The Sun.
London, England, 1834-07-04 00:00:00

COURT OF KING'S BENCH.--(THIS DAY.

( Sittings at Guildhall, before Chief Justice Dr.NMAN and a
Special Jury. )
CUSTOM OF LONDON BROKERS.—IMPORTANT DECISION.
HAWES V. FOSTER.
This case involved a very important question relative to the prac-
tice of the brokers of the city of London. The question before the
Court was whether the entry made by the broker in his book, or
the bought and sold note delivered to the buyer and seller, was the
original and binding contract between the parties. It appeared that
in May, 1831, Mr. Thomas Wright, a broker, was employed by
Messrs. Foster and Smith to sell a quantity of palm oil, and did
sell between 80 and 100 tons at 26/. per ton to Messrs. Hawes,
and the warranty in the note delivered by the broker at the time of
sale was, " warranted to arrive on or before the 30th June." The
oil did not arrive at the time specified, and the present action was
brought to recover damages for the injury sustained by the plain-
tiffs, in consequence of the breach of the warranty. The defence
was that the entry in the broker's book which was in these words,
" If the above should not arrive on or before the 30th June, then
the contract to be void," was the original and binding contract,
and the goods not having arrived at the time specified, there was
an end to the contract between the parties.
Sir JAMES SCARLETT and Mr. D. POLLOCK appeared for the
plaintiffs, and the ATTORNEY-GENERAL and Mr. BLACKBURNE
for the defendants.

Messrs. Crawford, M.P. for the City of London, Took, Gibson,
and other eminent merchants, were examined as to the usage of
the city relative to brokers' rates, and all concurred in stating that
they bought and sold notes were considered among mercantile men
as the contract between the parties. Many of them stated that
they had never seen a broker's book, and none of the witnesses
ever knew of its having been referred to as evidence of the contract.
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL addressed the Jury at considerable
length for the defendants. The question was, what was the con-
tract entered into between the parties in the present case. He was
debarred by the decision of his Lordship from examining
Mr. Wright, the broker, as to the instructions he had
received from the defendants, otherwise he would have been able to
satisfy the jury that his understanding was that if the goods did not
arrive on the 30th June the contract was to be void, and it would
appear from the entry made by the broker that such was his con-
tract with the plaintiffs. If the broker had delivered a note to the
plaintiffs which incorrectly set forth the contract, then the plaintiffs
had their action against the broker, and were entitled to recover
from him. It was quite absurd to suppose that a contract would be
made by a commercial man without specifying a time for its fulfil-
ment, otherwise the vessel might not arrive for six or twelve
months, and the price of the article might be double or half what it
was at the time of making the contract. The Learned Counsel
here referred to the case of Grant v. Fletcher, in which it had
been laid down by Lord Tenterden that " the entry in the broker's
book is properly speaking the original entry, and ought to be signed
by him, and the bought and sold notes ought to be a copy of that
entry, because the entry was made by the common agent of both
parties, and was the same as if both parties had signed it them-
selves. Under these circumstances, he contended that the plaintiff
was bound by the entry in the broker's book ;and if they felt them-
selves aggrieved they had their remedy against the broker.
Mr. Wright, the broker, was examined to prove the entry in his
book, and Mr. Woodthorpe, the Town-Clerk of the City, proved
the copy of the regulations drawn up by the Court of Aldermen for
the use of brokers, in September 1819.
Sir JAMES SCA RLETT replied.
Lord DENMAN in submitting the case to the Jury, gave
it distinctly as his opinion, that the binding contract was
that handed over by one party to the other, and not the
entry in the broker's book. In the present case, it appeared
to him that the terms of that contract had not been com-
plied with, and the plaintiffs were, therefore, entitled to recover.
The Jury returned a verdict for the plaintifi§. Damages, 3301.
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL said the case was of such magnitude
that the defendants would feel it their duty to exercise their right
of tendering a bill of exceptions.
During the trial the Court was crowded with commercial men,
who appeared to take much interest in the proceedings.
Shortly afterwards his Lordship rose.