The Sun.
London, England, 1848-05-04 00:00:00

cause of the advocacy of the Charter, was then resumed.
Five different amendments and contradictory instruc-
tions to the committee were proposed on the motion,
and the greatest confusion, of course, ensued, which
was finally carried to such a length that the ,chairmala
said that it was really too bad that some of the delegates
should speak four or five times upon subjects not in the
least degree connected with the motion, while others who
wanted to speak had not the slightest chance.
Several of the delegates expressed themselves pee-
feet!), disgusted with the proceedings, denouncing the
Assembly " a standing disgrace and a set of washer-
women,' and even intimated their intention, unless
some reformation took place in the mode of :proceeding.
that they would return to their constituencies and tell
them that they were unworthy of their confidence.
Ultimately, however, the committee were appointed,
and the Assembly adjourned at the usual hour.

CITY COUNTY COURT.

TRADERS AND COMPANY V. PEEK, BROTHERS AND Co.
This case was tried on the 14th of April, Mr. Bagley
appearing for the plaintiffs and Mr. C. Blackburn for
the defendants.
The question is one of considerable importance to the
merchants and brokers of the city, and the facts as proved
at the trial are as follows :—ln March 1847, the plain-
tiffs purchased of defendants, through their respec-
tive brokers, at public sale, thirty lots of ginger,
then lying in the East and West India docks. At
the time of the sale defendants handed to plaintiffs
the dock warrants for the ginger, and which
were in the usual form, and bore the following indorse•
ment,—" Rent if incurred to the 6th March, 1847, to
our deposit account. (Signed) RICHARDS, LITTLE, and
Co.'' The warrants were never indorsed by defendants.
Plaintiffs at the same time paid defendants for the
ginger deducting the amount of rent incurred from the
6th March, 1847, to what is termed the prompt of de#
fendant's sale to them. In October, 1847, Messes.
Rickards, Little and Co. suspended their payments.
Plaintiffs still held several of the before-mentioned war..
rants, and on piesenting them to the Dock Company
for the purpose of having Messrs. Rickards and Co.'s
Deposit Account charged with rent up to the 6th March,
pursuant to their indorsement, the Dock Company re-
fused so to do, on the ground of their having suspended
payment. Plaintiffs were thereupon obliged to pay the
rent due up to that time, as well as subsequent, and
brought this action to recover from defendants the
amount they had so paid as money paid for
their use. The plaintiffs contended that defendants
were bound to have Rickards and Co's Account charged
before they handed the warrants to laintiffs, and not
having done so they remained liable for such rent. On
the other hand, defendants contended that, having
handed the warrants with such indorsement, to plaintiffs,
they had notice that the account had not been charged,
that they, by so receiving them, elected to look to Rick-
ard and Co. for the rent to the 6th March, and by receiv-
ing the subsequent rent from defendants they discharged
them from all liability. It was also urged that suppos-
ing defendants had remained liable for such rent, that
plaintiffs could not recover the amount from defendants,
inasmuch as its non-payment by Rickards and Co. had
been caused by plaintiffs' own negligence, in not getting
their accounts charged at any time during the six
months which they held the warrants.
The case stood over for decision, and Messrs. Amery
and Co., attorneys for Messrs. Travers and Messrs. Law-
rence and Reed for Messrs. Peek, Brothers, being
in attendance, Mr. Commissioner Bullock this day
delivered his judgment. After stating the foregoing
facts, he said that the question involved in this case
was one of great importance, and he had given it very
careful consideration. The law entitling a plaintiff
to recover for money paid, as in this case was clear, and
to render the defendants liable, there must have been
either an express or implied promise on their part to
repay plaintiffs what they might have to pay. In this
case it could not be contended for a moment that there
was any express promise. It was, therefore, to be con-
sidered whether there existed any implied promise, such
hav-
ing handed dan t s part.
th em
3,epernomise could not exist without a legal liability on
toltthaeppeared to him that defendants,
endorsed the not having themselves
of a third party, arrthaenitoanrsedmheanvt"
for the rent now sought to be reco-
vered, and plaintiffs having •
ants the rent sub
to also received from defend-
to the 6th of March, that de-
fendants could not
in any way be liable for rent
upon
those goods, whether incurred
transaction. That being so,there before or after that
could be no promise
implied on their part to pay, and the plaintiffs must be
nonsuited.