The Sun.
London, England, 1866-12-14 00:00:00

LAW INTELLIGENCE.—This Day.

COURT OF COMMON PLEAS.

(Nisi Prius Sittings at CTuildhall, before Lord Chief Justice
Bovill and a Special Jury.)
ItICKSMA.N V. WAGNER.

Mr. Prentice, Q.C., and Mr. M'Leod wore counsel for the
plaintiff; and Mr. Coleridge, Q.C., and Mr. Philbrick for
the defendant.

From the opening statement of counsel it appeared that
the plaintiff, Mr. Lewis Ricksman, is a hop factor,
and that the defendants (better known as the
Messrs. Humphreys) are the proprietors of 'Jaye's-
wharf, Tooley-street, Borough. The action was brought
to recover £3BO for damage through the alleged miscon-
duct of the defendants, who placed different pleas on the
record. In 1862 the plaintiff, who carries on business,
purchased 1,000 bales of American hops, which were en-
trusted to the care of the defendants, and by them placed
in the upper part of the premises, so as to secure them from
damp, and for the warehousing the plaintiff had double the
ordinary amount In 1865 ho sold 231) of the bales, and it
was then discovered that they had been removed to the lower
part of the premises, and were placJd over a cellar, subject
to currents of air, damp, and the attacks of rats and mice.
He remonstrated with the defendants, who removed the
hops into another part of the premises, but which still
was not suited for such a delicate article as hops. The
plaintiff afterwards sold 360 bales to a gentleman named
Richardson, but when the latter examined them they were
in such a damaged condition that ho would not take them.
Up to that time the defendants had received between
£7OO and £BOO for warehousing the hops. The plaintiff
offered to refer the subject of damage to competent persons
in the trade, but the defendants would not consent, and the
present
action was brought merely to indemnify the plain-
tiff for his loss. The defendants, amongst their other
pleas, said that some of the bales were sea-damaged, but
that was only true in regard to a small portion of them,
which had been so slightly injured that they had been sold
at the time.

Mr. Coleridge said that tho defendants did not under-
stand tho offer made in the light of a reference.

The Lord Chief Justice said ho was satisfied that the
Messrs. Humphreys would not allowitheir names to be
talked of in connection with any dishonest transaction,
and he suggested that the matter should bo referred, as
the subject was one Which a jury wero not competent to
decide.

Ultimately a verdict was taken for the plaintiff, subject
to the reference.

SHERIFF'S COURT.
(Before Mr. Commissioner Kerr.)
UNSTAMPED RECEIPTS GIVEN BY TILE NEWGATE-MARKET

SALESMEN.-ANDRALE V. COLES.

This was an action to recover a sum of money for meat
sold to defendant, plaintiff being a salesman of Newgato-
market, and defendant a butcher, of the Borough.
Plaintiff's brother was called, and he proved the sale of
the meat, denying that he had been paid for it.
Mr. Edwards, who represented the defendant, said he
had a receipt for the money, and defendant swore that he
had paid the money.
Mr. Edwards produced a receipt, and wished his Honour
to look at it. _

His Honour—ls it stamped !
Mr. Edwards —lt is not, nor is it actually accepted, but
it is in the hand crating of the plaintiff's witness.
His Honour—lt is not stamped ; I cannot look at it.
Defendant—l can swear I paid the money, and the wit-
ness for the plaintiff received it.
Plaintiff's witness—l can swear, to the best of my be-
lief, that I did not receive the money.
His Honour said that the receipt was not stamped, and
he could not look at it. If butchers would take those re-
ceipts they must also put up with the result. He should
find for the plaintiff, as there was no evidence that the
money had been paid.
Mr. Edwards applied that the judgment should be allowed
to stand over until a month, as ho should prefer an indict-
ment at the sessions against plaintiff's witness.
His Honour consented to this course, and found a ver-
dict for the plaintiff, allowing the order to stand over for
a month.