The Sun.
London, England, 1835-06-30 00:00:00

EXCHEQUER COURT.-(THIS DAY.

BARRETT V. HOWARD.
Mr. PLATT stated that this was an issue directed by the
Court of Chancery, in order to try whether a brother of the de-
fendant had acted as her agent. The plaintiff was a builder,
and had built three houses at Tunbridge Wells, one of which
the defendant looked at, and wanted to purchase. The price
was 6501, with 101. ground rent ; as the original ground rent
was 801. for the three houses, it was agreed that the price
should be reduced to 4431. 145., subject to 261. ground rent.
The brother had many interviews on the subject, and was in-
troduced by the defendant as her agent. He signed an agree-
ment as above on her part, but after measuring the rooms, she
found that a piano she had would not fit in, and then she refused
to complete the contract, and denied that her brother was her
agent.
It appeared in evidence, that the contract was entered into,
and that the defendant actually had the house painted, she
giving orders, and promising a reward if there was no mess
upon the floor.
Mr. THESSIGER addressed the Jury for the defence. fle
did not mean to deny that the defendant, who was an old lag,
had intended to purchase the house in questiow nor that 31r•
Howard, her brother, was her agent in the first r.greement--•
viz., that for 6501. premium, and a ground-rent of 10/. alear.
On looking, however, at the leases, it was found that Mr. BO;
ret had no power to make such an agreeme at, for the 804
ground-rent over-rode the whole of the three houses, and they
the new agreement was made, to which she was no party. She
had gone to watch the progl'ess of the painting of the house,
but there were no dates condescended upon on I he other side;
none of the witnesses could say a word to bind the defendant,
after the 3d of March. The agreement which she repudiate{
was entered into on the 10th of March, and there was no one net
of hers shown after that date. Mr. Howard, supposing his sister
was so anxious to have a house at Tunbridge, entered into the •te•
cond agreement without her consent, but the moment she heard.e;
it she refused to ratify it, and notice was given to the plaintla
on the 19th of March.
Samuel Reynolds Howard, brother of the deendant, egea
75—Had been an attorney, but had not practised for 50 year'
In the beginning of March, 1832, he came to town from TO"
bridge, and at his sister's request introduced th e plaintiff t?
Messrs. Arrowsmith and Chapman, to whom he• showed hi:
title deeds. They did not approve of them, and made oat
another deed, which witness signed without her consent. suf
did not know anything of it. He had never been her agent
in any respect. 11
Cross-examined. His sister had always lived with him, gat
paid nothing for it. They had a sum of money in their jet
names in the funds, the produce of which went towards the
o
general expellees. Did not tell the plaintiff that he had Ile
authority to sign the agreement. His sister objected to th
want of water, and made many other objections to the house.
Messrs. Chapman and Mr. Arrowsmith, the soliscitors, vicr°
both called according to the order of the Court of Chancel'
They proved nothing beyond the fact that the nem arrange-
ments were suggested by themselves, and agreed to b 3 bet

parties.
A letter was put in from Mr. Howard to his sister, in whicb.
after stating the terms on which he had settled the contract
for the house, he closed by assuring his sister, " That the ad
and ourselves are well."
Mr. PLATT replied, and the Learned Baron having summo
up, the Jury, after a short consultation, retired to consider
their verdict.
After an absence of half an hour the Yitif icturned isltg
Court with a verdict for the plaintiff. •