The Sun.
London, England, 1835-04-27 00:00:00

KING'S BENCH-(THIS DAY)•

On the sitting of the Court this morning, Lord DENgAS
gave judgment in several cases which bad been previously
argued. In the case of " Lawson v. Langley," tried at the.
Rutland ' Assizes, and in which Mr. Sergeant Adams had
moved for a rule to show cause why a new trial should not be
had, the Court thought there ought to be a new trial, on the
ground of misdirection and the rejection of evidence. In the
case of " Jones v. Richards," tried in Wales before Mr. Jes;
tice WILLIAms, there ought to be a new trial. In the case of
" Matthews v. Sill," and ".Hill v. Elmore," there ought to
be new trials:

HATCH V. CANINGTON.
This was an action for goods sold and delivered, tried before.
Mr. Justice PATTESON, and afterwards before Lord Chief
Justice DENMAN, on both of which occasions a verdict had
passed for the defendant. The action was brought by a °lli,
merchant, to recover the price of 230 quarters of barley, coo
to the defendant, a distiller, through the agency of a corn-
factor. Th 2 defendant had paid the money over to the
factor, Mr. Gibson. and the question was, whether there ITSs
any custom of the city of London making that payment good
A rule for a new trial had been obtained by Sir WILLIAM
FOLLETT, and
Mr. PLATT now appeared to show cause against the fie'
The question was generally whether the defendant, who had
paid for the barley once, had paid for it under, still' circullt.;
11
stances as that the law would compel him to pay it again. .
apprehended that the maxim of law was, that if a principal,sn
allowed his agent to deal with his goods as that the party we°
buys them of the agent is led to deal with that agent as a prig*
cipal, the principal is bound by any payment the purchaseir,
may make to that agent, before notice. On that grouaa
therefore, as well as on the ground of such being the custom
of the city of London, the defendant was entitled to,
a verdict. It would certainly be a monstrous proposition 4n
law, if the principal was not bound by the act of his agent'
particularly when the buyer has no intimation whose the pro'
perty is, and has a right to assume that the agent is a prinel-
pal. The Learned Gentleman cited the cases of Carr tr'
Hinchcliff, 4th Barnewell and Cresswell, and Coates v. Lewis
and another, Ist Campbell's Reports, in which this doctrine,
was clearly laid down. Even assuming that the defendant
had been aware that Gibson was merely an agent, then it wase.
clear, from the evidence at the trial, that such payment Wad
according to the usage of the City of London. It appeared
also, that the money paid to Gibson by the defendant bs
found its way into the pocket of the plaintiff; but because tbo
money had been applied by the plaintiff to the payment of go
old debt of Gibson's, it was attempted, roost unjustly, to COw
pel the defendant to pay it over again.
Mr. RICHARDS followed on the same side.
Sir W. FOLLETT (with whom was Mr. CRowDER) s`l!s
heard in reply. He contended, that according to the Ile&
sions in several cases which he cited,—if a buyer .paid ant
agent before the time fixed for payment, he made. {he age°
his own for the purpose of transferring the money to the Princi
cipal, and was responsible. In the present cast, 'it was Pr°:bee
that the custom was to give two month's ere dit, and that "119
defendant had paid the money to Gibson.teefore the two moat e
had expired—the defendant was therefore
principal. There was no evidence that the custom was' sub.
as to authorise the factor to
;give the money, and be suo
mitted that the plaintiff was Clearly entitled recover f"
clearly liable to the
the defendant.
The Court said, that had
wohulltdboutagLttavolistptleeciatilmJeurbieesfo
ready been found for 'the defendant, the case was of suelliury
portance, that trey
would decide whether it should be further considered or Or'''
—Judgment deferred.