :be plaintiff, and stated to
the Jury that this was an action brought to recover the ex.-
penses which the plaintiff had been put to ;..1v the non-fulfilment
of an agreement for a house, entered into. by the defendant's
agent. The plaintiff had been a linendraper, who happened
to be unfortunate in business, but having a larg.' connection
with country people, who were in the habit of visiting London?
his friends !Ad come forward with funds to enable him to fit
up a place as a coffee and boarding-house. In January last'
he was passing through St. Pancras-lane, when he saw an
empty house, with a boxd on it, referring any applicant to
Mr. Booth, as the agent for the house, in the usual and regu-
lar way. He went and saw the house, and after a very
lengthened negotiation he made a bargain with Mr. Booth for
the house, at a rent of 651. a year, to take the fixtures at 501,
for which he paid down a deposit of 2;9i. This appeared all
fair enough, but on the day, the 15th Feb'.,. which was named
for giving the plaintiff possession of the hoNse, it turned out
that the defendant could not give a good title :0 it. His client
was kept out of his business, and had been.put to\considerablo
expenses, for which the action had been brought. As the de-
fendant had allowed judgment by default, the Jury' Vere nnvi
to assess damages, which he hoped they would do in ti liberal
spirit. He then called
John Head, a surveyor and house agent, who acted between
the plaintiff, and Mr. Booth the agent for the defendant, from
the Ist of January to the 14th of February. His charge vla'
5
61. 6s. He paid the 201. deposit for the fixtures to Aft

Booth.
Cross-examined by Mr. Evans—He was informed that it
was necessary to get the assent of the churchwardens to the,
assignment. He went to the vestry clerk by the direction 01
Mr. Booth. Never went to him after the agreement Was
signed. Mr. Bolton the vestry clerk, said there would be e°,.
objection at all. He would have to be paid for Lis perusal °I
the assignment, and that would be all. Mr. Booth Meyer said
the churchwardens would not consent.
Re-examined—He had not heard that till then.
Mr. Lloyd, plaintiff's attorney, was employed in this buSi.-
ness in January last, when the abstract of the assignment viaS'
sent to him by Mr. Hawkes's attorney. The clerk bad 015'!e
out the bill in the usual manner, it amounted to 16/. odd ; be
reduced it to 10/. 10s., which was certainly very reasonable'
He was engaged from the 22d Jan. to the 12th March, When
the writ was sued out.
Cross-examined—Knew that Mr. Retalick intended to fit
up the premises as a Commercial Boarding-Louse and Coffee'
room. Received a letter from the defendant's solicitor on
the 4th March, saying that he denied the authority of M
Booth, still he had tried to get the assent of the lessors, in
which he had failed. He had seen Mr. Booth before the
agreement was signed, and he then said the parish officer:
had given their assent. The worth of the premises was abetl"
8/. from the 15th Feb. to the 25th March. All these charges
appeared to him very reasonable.
Mr. CHITTY said that was his case. He claimed the 20/-
deposit and 10/. for interest ; the 61. 6s. paid Mr. Head the
101. los. paid Mr. Lloyd, and the 8/. for the loss regent
house for the six weeks. He was afraid that in the p
form of action he would not be allowed to prove special dlr.
mage or claim for the loss of a good bargain.
Mr. EVANS appeared for the defendant. He said this
house was held under a lease from the churchwardens of St:
Pancras, and it contained a covenant ,hat no assignment should
take place without their assent. Mt*, Booth had far eS"
ceeded his powers, but still as he had made foolish ..bargain
while acting as agent for defendant, of course.he Must pay all
the necessary expenses incurred by the plaintiff. They had
applied to the parish officers, but as they were not satisfied
with the proposed business they refused their assent, and
therefore as they could not make out a good title according to
the cases, the plaintiff could recover only those absolutely ne-
cessary expenses which he had incurred. He asked the Jul
whether the charges made by the two witnesses were
no
exorbitant? He would put the bills in their hands, and. "
would be for them to deal out justice to his clien by redueoli
them as they thought right. With regard to the 20L deppß
of course he must pay that, but he (Mr. E.) contended tt
there was no claim in law for the 8/., as that was part of the

plaintiff's good bargain.
Mr. CHITTY claimed to reply, as his Learn?d
had called for a letter in his cross-examination. ~.1:"1
case had been met in a manner that surprised °at
There was not the least appearance of liberality °pbe
the part of the wrong doer, whose agent had led
poor man (the plaintiff) into an error almost fatal t_
T"
him. The defendant first of all blighted the pros pee
of a mini who, for the benefit of a rising family, "r_
trying to raise himself once more in the world; 'di
then came before the Jury—not with a legitimate Mellen:
but to carp at bs. in the charge of the auctioneer, who
,
much extra trouble in making the bar-gain for the house, 1,111
los. in the bill of the attorney, who might have run tiP 3 ;L
against the defendant by going into Chancery for a sPee.
performance of the agreement. It was a course of proceechrt
which could not do honor to the rich defendant ; and be as
SUIT the Jury would mark their sense of by giving the po
plaintiff every shilling the law would allow them to cla•
Mr. SECONDARY JAMES summed up, and &rected the "p i t
to use their discretion with respect to all the- items--acceL
the 81. He was of opinion that item could not be
The Jury consulted nearly an hour in the boa'.. but rof
not agree ; they then retired—after being absent a *sr°
an hour, they returned with a verdict for 421. recoveroculd