The Sun.
London, England, 1846-01-14 00:00:00

CARTER V. BUCHANAN.

Mr. Sergeant MURPHY moved for a rule to show cause
for the setting aside of a verdict and a new trial granted
in this cause, on the ground of misdirection of the judge,
on which a verdict was given for the plaintiff. The cause
was triNl before Mr. Justice Cresswell, at Guildhall,
during last sittings, and a verdict given to Mr. Carter
for 214/. The plaintiff is a watchmaker, residing in
Cornhill ; and the defendant, Mr. Buchanan, is a mer-
chant, who has been in. the habit, of dealing with the for-
mer for watches to send out to his correspondent in India.
In January; last Mr. Buchanan went into the shop of the
plaintiff, and the contract was made, out of which the
present action had. arisen. One order was for three
dozen of watches at 40s. each watch ; and four dozen
others at 365. each. It was a ptrt of the contract that
the watches should be guaranteed to go, a point which, in
the sequel, would be seen to be most important to this
case. In March an intimation was sent to Mr. Bu-
chanan that the watchei were ready, but Mr. Buchanan
was not in a position to receive them. In May
Mr. Buchanan again called, and saw the watches
and looked over some rings, which he bargained for.
lie ordered two of the watches and a case of the rings
to be sent. They were not forwarded till Mr. Buchanan
sent a message for them, when one of each sort, of watch
and the rings were dispatched to the offices of Mr. Bu-
chanan. Now, the point , was, were these watches and
rings to be considered as part delivery of the order, or
rather only as specimens, to see whether the order had
been properly executed, judging by the specimens, He
(Mr. Ater thy) admitted that an important letter had
been read at, the trial, sent by the defendant to the plain-
tiff, stating, That as he had learned there was a great
glut of cheap watches in the Indian market, he wished
to know what he a out& take to allow the bargain to e
off. On this letter the Jury was instructed to give a
verdict for the plaintift Now, this letter was dated on
the 16th of May, whereas, look;ng over the evidence, he
found there were no rings named in the invoice till after
that date; and as the two watches and rings were de-
livered at the same time, it was proof that the letter
was written before, and could not be taken as any re-
cognition of the contract. Under the circumstances,
reviewing the whole case, he thought their Lordships
ought to grant a new trial.
The LORD Curer JUSTICE said that there could be no
misdirection on the part of the Judge, as there was
nothing left out in the Judge's charge to the jury, Be,

cause s, Judge did not dwelt so etron—gly on a particular
pint as a learned gentleman might think fit, it was no

~
reason why it should be called a misdirection.
Mr. Sergeant MunPnir—Then the verdict must be
taken as against evidence, and on this ground he would
apply. Moreover, admitting the cuntract, the watches
were not what had been agreed upon. They did not
perform, and were not'at all conformable to the order
given. The watches, though kept, were not kept as a
recognition of the order, for immediately after he com-
plained of their quality, and he,merely kept the sample
in order to ascertain really what the watches were.
Now, the watches the defendant had previously had
gone well.
The LORD CHIEF JUSTICE said it was necessary in a
contract to prove the delivery of goods, and the accept-
ance. Now, in the present case, there could be no doubt
of a contract being made. After that, the defendant
went to the plaintifrs shop, looked over several tiers of
watches, and selected two of them
m, aa part of those
about which the contract had been
ade. lie desired
these
two
day,
to
sheenrte was an and had retained them till
this
an acceptance and a sufficient
so thatbe
case for the jury, leaving the question of the letter out
i
of view. But whet) the letter was considered, iq con-