The Sun.
London, England, 1832-11-20 00:00:00

I.EVIN V. ELI.IS.

This was an action brought by Mr. Levin, the
plaintiff, to recover from the defendant, Mr.
Ellis, the linendraper on Ludgate-hill, and also a
Member of Parliament, the sum of 2341, being the
amount of a quantity of lace purchased by Mr. Ellis
bystated the plaintiff's
case.
He regretted that tradesmen were often corn-
p
l'Al
ietri. means
aof his
sergeant Me
sint'ie spir.eEvsaßenEnti Oldham.instance,tvETi
tEttto dispose of their
goods at a great sacrifice, but on some occasions
such a step could not be avoided.
Oldham, in February last, purchased lace goods of
the piano iff, to the amount of 2341, 9., upon con-
dition that Mr. Ellis was to give a bill payable at
three months. He had on former occasions pur-
chased goods of Levin to the amount of 5001. or
6001. The high discount which was allowed, viz.,
35 per cent. on the invoice price, induced him to
suspect that all was not right. He had on former
Occasions entertained the same suspicions. When

the plaintiff first applied, witness asked him where he
had the goods, and he slid they had been shipped,
but were returned as the ports were shut, and hr
was, therefore, glad to get the most he could fo
them.

On his cross-examination the witness said that it
was usual to discount at 11}, and sometimes 12i
per cent. He should not have offered 35 per cent.
discount if he had not suspected that something was
wrong.
Mr. JERvIS, for the defendant, contended that
this property came into the hands of Levin, and from
thence into the hands of Ellis, under such circum-
stances of fraud and conspiracy between Levin and
a person of the name of Falck, that Levin could
not recover in this action. The Learned Counsel
stated that this action was defended for the benefit
of the public, and to rescue the character of Mr.
Ellis's house from those suspicions which attached
to it in consequence of being mixed up with a trans-
action of this description.
The Learned Counsel then called his witnesses.
It appeared from their testimony that Levin and Falck
had been conversing together—that Falck was heard
to say in the presence of Levin, that he was going
down to Nottingham for the purpose of purchasing
goods, but it did not appear that any thing was said
as to the terms upon which the goods were to be
purchased, or what bills they were to be paid for.
Falck had before that time purchased goods of Mr.
Roberts, of whom the present goods were bought,
and Mr. Roberts said that he should have trusted
him with t hem upon his own acceptance. Falck,
however, making other large purchases in the town
of Nottingham, and a suspicion arising in the minds
of some persons, who circulated a rumour that all
was not right, Mr. Roberts became alarmed. He
had parted with the goods upon the expectation of
being paid ready money, but hearing of this rumour,
he was anxious to make the best term he could, and
asked for bills upon some respectable persons. The
bills were given, and accepted by persons who had
since turned out to be insolvent. One acceptance
was that of a foreigner (we believe the interpreter
upon the trial of Queen Caroline), who had a lodging
at the Exchange at Liverpool.

Mr. Baron VAUGHAN observed that it was for the
first time that he heard that a commercial house,
such as that of Mr. Ellis, would buy goods which
must have been got possession of by unfair means—
would sell them at 10 per cent. profit, and then re-
fuse to give the bills which it had been agreed
should be given as payment. He left it to the Jury
to say whether they believed that there was a con-
spiracy between Levin and Falck to obtain posse,-
sion of these goods without payment. Mr. Ellis
said that he defended this action for the benefit of
the public. It certainly was not for the benefit of
the public to encourage proc.edings, the effect of
which was to injure the fair trader. Mr. Ellis was
stated to be a Member of Parliament. His avoca-
tions in Parliament might perhaps induce him to
confide his business in his commercial character to
the hands of those who managed his concerns, but in
a Court of Justice he must be answerable for their
acts. He (the Learned Judge) must say that this
was a most ungracious defence on the part of Mr.
Ellis, who, having got 35 per cent. off the actual
trading price, and having sold the goods at a profit
refused to pay for them.
The Jury, after consulting for some time, returned
a verdict fer the defendant.

ARCHES COURT, Nov. 19.

SWIFT V. SWIFT.

This case came before the Court originally as a
suit promoted by Mr. Swift, for the restitution of
conjugal rights, which suit being met by an answer
on the part of the wife that the marriage was not
celebrated according to the laws of the country in
which it took place, and that it had never been
consummated, it, of course, resolved itself into a
suit as to the validity of the marriage. The ques-
tion now came before the Court upon an objection
raised to the responsive allega,ions tendered on the
part of Mr. Swift. The circumstances of the case
were these :—Mr. Swift and Miss E. C. Kelly met
at Florence in 1830, both of them being minors.
He paid attentions to her, and so fur won upon her
affections as to obtain her consent to his applying
to her mother, with whom she was travelling, to
sanction his appearing in the character of a suitor.
The mother, however, objected. He subsequently
met her at Rome, and prevailed on her to consent
to a private marriage, in order to effect which both
of them professed the Catholic faith, and thus ob-
tained the license in virtue of which the marriage
was afterwards solemnized. Mrs. Swift subsequently
alleged that she had only entered into a promise to
marry Mr. Swift; but in order to show that she
must have known that she had actually wedded
him, he alleged consummation on the night of their
marriage as well as on subsequent occasions. This
was denied by Mrs. Swift. The objection now
raised against the allegation on the part of the hus-
band was, that it was redundant in alleging the fact
of consummation, and that it was inadmissible, in-
asmuch as Mr. Swift had declined to answer two
important interrogatories—one, whether his pro-
fession of the Catholic religion was not merely a
colourable profession, in order to effect the celebra-
tion of the marriage; and the other, whether he
did not believe that his wife was not sincere in her
profession of that faith also.
It was contended in support of the allegation
that Mr. Swift was not bound to answer any ques-
tion which might criminate himself; and if he
answered the interrogatory relating to himself so as
to avow that he was insincere in his profession of
the Catholic faith, though he would not thereby
render himself liable to punishment by the laws of
this country, yet if ever lie should return to Rome,
he might be subjected to very serious punishment
by such an avowal. It was also contended that the
allegation of consummation was not redundant, as
it tended to prove the wife's belief that the marriage
had been actually celebrated.
Sir J. NicHor.r. said that the Court had some
doubt at first whether the allegation of consum-
mation was not so far redundant, but when it took
into its consideration the allegation to which it
was a response, it was of opinion that it was not
redundant.
The allegation was accordingly admitted.

COURT OF CONSCIENCE, DUBLIN.

NICHOLAS FURLONG V. JOHN SHAW.

Magistrate—Whv do you summon Mr. Shaw ?
Furlong—Sole he's an attorney, your Worship,
and he done me, of course. I went, your Worship,
to the Insolvent Court to oppose one Yates, a client
of Shaw's.

[Here all the attorneys in the Court raised their
voices, piano and forte, allegro and andante, to defile
ar►d bespatter unfortunate Furlong in the cause of
their brother chips.]
Magistrate—l entreat silence.
First Attorney—l beg to state, your Worship—
Second Attorney—Hear me in behalf of Mr.
Shaw. I can distinctly show—
Magistrate—Gentlemen, will you allow me to
hear the plaintiff's case, and I shall then attend to
any observations you may—
Third Attorney—l assert, your Worship—
Mr. Rlllam—And I assert, your Worship—
Chorus—And I assert, your Worship—
Furlong—Am I to be gagged in this manner?
Am I to be devoured by a set of sharks, your
Worship ?
First Attorney—lt is a plain matter of fact—
Mr. Fullam--Leave the business to me, end I
will settle it.
Second Attorney—Leave it to me. I can posi-
tively show, upon good authority—
Chorus—Leave it to me—leave it to me.
Magistrate—Unless you keep silence, I shall be
compelled to clear the Court.
The plaintiff was then allowed, with considerable
interruptions, to state his case, in which he showed
that he had appeared in the Insolvent Court to op-
pose a client of Shaw's, whereupon Shaw stated
he would engage that the plaintiff's demand should

PRICES OF HOPS.—Nov. 19.

Kent Pockets 6l 15s. 9i. Os. to W. Os.
Sussex Ditto
Essex Ditto Ol. Os. 01. Os. to 01. Os.
Farnham Ditto, Fine 01. Os. 121. Os. to 141 Os.
Seconds 0!. Os. 101. lOs to 111 11s.
Kent Bags 7l. Cs. Of. Os to 91. Os.
Sussex Ditto
Essex Ditto Ol. Os 0!. Os. to 01. OA.
Old Duty laid at 130,000/.