The Sun.
London, England, 1835-06-23 00:00:00

SMALL V. ATTWOOD.

Mr. WAKEFIELD proceeded to address their Lordships this
morning, on behalf of the appellant, Mr. Attwood, following
Mr. Sergeant WILDE. The Learned Gentleman is expected
to cwc,inv two or three days at the least.

'1 ite Peers presela were tbe Earl of Shaftesbury, Lord
Lyndhurst, and Lord Brougham.

CHANCERY COURT.--(THIS DAY.)

The Lords Commissioners sat again. iv Lincoln's Inn Hall
today, to hear the further arguments ;,11 the petitions of Mr.
Chambers, the late banker in Bor:ut-street, and proprietor of
the Italian Opera House.
Mr. TEMPLE, at the:sitt;:-,,,,.
read the evidence in hvi,alf of the
of their Lordships proceeded to
petitioners, which he had not
concluded when o".:r reporter left.

BENCH.-(THIS DAY.)

HITCHCOCK V. LEQUERAR.
Mr. F. KELLY stated the case. It was an action for a breach
of covenant. The plaintiff Mr. Hitchcock had discovered a
powder for the cure of the hooping-cough, and entered into an
agreement with the defendant, a chemist carrying on business
in High-street, Whitechapel, to supply him with the powder
at a price fixed upon between them. In the months of April,
May, and June, 1834, the defendant had been supplied with
the powder to the amount of 11/. 10s., and of this a sum of
3/. had been paid, and the present action was brought to re-
cover the balance-81. 10s. _ _

vv
The plaintiff's son proved the delivery of a bill for 11/. 10s.,
and the defendant's promise to pay ; the price agreed upon was
405. a lb. ; heard his father say that he had received 31. after
the delivery of the bill.
Sir FREDERICK POLLOCK, for the defendant, complained of
the vexatious nature of the present action. He regretted that
the time of the Court and the Jury should be occupied with
the trial of a question of a few pounds which could have been
as well disposed of by a Sheriff's Jury. The agreement be-
tween the parties was made in April, 1834 ; the goods were
supplied in the three following months. The defendant had
paid for all that he had sold of the specific up to the month of
July, and offered to return what remained unsold, if the plaintiff
would not give him time for the payment, and before the year
had expired the present action was brought for the purpose of
heaping expense upon his client.
Morris, clerk to Mr. Faucitt, the defendant's attorney, de-
posed, that when the deed was drawn up between the
plaintiff and defendant, the attorney's charge was 71..
and the plaintiff requested defendant to pay his half
and that it could be deducted out of the sale of the powder
On the 20th October witness and defendant called upon plain.
tiff and tendered a bill for 31. 10s. paid on account of plaintiff
for the deed, 3/. cash paid to plaintiff, and 21bs. of the powder.
returned, leaving a balance of nearly one pound which witness
tendered the plaintiff, but which he refused to accept. Mr.
Hitchcock said he had placed the matter in the hands of his
attorney, and that he would have nothing to do with it.
Lord DENMAN regretted that so trifling a question had not
been settled out of Court. One of the Learned Counsel bad
stated that this would be a good way of advertising the specific
for the defendant ; but he thought it would be found rather as
expensive mode, and, for one, he would not place any great
confidence in the remedy after the parties who were conc.ereed
in its preparation had quarrelled. After reading over the
evidence, he left it to the Jury to say what damages, if ault
the plaintiff was entitled to.
The Jury found for the plaintiff—Damages, 41. 35.