The Sun.
London, England, 1810-08-02 00:00:00

AYRES V. HUGHES.

This was an action brought td -recover damages
for an assault. The plaintiffs Was a caulker, •and
defendant a shipwright they .were foremen in their
different - departments to. Mr. ThOmpson, -a
builder: the dispute arose about' removing a stage
froth alon“Side the ship Tobago the plaintiff tad
the defendant he was a liar, on 'which he pulled
his nose.
Verdict for' the plaintiff, damages 201. - •

1 COURT OF COMMON PLEAS, JULY 25.

BRAGG V. THORNTON.

This was an action brought to recover the sum
of 501. 164. 6d. alleged to have been paid by plain-
tiff to detendant, in consideration of fAte latter
performing a certain contract, which he hd nor
done. •

The plaintiff is a ship owner, and the defendant,
who, is a ;'roculer of seamen, had engaged in May.
last to supply five sailors to, go .on board a Veii;el,
called the John, Dent, -belo.aging to plaintiff, aud
-bound on a .voyage to Martinique. The defendant
prOcured the Men accordingly, but declined taking.
them himv.::ll down to 'Gravesend, where the ship
was supposed to lie, and delivered them up to the
care Of Defendant received ten guineas
for procuring the men, and three of the latter, were
each paid 51. (a month's wades) in advance ; one,
not being an able-bodied seaman, received but 41;
and the sth, having no account to settle with th 4
defendant; chose to receive his money on board the
ship at Gravesend. These different sums were
paid into the hands of defendant by plaintiff, with
two drafts—Piaintaf also discharged some contin-
gent expenses, amounting to 6S. 6d. Making,.
with the former sums, the whole amount mention-
ed in the deelaratton, and now sought to he recover,
ed. At the time plaintiff delivered the first draft,
he inquired what security defendant would give'for
the performance of the agreement-? To this the lat-
ter answered, there-could be no doubt of the men
performing the voyage : if they:did not, he would
return the money..
.Mr. Bragg then took the men
down to Gravesend, but when they arrived there the
John Dent had sailed. He then accompanied-them
to town in the Gravesend boat, and they went shout-
-their business. In a few, days the plaintiff nailed
on defendant, and demanded the men ; the-latter,
informed him, that he knew nothing about :John) ;
however, he accompanied plaint-alto several hougo
in search ,of them, but 'ineffectually. Plaintiff
stated that' he had anOther•ship ready for them to
go on board ; or if they would rather go . the ori-
ginal voyage, he would pay their expellees to Ports-
mouth, wnere the ship then was.. As • the men,
however, were not to be found, he demanded his
money back, A'lnch being retused,he brought- the,
present adion.
' Mr. Serjeant BEST contended, that defendant had
forfeited the money, which he had agreed to return,
if the men did not go the voyage. •
Mr. Serjeant VAVGILAN maintained, that dete'ld-
. ant, -haying given up 'the Men to, Mr. Bragg-, and
having previbusly informed him that he could
not take them to Gravesend, was ro farther respon'-'
sible.. If principle euntended for were ad-
mitted, v.z. that the'defendatit:had entered into.tin
agreement that the men should go the voyage, .or
else the Money be returned, it must be evident,
that if. they ran from the vessel at Gibraltar, or
any other • port, before. the voyage was complete,
he Might be, sued, as well as in the pFeserit in-
stance.

Chief-Justice MANSFIELD--" The contra& was,
that the Men should sail from - Gravesend. It was
the fault of the plaintiff if he permitted the vessel
to sail before the liminess was finished. •No blame
could-be ihiputable to the crimp, who had nothing
more to do ,when the men were delivered up; and
'the plaintiff, was satimfied to take them down. the
,River."

Plaintiff non-suited, with leave to enter a verdit
•
'.lor the two drafts, ur either of Wein.