The Sun.
London, England, 1835-12-11 00:00:00

EXCHEQUER COURT.-(THIS DAY.)

HODGES V. GRAY.
This action was brought to recover -damages for various

breaches of covenant,
Mr. TIIESSIGER, Mr. PLATT, and Mr. WHITE con-
ducted the plaintiff's case. The former stated that the
plaintiff was lately one of the firm of Hodges, the distillers.
In the year 1629, the defendant having been assisted by
the plaintiffi and being then very much embarrassed, a
friendly commission was sued out, and by an arrange-
ment with his assignees, it was agreed that he should
have the stock and lease of the house, 97, Bond-
street, for 2,2001-., which was advanced by the plain-
tiff. In the November of 1829, - the plaintiff entered
into a partnership with the defendant. The deeds then
entered into covenanted that the plaintiff was to re-
ceive interest-upon the half of the sum lie had advanced ;
that he was to advance other sums as they were required,
upon which also he was to be allowed interest. The de-
fendant was to receive 16/. 13s. 4d. monthly, out of the
clear profits, if any accrued. The plaintiff was to have the
power to determine the partnership at any time, on giving
a month's notice, when he was to have the stock and busi-
. ness, on releasing the defendant from the debts of the
concern. The plaintiff had advanced the sum, amounting
to 7,749/., besides the former sum of 2,2001. In 1834,
Mr. Hodges was not satisfied, and desired to have an in-
quiry into the accounts ; but as there was some demur, he
gave notice to determine the partnership, on the 12th
February, 1835. Before the expiration of the month, Mr.
Hodges had procured a gentleman who proposed to pur-
chase the concern, but be required a three months' trial
before he agreed. Mr. Gray had agreed to give that
trial, but in the mean time he had most unfortu-
nately seen his attorney, and then he refused to
allow any one to come on the premises, and put
the plaintiff at defiance, unless he paid him the sum of
5001., and was allowed to take the whole of the furniture
then in the House. Mr. Hodges refused to accede to this
most impudent offer, and insisted upon Gray quitting the
premises, according to the terms of the deed of partnership.
:The notice expired on the 12th March, and when the gen-
tleman who was appointed by Mr. Hodges
..to superintend
the business went to take it, he found that Mr. Gray had
barricaded the premises with grates, and other heavy arti-
cles being placed at the back of the doors. The plain-
tiff had then no other step to take in order to save himself,
than to make the defendant bankrupt, and under the Com-
missioners' warrant possession was obtained on the 30th of
March. The first breach for whiCh the plaintiff sought
damages was for the shutting up of the shop, whereby the
business was ruined, the receipts having fallen off from
1,5001. in six months to 1861. The next breach was a
more serious one. The Jury would remember that the de-
fendant was to receive 16/. 13s. 4d. per month from the
clear profits. Now he would show that the defendant had
himself acknowledged, that during the five years there had
been a loss on the first year of 1,0941., the second 5901.,
the third 90/., and the other 424/., and all that loss
did not include one farthing of interest due to the
plaintiff ;. yet the defendant had gone on taking • this
monthly allowance to the amount of 1,2001. They also
charged him with having abstracted money to the =punt
of 6,0001. from the partnership funds, and expended it for
his own use, and also with having improperly charged per-
sonal .expenses, such as furniture and clothing for his fa-
mily, and even the pew in the church, to the partnership
account. He trusted that he would not be kept from laying
these facts in evidence before them, and then he would have
entitled himself to their verdict with exemplary damages.
The Learned Gentlemen proved the case as stated, by
the attornies of the plaintiff and an accountant.
Mr. HUMFREY submitted that the plaintiff must be
nonsuited. He believed that this was the first case of a
partner bringing an action against the other partner, for
things done during the running of the partnership.
The Learned JUDGE overruled the objection ; the action
was maintainable upon the. ground of the breaches of the
covenant contained in the deed.
Mr. HUMFREY then addressed the Jury for the de-
fendant. He said the defendant was a very ill-used man,
for they had heard from the plaintiff's witnesses that
Mr. Hodges had used his command of money in order
to set the whole forms of the law against his client ;
but they had heard that he had had his fiat of bank-
ruptcy discharged with costs. He trusted that would be
the case in the present action, for the plaintiff had no
right to bring it here ; the same matters were in the Court
of Chancery, where they ought to be confined. A Jury was
not competent to clear up the whole of the partnership
accounts for five years. After commenting upon the evi-
dence,he said the greatest stress was laid upon the fact of
the defendant having taken 16/. 13s. 4d. a month—look
at what was in proof, Mr. Gray had not a shilling when
the partnership was formed ; was he then to starve because
there were no profits? Mr. Hodges seemed to say that
the defendant had no right to go to the butcher and
the baker when he had so much physic in his shop.
He was to have no money—then he would have no-
thing else to keep his family and the apprentice from
starving. If they felt obliged to give damages he trusted
they would think the smallest coin as sufficient compen-
sation.
His LORDSHIP summed up, but the Jury bad not re-
turned their verdict when our reporter left.