The Sun.
London, England, 1804-06-01 00:00:00

-~
~~ ~ ~. :

- ,„,, LAW REPORT.
i. 2

-
4 1

-
rCrri, o.J
, • 3iTTINGS '.OREBE LCIR.D ELLENBOROUGI-1..1 fi
Witt* .' •."
T ti.o nix S D F., IN
n: THIg was an Anion fora:breach of:cOrttran-,,anct
- t-lairaiff sought, compensation in damages agaiuSt.,,
he-.l)etendant for not fuifillirg,,liis contrad.
..- -.lt appeared thatron2,the
.lazion>..eircutated a,report, as if from- the: Secretary

• .tr:'s Office, that:a I.32re,between this'Country
,11..,Vrance would immediately take ,pl,ace,- upon
the funds rose considecably. Thc,,PlaiotifF,
s case, direaedhislae broke_ r, 4Ylr.Stfer,. to sell
0,. $ per cent. consols,. for liiin.on-t-liat..‘l4y,
cc rdingly sold
.50°01. to one Powell,: and
to the Defendant, and. which Was to
~1?e transferred on the Tuesday follo‘y..ing.,..,being
the ioth.

The falsity of the report was discovered a short
time after these engagements
,took place .; and the

Defendant, wishing to be quit of his bargain, re.
fused on the Toth to fulfil his contrail : upon which
the Plaintiff was obliged to sell. out at a great loss.
Nathaniel Towl, a clerk belonging to the Bank,
proved that on the . sth of May the Plaintiff had
Stock in the 3 per cent. Consols to the amount of
18,5751. and that on the i6"th of the same month
they were transferred to one Recardo. .
John Stret, the Pl?intiff's Broker, deposed, that
he was employed by the Plaintiff to sell issoool.
Stock, which he accordingly disposed of to the De.

fendant, to he transferred on the Tuesday folloW..
ing. On the morning cf the loth iTuesday),i the
Witness applied to the Defendant to fulfil his'con.
tray}, but he refused, declaring he would abide by
the restitutions of the Stock Exchange, which had
made all the bargains of that day void ; and
therefore he was justified in not taking the Stock.
Witness communicated this answer to the Plaintiff,
who desired him to sell the Stock as well as he
could : he, therefore, sold it to David Waters, to
be transferred in the name of David Recardo.
On his cress-examination by Mr. ERSK I NE, he
said, he did not see Mr:. George Dorrien at the time •
he received the order from Plaintiff to sell 20,0c01.
Stock : when he -did- see Plaintiff, he' gave him
the account of the sale, and (!ireded him to make
out the transfer to the Defendantslosoool. of Plain-
tiff's Stock and 5-ocol. out 'of his brother George
Dorrien's. Fle.couid not say whether George Dor-
Tien was presents-and concurred in those directions

. .
or not. The bubble had not burst for half an hour
after he had rendered the account; he never said
that the Plaintiff had •a good reason for selling out
inumdiately ; he told Defendant of his intention

to re-sell the next morning on his account ; he then
said, it was the general course of pratlice to go to
their employers, and to. know how the account is to
be ascribed : it is generally not known to whose
names the Stock is to be put until sold ; it was quite
imAiaterial to the purchaser from whOse name it was
transferred.

Mr. ERSK INF, in the defence, commented at great
length upon the statute on which .this action was
brought : he observed, -it was of infinite value to
put an end to the ruinous bargains made in the Stock
Exchange. IThis afflon was brought, not by Thomas
and George Dorrien, as:co-partners in trade, not as
co-partncrs in -Barking; .but in the name of Thomas
Dorrien alone ; nor -did it appear that George had
any Stock at all, or that Thomas was in any way.
constituted the agent for George, or had any autho-
rity to mix with the concerns of George.r—This, he
said, was a case of consPerable hardship -on his
Client; the 3 per cent. Consols were at 641. when
-some infamous /person, for a wicked and mischievous
purpose, thought fit, its the name of the Secretary
.of State, to report there was to be an immediate
Peace: the Stock instantly rose from 641. to 741..
-At that moment the bubble burst, and the Stock
again fell ; the statute, he contended, provided that
the person so selling shall anually have the Stock
iransfer of his own property, and the purchaser
shall have to the full end of the day to fulfil his con_
trait. The Plaintiff had sold 50001. to Powell ;he
had not sufficient 'TO make good his contraCt with
the Defendant, and therefore it was incomplete ; it
would be a sale of io,oool. by Thomas I)orrier.
The last witness bad no reason to believe he was
selling any Stock but Thomas's. The Learned
Counsel then quoted the case of Agasiz last Term ;
there the Piaii,Liff was able- to point out that he had
Stock sufficient.
Lord E.LUE.sisoanucH observed, it was a mere
question of L;iw, whether in this case the Plaintiff
could make. good his contraft according to this Sta_
tuie ; he therefore would reserve it fur future dis-
cussion.

Mr. ERSKINE said, lie intended putting it as a
matter of fkt to the Jury, to try whether the
Plaintiff was ataualiy possessed of Stock to fulfil the
contran. This was a valid contract for to,cool.
Only ; he proceedS to a resale on the loth, and
there wds no proof of a legal tender and refusal by
the Defendant on that day, ,so as to authorize him
to sell ; he would put it as a matter of fart to the
Jury, whether Stret sold 15,0001. as for the Plain-
tiff.

Lord ELLENBOPOIJOH again called the Witness