The Sun.
London, England, 1825-01-14 00:00:00

LAW INTELLIGENCE.

COURT OF CHANCERY, JAN. 13.

ABSENCE OF COUNSEL.

Mr. HORNE stated that there was. a long motion respecting
a colliery, involving many intricate points. As he understood
that his Learned Friend (Mr. Heald) would be engaged else-
where, it would be, perhaps, most convenient to postpone the
motion until seal-day.
Mr. lIEALD (who just then entered Court) observed that his
Learned Friend was mistaken, as he (Mr. Heald) would not
be elsewhere engaged, and was quite prepared to go on with the
motion. The fact was, that his Learned Friend, Mr. Horne,
was elsewhere engaged, and was desirous to throw all the odium
of absence upon him.
Mr. HORNE professed that he meant to say nothing which
might call forth such observations from his Learned Friend.—
To the imputation he would disdain to give any answer.
The LORD CHANCELLOR begged that good temper might
be preserved on both sides. He knew the wish of Leaned
Gentlemen was to accommodate each other, and that was also
his strong desire.
Mr. HEALD was as averse as his Lordship could be to such
observations, but he confessed he felt rather sore when such
imputations were cast out, that he (Mr. Heald) would not be
ready to proceed with a motion, Arlieu, in fact, it was Mz.
Horne who required postponement of the motion, because he
himself would be absent.

Mr. HORNE SOO/1 atter left the Court, and Mr. HEALD
ceeded with a motion, of which due notice hadbeen given, and
no Counsel appeared on the other side. There were, in fact,
not more than three or four Counsel then present.

, The LORD CHANCELLOR said that lie had devoted these
three days to hearing motions, because he understood that there
were a great number of motions in arrear. Of his intention so
to devote his time, due notice had been given to all parties,
and he thought it rather hard that Counsel were not now
prepared. The first day of this Sitting he was compelled to
rise before one o'clock, yesterday at three, and on this day
also there appeared to be a similar difficulty. With respect
to the motion just made by Mr. Heald, if Counsel did not ap-
pear on.the other side, he must search for cases himself, and
endeavour to meet the case in the best way he could.
- KILSHAW v. CROWTHER.—On this motion, which related
to costs claimed upon an attachment irregularly issued, and to
compensate for false imprisonment under that attachtnent, his
Lordship gave judgment. lie thought the costs ought to be
allowed, and that there ought to be a direction to the Master to
ascertain what injury had been sustained, and what compensa-
ticin ought to be given.

VICE-CHANCELLOR'S COURT, JAN. 13.
DE 71EAUVOIR V. RHODE.
The arguments of Counsel in this cause, which have occu-
pied the last three days, were concluded at the hour of the
Court's' rising.
The VICE-CHANCELLOR asked to have the proceedings and
the evidence handed to him, and promised to give judgment as
soon as he should have been able to consider the contents of this
volumnious body of papers.

COURT OF KING'S BENCH, JAN. 13.
DOBELL v. STEVENS.

This was an action brought by the plaintiff,. Who keeps the
Ship Inn, Ivy-lane, Newgate-street, to recover a compensation
in damages for a alse and fraudulent representation made to
him by the defendant, of the extent of business carried on in it,
in consequence of which he had been induced to enter into a
contract with the defendant to purchase front him his stock in
trade and the lease of the Ship Inn, in which the defendant
then carried on the business of an innkeeper. The facts of this
case, which occupied the Court for lour hours, lay in a very
narrow compass. It appeared, that the plaintiff; who had
acquired a small sum of money as a plumber and glazier, was
recommended to set up a public-house, in the hopes of increas-
ing it. Having learnt that the Ship Inn was to be disposed
of, he applied for the terms to 111 r. Cotterell, as auctioneer in
the Borough, who was authorised to sell it. Mr. Cotterell ,
spewed him a memorandum, which he had taken by the de-
fendant's direction,' in which it was stated
." that he had ten
years' lease of the preinises, at a rent of 122/. per annum—that
he asked for it a premium of 550/.--that the goods and fixtures
would come to about 4001. More—that the stock in trade must
be taken at an appraisernent—that his tap was let at a rent of
821.. per annum, and two other rooms in his house at 271. 125.,
and that the busineis which he was• doing amounted alto-
gether to 240/. per month." Being satisfied by. this informa-
tion, the plaintiff was introduced by Mr. Cotterell to the de-
fendant, .who repeated in 111 r. Cotterell's . presence what Mr.
Cotterell had before told the plalritiff, with this further explana-
tion—thatfiis trade in Pgrter was seven butts, end his trade in
spirits more than 160/. per month. A contract was then made
between the plaintiffand the defendant; whereby the former
agreed to purchase the lease of 'the Ship Inn of the latter for
400/-, and paid down 504 as a deposit upon it. On the sth of
February, 1824, the contract was completed by the plaintiff 's
paying to the defendant 1,1321.55. 5d., whit included the re-
maining 410/. for the lease, and also the price of the stock in
trade and the fixtures. The plaintiff was then "put into posses-
sion of the premises, and shortly afterwards discovered that
the business of the house, notwithstanding all his diligence,
fell short of the account which lead been given of it to him.—
Ile was in consequence induced to make some inquiries as
to the extent of the trade which the defendant had carried.
on in it; and from those inquiries made of the brewers and
the excise-officers, he discovered that the defendant's trade
in porter was not more than five butts and a half, and his
trade in spirits less than 90/. per month. He likewise disco-
vered that the tap was let for 67/. 125., and not for 821. a-year,
and the two rooms for 251., and not for 27/. 12s. a-year. Ile
also discovered that the business had been decreasing for some
time before he took the house; and in consequence determin-
ed to apply to the defendant for some compensation for the
injury which he had sustained in consequence of these mis-
representations. These Facts were fully substantiated in the
course of the trial; but it was extracted from the witnesses
on the part of the plaintiff; that on the sale of public-houses,
when an account was given of the extent of the trade carried
on in them, it was usual, and at any rate competent for the
buyer to demand a sight of the pass-books giVen by the brewers
and distillers to the publican, to ascertain its correctness. A
witness, who was clerk to 111 r. Cotterell at the-time the, contract
was completed, but who is at present broker to the defendant,
had, " a strong idea, but a faint recollection," that the brewers'
pass-book had been absolutely shown to the plaintiff; but re-
fused to swear positively to the fact. It was likewise sworn by
the same witness,
_that in April the plaintiff had told him that
by going into: Newgate-market, and treating the people
well, he had no doubt but that lie should make the business
answer well, and that it was not till the month of October, or
a short time previously, that he heard from the plaintiff any
complaint of the bargain into which he had entered. At that
time the plaintiff's wife said to him, in the witnesses presence,
" Dobell, you had better hold your foolish tongue—your busi.
ness would do very well, if you would but attend to it." An
attempt was made by the defendant's counsel to show that the
business of the Ship Inn had fallen off since the plaintiff had
taken it, in consequence of his having changed his brewer,
wine-merchant, and distiller, of his had management, and of
his not having kept his house so quiet as it had been kept by
his predecessor. Under these circumstances,
Mr. SCARLETT contended that the misrepresentations of the
defendant to the plaintiff had been so false and fraudulent as to
entitle him to recover, if not the whole price which he had paid
to him for the premises, at least a very considerable portion of
it. It was not merely the difference between the real and pre-
tended receipts of the defendant, while in possession of the Ship
Len, that the plaintiff had a right to recover; but the whole
amount of injury which he had sustained by taking a house,
which he had found to be a losing, when it was represented to
him as a winning, concern.
Mr. Justice LITT LEDALE, on the misrepresentation of the
rent of the tap and two rooms being proved, observed to Mr.
Scarlett that he thought this action could not lie for a false af-
firmation with regard to rent, because it was competent for the
party to make inquiry of the tenant as to its correctness ; and if
he did not make such inquiry, it was his own fault by which he
suffered. He believed that this was even admitted to be law in
" Paisley v. Freeman"—a case of which he doubted the general
correctness, though it had now been so long established, that it
perhaps could not at present bedisputed.
Mr. ScARLETT was of a different opinion from his Lord-
ship, because, though the purchaser ,might apply to the tenant
for the information, the tenant was not bound to affbrd it.
Mr. GURNEY, for the defendant, contended that his client,
even supposing that his representations were false, which he
• denied, was not liable, since the plaintiff had been deficient in.
proper caution. There were in the possession of every publican