The Sun.
London, England, 1813-12-18 00:00:00

CRONIN V. PAY NV.,

This was an action by which the plaintiff, a
sworn broker and ,appraiser, sought to .reeover
front the defendant, a widow, who keeps the Bar-
nard's Inn Coffee-house, Holborn, the sum of
141. 10s. 6d. for inventorying and appraising the
furniture and stock left .by the 'defendant's late
husband at his death.. The business it appeared
occupied the plaintiff, and'i.t young man about 12
years of age, his clerk, part of .two days, and the'
chargewas'made at the rate of ',?:1 per cent. upon
the amount of the Valuation, amounting-to 599/.•
19s. 6d. ,
On the part of the defeniant, herjate husband's
mother was adduced as a witness, and proved_that,
on being sent, anti asked what making a valuation
of the stock and furnitArc would cost, the de
lendant, who had been intimate with the deceas-
ed, said,. that on that account,: and out of consi-
deration for the defendant herself, he would, do
it for nothing. This hp repttted. while dining, i!t
the bar, after the business was Clone,---A respect-
able person, a haberdaSher, residing in the.neigh-
bourhood, 'also proved, that when he remon-
strated rVittl the plaintiff on his charge, after he
had agreed: to do the business for nothing:, . the
plaintiff's answer was, if lie, gave up his•work-oner
day, he was entitled to charge for it the next.
In these circumstances, at the suggestion of
Lord ELLE-xpottouGH, a Juror was withdrawn,
by which each party will ha't;e to pay their own
costs.

IMB‘R P., PEARCE. •
This an action,. by which the plaintiff, who
is an auctioneer, principally engaged in the sale
and Valuaticin of park-houses sought to recover,:
from the defendant, A clergyman, residing. in
cestershire, it compensation for services rendered,
to him, in the valuation of three public-houses, ,
in London, to which the defendant had, succeeded
in the year 1807, namely, the Red Liln, in l'arlia7
ment street; the Star and Garter, in Pnluee-yard
.iiirid:tinother. The claimed by the plaintiff
Was, 0/. being at‘the rate of oile per cent. coin-
iiSirgh on 6,0001, the price at which these three
pubhcAlouses were ultimately soldby the
_de-
- fendant.

It' appeared, however, from the evidence of a
cousin of the, defendant's, by whom the plaintiff
had been employed, that the, time actually con-
sumedby him in visiting the three homes, and in'
making his inquiries, did not exceed three hours ;
that for the plaintiff, in the same year, 1807.,
made a claim' of 3111. or at the rate of 101. for each
horse ; and that the witness, though.hi his opi-
nion the services the plaintiff, had rendered, and
the trouble lie lrid undergone,. would have been
amply compensated by the sum of 31. then made
a 'tender of 15/.
Lord Li.t.vstaoao-mt, in these circumstances,
did not set: how.this action could be maintained:
The case„would have been different if the plaintiff
had been instrumental in procuring advantageous
sates of .the prOperty, which was
.notbere the tact,
the houses having been sold without his assistance.
The plaintiff was accordingly upnsuited.

COURT OP COMMON PLEAS, DIM 17,

STAMNFORT►i V. PELLOWES.

This ASII• an action brought by the Assignee of
Hilbars and James, bankrupts, to recover certain
hills to the amount of:5;000/. said to have been
delivered to the.defemlant, upon the express. con-
ditibn that, he, should obtain Cash. for-them, and
give it into the hands of Hilbars and James; whiCli
contract he neglected to fulfil.
On the part of the plaintiff, it was stated, Oat
some time in February last; Hilbars and James bud
correspondence with the. defendant, for the per-
pose of having money advanced .on their account,
and tlipt.he said he would get soma of their 101 s
diScOunted.Ort tifub itflesr;• titerdeifetaint
came to their counting-house, and saw them
100k-
tug over, sonic bills. Hilbars asked if Eellowes
could get him sonic bills discounted to the =Omit
of 12,0001. 'IN: defendant tins cored, that he
would get bills to the amonnimf 4,000/. discOunt-
ed for them next day. He tookjhe bilk to this
amount with Hint, and promised to return with,
the money on the fiillowing day. This occurred
on the 20th of February last, . Next day. rumours
were in circulation of the bankruptcy.: They
become bankrupts, and the defendant,failed togive
the money, as he had promised, for the bills.
The examination•of the defendant was read, in
which he stated; that Hilhars, and Jones had his
acceptances to the amount of 6,0001. and that
• When he undertook to have their bills dis Counted
to the amount of 5,0001. it was upon 66. condi-
,tion that that sum should be applied in liquida-
tion of his neeeptaiietli, .which they: had. After
'receiving the bills, • for. which the action was
brought, he heard that they had become bank-
rupts. The defendant stated, tha( lie went and
informed Hilbars. of this, .and that Hilbars said,
he was surprised at the report, as be hail-only
inentioued his ciremovances. to one person,
On: the part of the defendant, Mr..Sbijeant
Box spoke at some lentil. The conduct ofhis

been„.be Said, evert according to-the
prescutit hills or James, always open and .honour-.
able. Lie contended, that the bills in-quetiou
were given with a view to the liquidation of others,
fur which the acce. ptance of the defend tat had
been given. IL; would put this as a ease of ord -
nary set off. The bills had been depOsitetd for a
specific purpose, and in the case of tiaye it was
decided, that things so deposited„ Must be etn-
ployed to the purpose for:Which they wteye deposit
-
td. ' Ilardwieke had decided lin. the same.
way, that where any thing had been -given in• spe-
cific trust, the object of such trust should not. be
defeated. This Was a trust upon' contlitiOn—the
condition was not complied with ; and be .Con-
tended, therefore, that 'the plaintiff' could not
recover...

The LARD CHIEF JUSTICE, in his charge to the
Jury, said, that it had heel' proved and admitted
by Fellowes himself, that the Bills were received
for the purpose of discounting them ; that he had
retained the Bills ; and so -far the plaintiff had a
right to recover. The defendant, howeVer, con-
tended, that the Bills were-to be applied to a spe-
cific purpose ; and if such wete.the opinion of the
J ury, 'they must find for the defendant.
The Jury, after. a short time, returned a verdict
for the plaintiff. •