The Sun.
London, England, 1841-11-12 00:00:00

DILL AND ANOTHER V. BAMENT.

This was an action tried before the Lord Chief Baron,
when the verdict was found for the plaintiff. Mr. Erie
had obtained a rule calling upon the plaintiff to show
cause why the verdict should not be set-aside and a non-
suit entered. _ _

Cause against that rule was to-day shown by Mr. THE-
HOER and Mr. MARTIN. The plaintiffs are brushmakers,
who received a large order for some of their goods for the
defendant, through an agent named Harvey. The goods
were sent to Harvey, who delivered them over to the de-
fendant. The question in the cause was, whether there
had been a legal acceptance of the goods by the defend-
ant, and whether the contract was not void by the Statute
of Frauds, inasmuch as there was no contract in writing,
the sum being much above loi. They insisted that Har-
vey was a del credere agent, and the action maintainable.
Mr. ERLE and Mr. WHATELEY (contra) contended
that the hairbrushes were repudiated by the defendant ;
and although some of the other articles were accepted,
that would not make an acceptance of the whale. Har-
vey was the agent of the plaintiffs. There was, then,
nothing in the case but a verbal order, which was void
by the 4th section of the Statute of Frauds.
The COURT were of opinion that the rule must be
made absolute. There was no doubt some evidence to
go to the Jury of acceptance, but very little. The pecu-
liarity of this case was that Harvey was the agent of the
plaintiff, and sold the goods for cash, and it was his duty
not to part with the goods without the money. The de-
fendant could not claim the goods without the money;
therefore there had been no full acceptance such as to
lake the case out of the statute. No delivery had been
proved ; there was no evidence of a change of possession
in the goods; therefore the rule 'for a nonsuit must be
made absolute.

On the application of Mr. THESIGEU,
The COURT ordered a rule for a new trial to issue, the
defendant paying the costs of the former trial.

ARCHES COURT, Nov. 11.
FIFE AGAINST BLUNT.
This was a cause of subtraction of tithes, -promoted by
the Rev. Henry Blunt, Rector of Streatham, against.
Mr. Henry Fife, to recover the tithe of a Farm, called
Bridge-house Farm, of 90 acres arable land, and 30
acres meadow land, occupied and cropped by the defend—
ant, who had carried away the crops without setting out
the tithe in the years 1837 and 1838, which amounted
to 551. a year. The suit commenced in the Commissary
Court of Surrey, which rejected a defensive allegation
offered by Mr. Fife,
which set up that he was not the
real occupier of the farm, but merely managed it for
another. The defendant appealed from the rejection
of the allegation to this Court. which affirmed the
sentence, holding that if all the facts were proved,
they did not exonerate Mr. Fife from the claim for
tithe, inasmuch as he had held himself out as osten-
sible occupier, and had severed and carried away the
crops. At the instance of the promoters, this Court
retained the cause, which was suspended for some time,
owing to the difficulty of recovering the costs from Mr.
Fife, who did not pay them till he had been taken on a
suit de contionace capiendo, ttnd imprisoned in Horse-
monger-lane gaol. Mr. Fife's answers to the libel were
not deemed satisfactory, and he had been called upon for
further and fuller answers. These he had declined to
give, and the cause came on for decision on the evidence
taken on the libel.
Dr. ADDAms, for Mr. Blunt, contended that the claim
we fully
vo4dv out, and that the defendant had rendered
rg
himself liable wider the ste,tute fur double the aogot of
the tithe.
vindictively, but was content with the minimum amount
Mr. Blunt, however, had no wish to proceed
of single tithe.
Mr. Fife appeared in person, and said belied not occupied
the farm till 1838 ; be had merely
managed it for a Mr.
cir Pen, and that he did not sever the crops. As to the
a 10144 hil there was no desire to proceed Afsainst him
-4-rp-of.er