The Sun.
London, England, 1804-12-19 00:00:00

CORY' AXCHANGIi; DRO.

THE Market today has Wheat in large suiiply,
with' much of, IVlontlay's on hand, the buyers still
declining late 'prices,' sales are exc%!editig
some flue samples of Old fetch rather °more thin
we quote; again large arrivals Of. Barley, which
further declines, as doei ; new C!ans 'in
plenty, and at less ; the Oa Trade iS brisk, and
rather dearer ; the • late fa'Voutahle weather for the
IViillerS I)-ings full supplies of Flour ; and in other
articles'but little variation.'

Wheat RS's a ro.,s a i i.ss od .13eans ,- 4.1 g a 5-.)s od
Fine ditto - I I 4.3 a i 14s od Tick Beaus 4.14 it ..:;i1 CA
Rye - - • 54s .a
sgs od o:its 2.91 a 31s a 3.14 od
Barley -.-- ' 33s A 44 od rolaihi du. • 35i a ;;is Od
Malt • • 74. s a dos od gait:: Seed7 - .3ar a 451
White rust: VS a sgs‘ad Fin:: Hoar ' -91 s a :.)is 0,1
Grey ditto • 43s a 47s 04, Sotronds - ,- ,853 a y,)* od

On Frilay night last 'a fire hrnke out in nne of
the stabict* of the Bull inn,' at Rehurn, near
Aiblin4, which, froth the want at water, thteatened
destrut'.tion to the neighbourlinol, Six huuses
half an hiur were con:tpletely deitroyed, anti six
hordes that were in the staialc %vete burned to death;
one of theht belonged to Mr. M ARID V 11, of Totten-
horn Qour;t-rnail, which he ILO purchased in the
NoraCfpr 7o gpine3s, and Was on its',wax, to town.

Lit Monday, the Solicitor of the Mint attended,
at Whiteahapel Ofl:o against a noted ,u,tirer of
counterfeit silver, who, on being searched by one
of the. Officers, had in his possession upwards of
three pounds. Attcr the whole of the evidence, was
gone through, he was fully committmd for trial.

Yesterdiy evening, about six o'clock, as Captain
:JA4lts MURRAY, of the 11,tst India Service, with
.two Gentlemen, wets returning from Gravesend, in
.a 'chaise, •they were attempted to be stopped' by two
footpads; near the Princess of 'Wales, on Blackheath ;
hut the driver striking atione of them with ids whip,
and pushing his harses on, prevented, him from catch-
ing hold of the reins, on which one of the footpads
fired, but without Hied. • ,

Yesterday, at Kitlbornugh.Streer, Thomas Gar..
laid, who is well known at the Oflie!, was charged
with borgOariously entering, the house tf Sir 'PL-11.
I.n. Be ARC a OPT, ire Wiginure.street, Cavendish..,.
.square, on Sunday evening. Thesrrvants heard a
'noise aver- their heads as they were sitting in the"
kitchen, between eight 'and nine o'clock, And un
the footman hastening trstairs, he' perceive 4 the
'Prisoner run from the mind: into thestreer,- whom
he folloWed, and secured. Several 'valuable articles
ahl.aleya.r.erdettrocath.4 ivltrebyteenntelr, -ahvitte:l ;frhnlttnt tsheecu*cfrico;l-71;:
booty.—He was committed fur trial.

1

LAW REPORT.

COURT OF ICING's i 3 NCH, Dcc..

tviiit'iv.'coustrqs.

This W 33 an ActtAn upon a Bond for g000l.• The
DefetMant had pleaded that the deed was obtained
from him by fraud and ebvin." The' circumstances
of tliecase were as follows : —The' Plaintifr, Webb,
had been in thehAit of advancing money to two
peisons named I-tarvy and Suthmire, in the sugar
trade, and his debt amounted to upwards of i t,OOOl.
In August 1802, he took an assignment of all
their property 'whatever as a security. They were
also, indebted to the Defendant, Cousins, in the

.sum of +000l.; but as Webb had the assignment,
-he would have been able to have swept all away
icy his judgment and, execution, anti left nothing to
pay the Defendant his debt. Under these circum.
stances he persuaded the Defendant to hay his, the
Plaintifr4 debt, in order to secure his.own. This.
lass accordingly done; and the assignment of.all the
effeCts of Hari)? and Surhmire was indotsed.over to
the Defendant Cousins. But as this assignment of
alf the'effeets. of Harvy and Suthmire was in: itself
an aft tilbankrup(cy, it became necessary to inquire
whether there, was any 'outstanding debt, which
could be the foundation ,of a'rmmission.ttgainst
them ? becinise if there was “nY StiClA,,anti a commis.
sion wet taken out, it would cut down the.security
of the general ats4igntnent, and make it onanailable.
In point of flift, they Aid .ore. a debt at that time
of sooJ..to one Menton, upon, which a commission
was founded in May last, and the property intended
td be timveyeii by the deed was seized for the gene.
cal benefit of all the creditors. The fraud imposed,
was in the concealment of this deb, from the D.
fondant at the 'tittle he purchased .the Plaintiff's
debt, it'being alledged that he knew the faCt, and
purposely concealed it from the Defendant.
The evidence to support chit; statement were the
two bankrupts; Harvey and Suthmire, who both
agreed in stating, that when, they made the assign.
meta of all their effrets to Webb, in 1862, it was
expressly stated that they owed tool. to Men.
ton.

Mr.AVArttsor,, Webb's Attorney, being exa.
stalled, denied all recolleetion of the t:►t}.
Mr. CAYLP, the Attorney under the commission,
stated, that Wadeson admitted to haves knowledge
of this debt.
Tile Learned Judge left the jury to say, whether
there was any fraudulent concealment or not.—Ver.
did for the Plaintiff.

DECtMillt IS.

iirtritisesivigz iLIA*NIIO36II4III AND A Irtel A L

JULY*.

WADDINGTON

Mr. ERSKINE stated, thar this was an Anion to
recover from the Defendant the difference in value
between the price agreed by the Plaintiff to he given
fora, qoantity of hops, the produce of 23 acres of
ground in the Canterbury Division of the County
of Kent, which, in December, 1799, the Dtlfendant
lviti by contrail 'sold to the Plaitottf, for the fol.
I wing crop, and the price which those hops had
sidually broUght..
He should prove the Contralti and that die pro,
duce was 98+ cwt. which "told for i7l. Isl. per
cwt. being an excess of V. xis. more than the sum
stipulated t“ toe Plaintitf's-Contraft. , For this
suni,4lietefore, amounting, on the whole produce, .
ti about ..7sol. the Plaintiff would fall to have a
Verdia. The. Learned Counsel said, that his
Client having, some ye.,ry sago, made considerable
purchmte• of hops,' both of t his pwn account and.
for others, had had the misfortune to he incliaed
before the. Court of 'King's Bench for a aonwiracy
to monopolize and collar-et ttie.price "Of that corn.
miniity. He was not now at liberty to say that
his Client was innocent of that charge, for lie bad
been found guilty by the' VerdiEt of a Jury, and
had suff.red the. juilginent of the Court. But he
was uittrly at a loss to conceive what effect that
circumstance could have on the plesent case. By
the old Statutes, many severe retittiaiims were im.
posed on whatever had a tendency to forestalling ;
bill he apprehended that at the present day it would
hardly he 'maintained that it' was illegal to purchase
a growing ern-. Crops of turnips, corn, &c. were
sold on the ground every day, without even a sur.
mite that there was any thing unlawful in such a
purchase ; and be could net figure that bops stood
in any differentsituation... .
Lord ELL, Nat:motion said, that it stood in .die
Declaration that the Contra& was for the. purchase
of the crop on the ground ; it was, therefore, un.
necessary to argue the legality of such, a
Had thel/41tgality of the art been disputed; and the.
COurt been of opinion Iliac it was unlawful, such an
alleption would not hake been allowed toatand on
the-lace of the Declaration.
Mr. ERSKINE thanked his Lordship for .the ob.
setvation he had' made. If then there was nothing
illegal in the purchase of a single 4n:insure of hops,
did it become illegal, when such putehast was ex:
tended to two, tbfee, four, or Au* different inclo..
sure+ ? a large capital,and-in.the way of
a lair and honest trade,' his Client might have oc.
ca4icta for a large supply. If there was nothing
tiolawful ire purchasing twenty 'or thirty aeres,, was
there any law which said, that \Olen exteniied to
too 'acres Such purchase became illegal ? He
ptehentled.there Was not. CQUiti only be on the
ground of a general and ektensive
,system of itne.
stalling baying been successfully adopted and carried
motto practice, that any conduCt of the kind could he
impute& The. present, bargain must stand on its
.own basis. It was a Contra& for the produce of
twenty,4lilie acres in. the County of Kent. ..The
whole extent 'of the bargain made by ,the Plaintiff,
in the Canterbury Division of that County,. at the:
time this Cootrad was entered intoovas for n
iorty
acres. Yet it was a filet well known, that in the
County of Kent the number.of acres in
,hoi,s
amounted to about
,fifteen iborriandi And;
Canterbury Division alone tgwvett or tigbtikylmArl..
To argue, therefore, that the Plaintitfon purchasing,
ninety acres of this immense quantity, either had
forestallied; or could have had in view to forestal
the market, was .04 height of. folly. ,

. The execution of the Contxaft Wall proved by the
attesting Witness ; 'and the produce. of the 23 acres,
and the price obtained' for the hops, were stated
to have heen.as Mr. ERlCrlgit represented.
Mr. DALLAS, for the Defendant, maintained that
the present case was one of the greatest public im.
portance; as every case must be where the question
. was, whether the produce of the -soil of this Court_
. try was to-be allowed to find its way. fairly into
the market,' and :there- bring a reasonable and
equitable. price ; ,or if, even before it had been
planted, or before the ',seed had been thrown into
the ground, it might be purchased up by -monopo.
lizers and forestallers, who would thereby have it
. in their power to fix on it any price however ex.
travagant, 'and 'to get the markets entirely tinder
their controul He was .aware, in consequence of
what had fallen from the Learned Lord, that he was.
not at present entitled to argue that the contrael on
which this action-was brought. wait in itself illegal.
He should,' however, be able to'sbew that it. was
part of, a deliberate and premeditated :system of
monopolizing which the Plaintiff in this adion had
arinpted, by which he had got into his possession a,
great proportion of the hops growing in this Conn.
try ; and in consequence of which he had been in.
ditted.before this Court, and had teen corivided.-'--
The grounds of accusation then urged against hini
were, having conspired to monopolize into'his own.
hands the hops growing in this Country, for the
purpose vi enhancing the price of that commodity;
having instilled into the mindS of the growers of
hops, that they were too ..low in priti, and that by
keeping. them back frnm the market they would
quickly rise and, -as ;an indiicernent, 'having.. in.
formed them that a great preportian of the crap
was in his hands, and that he would contribute to
eifeCt this end. The Klima had the very best
a,sistance on that trial, and every endeavour 'was
used to .make him resort to any legal plea in arrest
of judgment, which he might have been able to
adduce. No step, however, to thiS effeiCwas
taken by, IPm, and he submitted the: judgment
of .the Court. He afrerwaids brought two-several
actions op the contraas for growing crops, which
he had then- ent,red into. One was tried before
Mr. Justice RooKt, and the other before Lord
ALVANLEY, :and the .ilecisions were alike in both.
The Plaintiff was found to have no right to recbier..
The Learned Carrisel said, he should he able to
shew: that the present case stood exaOly in the same
situatinn. The contraCt,now sought to he enforeed,
had been entered into in the end of December. The
growers of Kent were' then assembled to pay'.
their composition for tythes, and the Plaintiff,
availing himself of the circilmsranee, got himielf
introduced after dinner, and had not been long in
company, when he rose and made a speech to the
meeting, informing them how much they were int.'
posed on, by the hop dealers ; that he-was.come
they: more for their advantage than his own ; that
the price of htips was greatly too low; and, in con.
elusion, purchased from several of them, their crops
then on the ground; a,uonduet, every part of which,
the Learned .tnunsel contended"; was incontinent
with the charafter Of a real and bona /de hop put.
chaser, and could only belong to a monopolizer and
forestaller., In prosecution of the same scheme, the
Plaintiff was afterwards found at Worcester,. in
June ittoo, where -hit conduit was equally indica.
live of his intentions. There he gave instrations
to the landlord to call together, to a dinner to be
given by the Plaintiff, all the' persons concerned in
the growing of bona in that part of the Country.
Not eitaCtly comprehending "he Plaintiff's wish, the
landlord invited nut the growers only, but the
dealers in hops.
.TMs was the fartheir thing from'
- the Plaintiff's meaning; which he soon made known
to the landlord, who, to consequence of the more ex.'
plicit instruftions which he had received, circulated
a hand.bill, intimating that none but growers of
hops were to be admitted to the dinner. 'At this
meeting the Plaintiff pot in practice exatily the
same line of, proceeding he had adopted at ranter_
bury, and.'many enntrafts for the then growing
crops were concluded. For this system thonopo.
. lining and forestalling the Plaintiff; as before men.
tinned, had been indiCted ; and the contrads, so far
as then endeavoured to, be rendered effeCtual, had
been set aside.

A great deal of evidence was adduced to substan..
date these fans, abd the Couniel for the Deferid'nts
were proceeding with other evidence or' the same
kind, when ,

Lord ELLENSOIIOUGH said it was unnecessary to
adduce any more evidence to that area, 'as, to
whatever extent it might. go, it could not 'alter the
nature Of the question which he would' feel it his
duty to submit to the cOnsideration of the Jury: The
contraft here sought to be supported was entered
into in Pecember 1799,..and. was for the produce
df twenty, acres of hop ground in the Canterbury
Division of Kent,. in which, from the evidence ad.
duce& it appeared there were seven ter eight thou.
sand acres. Even were :the itelion brOught on the
total contract made'by the plaintiff at cmterhury in
December 1799, he could not think that the goes.
Lion would he inater,kally altered; or that the sir.
cumstance could warrant a charge of monopolizing
.to such a degree as to Vacate the contraa.. The
conditit of the Plaintiff, six months afterwards, at
Worcester, Might be such as toevidence his having
adopted a system,of monopolizing and fpreitalling;
which both called for punishment from the court,
and rendered void the contracts then entered into
with him. But it must still remain a question
for the consideration of the Jury, whether they
were satisfied, that, in December 1799, (Aix
months before that period) the forthed
such a _system, and, in prosecution of it, had, en.
teted into the contracts in question ? Of this the
Jury Must", be satisfied before they denied circa to
the Contriet in question.
The Jury found a verdict for the Plaintiff.. The
question of law being reserved for the consideration
of the 'COUII.

Cbtlitt'OF CuriMol4 PLEAS.
LETTUCES SZTORE 31Ft ALLEN CHAMSAS.
AL.LAIIR ro. RYLES.
This, was an a4tion to tecover the sum Of 3181.
60111 the nereflOot, who is Warden' of the Neat