The Sun.
London, England, 1846-03-09 00:00:00

ASSIZE INTELLIGENCE.

HOME CIRCUIT, Chelnqford, March 6.
(Before Baron ALDERSON and a Special Jury.)
FITCH v. CUTTS.

This was an action brought by the plaintiff, who is an
autioneer at Steeple Bumpstead, to reco% er from the de-
fendant, a gentleman residing in the neighbourhood of
NVitharn, the sum of 1401, for a quantity of wine he had
purchased at a sale, but which he afterwards refused to
receive. There.were several pleas put upon the record
by the defendan', but the principal one was that the sale
in.question had been conducted in a fradulent nianter,
and that the wine did not belong to the pers9n whose
property it was represented to be.
Mr. Montagu Chambers and Mr. Petersdorff were for
the plaintiff ; and Sergeant Shee, Sergeant Jones, and
Mr. Rose for the defendant.
The trial commenced on Friday afternoon, and did not
conclude until late in the evening.
It appeared from the statement of the Learned Coun-
sel for the plaintiff, that in the beginning of last year a
gentleman named Stevens, who kept a large establish-
ment called. Bower Hall, in this county, died, and on the
31st of March, there was a sale of his furniture and other
effects. at which the plaintiff officiated as auctioneer. It
would seem that at the time of his death; Mr. Stevens
had only a small quantity of wine, some twenty dozen or
so, in his cellar, and as it was necessary to pay 101. for a
wine licence, the auctioneer obtained the consent of the
executors to " introduce" some other wine, and accord-
ingly nearly two hundred doz 'n of port and sherry were
introduced into the catalogue. When the sale took
place, there was a large assemblage of buyers, and among
them the defendant and, as Mr. Stevens was supposed to
be a great connoisseur in wine, some considerable com-
petition took place to' possess it. According to the
evidence for the plaintiff, as soon as Mr. Stevens's
genuine wine was sold, the auctioneer publicly
stated the fact, and at the same time told
the company that the wine he was then about to sell
would be disposed of by sample, and that they would
form their judgment upon its value. It was represented
that, after this, the defendant tasted the dlfferent samples,
and eventually made purchases to the amlunt of 1401,
but on his being afterwards applied to to take his wine
away, and pay the value, he refused to have anything to
sale,
P'lh i
teli theawth io cross-examination
e the
ui
do with it, and, after some negociation, the present
action was brought, to compel him to fulfil his contract.
U
cataloguesth
ew ine
we
anostif
describedatdh ve e
rtisemase witnesses,nhtesi
being
gtf
tap-
pearedtheh
property of Mr. Stevens, and a most glowing descrip-
tion was given of it,
portbeing mostly described as
fine rich old port, in bottle • the sherry of •
&c. &c. ; and it also appeared, that at the time the
wine
so described was not
actually even in the collar of Mr.
Stevens, but was only brought down from London throe
or four days before the sale.

An auctioneer named Surtidge, residing at Cog-
geshall, who had beea instrumental in getting up the
sale, admitted in cross-examination that shortly before
the sale he held a judgment for 1401. against a person at
Coggeshall, and that he went to a wine-merchant in
Rood-lane and gave tills judgmennt, and about 50/. or