The Sun.
London, England, 1841-12-20 00:00:00

LAW INTELLIGENCE.

COURT OF QUEEN'S BENCH, Dec. 18.
(Sittings in Nisi Prius at Guildhall before Lord DEN
MAN and a Special Jury.)
GRECSON AND OTHERS V. RUCK AND OTHERS.

(Continued from our Afternoon Edition of Saturday.)
William Field (brother to the last witness)—l was not
present at the contract, but I entered it in the book. In
the book I entered " bought of Messrs. Gregson and
C 0.," but that was not in Mr. Ruck's contract. If the
seller authorises me to sell for a bill, it is usual then to
name the party sold to. If the seller says he will not
take a bill, that means that he will not take a bill himself
but it does not prevent the broker taking one, provided
he pays the seller at the stipulated time. It is the duty
of the broker to make the bought and sold note corre-
spond where be can; when he sells on different terms
from those stipulated by the principal, he cannot make
them correspond.
Frederick Godsell—l am a wine and spirit broker, and
have had a good deal of experience during the 19 years
I have been in business. We sometimes sell on comission
without naming the principals. When the sellers are
not named, and when the sale is on commission. I con-
sider the broker is the party to be paid. I have acted
in that way to a great extent. In the case of the contract
put into my hand I should say that Ruck and Co. could
only recognise the broker. The brokers would/have to
deduct the dock charges before they paid over to their
principal. That is always to be understood as a case in
which the seller's name is not given up. Even if the
seller's name is mentioned, unless it be mentioned in the
contract, the practice is as I have stated.
By Lord DENMAN-If the seller says he will require
cash, and not a bill, the broker may make what arrange-
ment he pleases with the purchaser.
Matthew Clarke, 30 years-a wine and spirit-broker—

In a note of the form put into my hand, the payment
should be made to the broker, if he delivered the goods.
I have known several such cases in the course of my ex-
perience. It is not customary to sell Colonial produce
by bill, but I have seen it done sometimes. My mode of
business is always to give up principals. Where the sale
is by bill, it is very unusual not to give up the name of
the principal. The broker has frequently an interest in
the goods, from having made advances to the owner.
Charles Sutherland, a broker of 20 years standing,
gave similar evidence.
For the plaintiff Mr. Cresswell called
Air. Bennecraft, a broker of twenty years' standing in
the Colonial trade. He thought it was very unusual to
sell Colonial produce by bill, or for a broker to draw a
bill. lam speaking of rum sold in the Colonial mar-
ket. If the seller is not named in the contract, and that
the buyer is to pay by bill, he must give the bill to the
person he buys from. When the broker has made ad-
vances on the property, I have known him to draw bills.
Andrew Johnstone—l have been twenty-three years
a broker in East India produce. It is not my prac-
tice in that branch of the business to sell for a bill. I
am not aware that such is the custom of the trade. If
the broker sold for a bill the seller is the party who
ought to draw it. It is the duty of a broker to enter the
names of the buyer and seller in his book. I have known
instances of brokers making advances upon Colonial
produce. East India rum is an article that has been
only within the last few years brought into the market,
and the practice is not yet well established. If the prin-
cipal is not named, and that the broker delivered the
goods, he would be authorised to receive payment for them.
John Barrow, a Colonial-broker, of 40 years standing
—lt is not usual to sell for a bill. It is usual when the
sale is by bill for the principal to draw it.
Peter Bell—l am a member of the firm of Scott, Bell,
and Co. We have lately imported East India rum. We
sell at one month's prompt. lam not aware of any in-
stance of a broker selling rum for the importer to be paid
by bill.
Henry Gouger—We import a good deal of East India
produce. I never knew an instance of selling by bill ;
it is always cash on delivery. We almost always give
the dock warrant to the brokers, who receive the pay-
ment, and account to us.

George Barton, of the house of Crawford, Colvin, and
Co.—We import East India produce. I know of no in-
stance of East India rum being sold to be paid for by a
bill.

Charles Kerr, of the house of Fletcher, Alexander, and
Co.—Selling for bills is very rare, and these we have al-
ways drawn ourselves. We sell for cash on delivery,
and the broker pays us.
Paris Paul, clerk in the house of Cockerell and Co.,
East India merchants—We have always sold for cash on
delivery. I know of no instance in which rum has been
sold for a bill.

Mr. KELLY then addressed the Jury in reply, and Mr.
CuEsswELL having replied for the plaintiffs,
Lord DENMAN summed up at considerable length, and
the Jury returned a verdict for the defendants.

INSOLVENT DEBTORS' COURT, Dec. 18.
IN RE J. E. CAREW.
The examination of this insolvent was continued this
day by Mr. Platt.
Mr. PLATT—NOW, in your schedule you claim a ba-
lance which you allege to be due from the executors of
the late Earl of Egremont, of 19,0001. Is that the result
of an account of former years ?—Yes.
You said you had been present at part of the trial of
your cause with the executor ; have you seen the execu-
tor's account of it ?—I have.
I expect you have read the address of Sir Wm. Follett
on that occasion ?—I have not read the whole of it.
Have you read that part of it in which Sir Wm. Follett
speaks of the cheque you have received ?—Yes ; I read
some part of it, but I flung it down in vexation.
Now, Sir, will you be good enough to look at the pass-
books of Messrs. Wigney's you have in your hands, and
take this cheque also. Did you ever receive that cheque ?
(This was a cheque signed by the Earl of Egremont for
1,000/.)—No ; not that .1 have any knowledge of.
What is the date of it ?—The date is Nov. 21st, 1832.
Mr. Commissioner BOWEN—What is the amount ?
Insolvent-1,000/
Mr. PLATT—Now can you undertake to say that you
received that amount ?—I can say there is no evidence
that I received it. My name is not upon it, nor my
banker's, and therefore it can't be shown that it came
through my banker's hands.
Is there an item in Wigney's book to show it ?—I will
refer to the date ; perhaps it will—
Mr. PLATT—Perhaps you may find something there
to help you.
The Usher of the Court—The book commences the
23d Nov., 1832.
Mr. PLATT—Without referring to the book, I ask you,
Sir, whether you did not actually open the account at
Wigney's with 5551., part of that very cheque ?—Not that
I know of.

You swear it was not P-1 cannot swear ; I have no
recollection.
Will you tell the Court from what means you derived
that 555/ you paid to Wigney's ?—lt was in 1832 that
that was paid them. I had property of my own ; and I
had a banker's account at Marten, Call, and Co., to the
best of my recollection.
By the COURT—I have no knowledge, nor have I any
means of referring to know whether the 5551. was part
of this cheque of 1,0001. At that time I had other pro-
perty of my own.
Mr. PLATT—Do you mean to say your property was at
Marten, Call, and Co.'s ?—One of the partners is in
Court, and can answer that question.
Can you ?—I cannot answer that question. There is
a cheque-book of Marten, Call, and Co. ; let me have it,
and I will answer you.
You told me yesterday that you closed the account
when you went down to Brighton. Had you any other
pass-book ?—Not that I know of.
That pass-book you have in your hand is not filled up.
—How do you mean filled up ?
Lo you not understand when a book is filled up ?
Filled up with entries ?—I said yesterday 'that subse-
quently I paid a sum of money to Call and Co., therefore
the account remained open for years, and a trifling ba-
lance remained in their hands ; about 31. or 4/.
Then after the entries in that book, did you place any
more money with Call and Co., except that 1,2001. ?—I
have no recollection, but I call on them to produce the
account, and I dare say I can then answer the question.
At this distance of time I cannot, having a bad memory;
I am sure I do not wish to misrepresent.
Your memory appears to be all on one side—that of
money you received.
Mr. CooKE—He has not been examined as to others.
What means did you derive the 5551. from ?—From
my profession. I was at that time in receipt of 20001. a
year. I made an engagement with the Earl of Egremont
and all the sources of my previous income were swallowed
up in that.

Can you tell me where that 5551. tame ;rom ?—I can-
not tell yo. I had several sources ceincome at that time.
of that
I understand you to state that this 555 L was part
have
t .. cheque ?—To the best of my belief it was not.
17 il you swear that ?—I am on nay oath.
no means of swearing that.
But you say you believe so. Will ©u swear it ?—I
IVligh,..tsit hraeve been partor migt itnot ?—lt might or not.
Do
wigneJ;suwhemrber when you opened the account at
Now I put into the notes you paid
rdyou wrote your name at the back of
in ?—No, I do. not.
yourr lo hands another cheque, dated the
6th May, 1833, fc,
Earl of Egremont '
receivedeit a eiet'
00!. ; did y-ett recive that of
You say there is no ?Thereevid is no. evidence that I did.
daorayofourg?—ottlencaintn:lsNwoe,a;
that
3i
ilgdh itd3n
oout
hreacreei v
cannot reply to that, sir.
Don't you know whether you ,
and forgotten it ?—I do not knownibight have received it
a question as that. The Earl ,ow lean answer such
of E„,.r
habit of writing such cheques, an 4 t%. ernont was in the
and I have received such .tving them to other
people, oc eques, and when I
on th
did so my name was written
ever'lo
rln banker's.
Did the Earl of Egremont se chequesY payable
to the bearer ?—lle did several.
And did you always write yo) ar name .
on them ?
Either I or my bankers did.
Always ?—I think so.
You see I cannot get anything c( :main ; it is always I
think ; I want to know if you will yen tv re to assert whether
that cheque was written on the back: 7—When they were
paid into the bankers not by myself, Marten, Call, and
Co.wrote their names upon them as thee agents in London.
Will you venture to say you wrote:your own name, or
saw any other person do so ?—I w ill not. They did
not write upon them in my presenc(!.
In the account you hold in your. t .and is an item of
7001. on the 15th May, 1833. Nc•w , I ask you if that
7001. was • not, in fact, part of the ,i,o 001..0f this cheque?
—I cannot say whether it was or i lot .
Now, I ask you whether you di. .1, or not, receive that
amount of 1,0001, and pay intu it lasterman and Co.
700/. to be placed to your account, -witi h Wigney and Co ?
—The cheque will show that.
Do you not recollect it ?—No, Sr,i Ido not recollect
it at this distance of time.
Can't you tell where it came fror a ?—No Sir ; I bad
extensive business, and a great d '
sal of money passed
through my hands.