The Sun.
London, England, 1832-05-03 00:00:00

DILLON v. rimy's.

This was a remanet case from last Michaelmas term, in
an action brought by Mr. Thomas Damn, of Dublin, to
recover from Mr. Phipps, the editor and proprietor of the
News, Sunday newspaper, in Catherine-street, Strand, a
certain sum for goods sold and delivered in 1828. The
goods were 21611,5. of ink, asbich were valued at Is. Id.
the pound, part payment of which had been made, though
not acknowledged in stating the case, from some legal
tact on the part o! Mr. Sergeant BosirAs, who stated for
the plaintiff.
John Southgate, a printer, of the Courier and News
establishment, was subposnaed to prove that the ink had
been received and used ; but he was evidently a reluctant
witness, and in cross-examination by Mr. Sergeant WILDE,
he said that the ink given had proved so had in the us..,
that the establishment was obliged to use it in printing the
broadsides or placard papers, which being printed on one
side only, did not require ink so good as for other printing
purposes. The ink was of agi itry and sedimental qua.
lity, invariably besmearing the paper for which it was
used to print, generally discoloured with a yellowish tint,
and difficult to be used by the printers ; often in printing
the Courier, the ink bad to be rejected or used for infe-
rior purposes; so in printing the News the establishment
was often placed in such a dilemma as to send out to bor-
row or buy other ink, to answer the emergency ; some of
the ink had, indeed,• been used, but much of it had be 21
refused, because incapable of being used for any efficient
purpose. Besides, the price was extravagant ; for now
very good ink may be had at one shilling the pound; and
ink used for broadsides (for which alone Southgate said
Mr. Dillon's ink was useful or applied of late) was not
more than 6d. or Bd. the pound. S nithgate acknow.
ledges be gets commission-money from the ink-supplier at
present of the establishment ; but he volunteered an asser-
tion that Dillon had promised, but not given commission
also, and to a greater amount than another.
Sergeant WILDE contended, on behalf of Mr. Phipps,
that the demand had actually been paid, and produced a
b,s.4oerateut3iialiviites'ides
receipt by Mr. Dillon, dated August 6, 1830, for 61. 14s.
Now, considering the inferior quality of the ink, and the
remonstrances made by Mr. Phipps, this his client con-
sidered a satisfactory payment for the whole, although at a
calculation of is. Id. in the pound it would not pay for
the 2161b5. ; nor was it ever contemplated by Mr. Phipps
to pay at that price for the
.whole quantity of such a fina-
lity. This the very expressions of the receipt, and of the
therefore, Mr. Dillon could come at this
letter from which that receipt originated, evidently maid-
ifieesrtie;,lll. to demand a full charge for an inferior article lie
compositor of the
was utterly astonished. He called
Ne3t!sr. P.Gipeeorr)gteo csoPrArorbdoirialete(tfloiantnpeadryt of Southgate's evi.
!epee, which went to prove that the ink was inferior, and
used principally, if not. solely, for the broadsides.
Sergeant BoMPAS, in reply, said that his client hail
yet accepting part payment of a sum does not cer-
tainlyne-
gative received part of the money, but it was only on ac_
the demand of tie other part. Again, the ink had
used at first for the paper, though afterwards for. the
—because, from the improper manner, and the
long time it had ban
kept, it was rendered inferior ; bu.
us client should not be made responsible for that. Th,
.fury returned a verdict for the defendant.