The Sun.
London, England, 1817-07-19 00:00:00

COURT OF KING'S BENCH, 3mA' IL

.146.ndat Sittings after Trinity Term, before Mr.
Justice ABBOTT (who •scrt Pr Lord ELLENBO-
ROUGH), and Special. Juries.
• naßßlsoti V. TODD AND Moititt3oll•

• Tbis•was-an action of trover to recover the stun.
of 3111. 4s. 2d. the amount of a quantity of rib-
boils 'told and delivered to the detendant3, who
are wholesale haberdashers in- fore-street,
Critt-
lilef;ate, by the plaintiff, who is a ribbon-manu-
facturer, and for-which the former refused to. pay
or return the. goods.•
The circumstances on the part tithe
•as stated by Mr. GURNRY, were these:—Theplaiii-
tiffis a ribbon-manufacturer. -employing 100 men
and.6o, women (as. is eiLstontarv.in his trade). in
going his rounds to different haberdashery ware_
houses to dispose of hk goods. Ule-came to the
house of the defendants, b hewed his s.pecirens,
and agreed to sv l 0 qmolitity. a r vett price.s•
stated. and prices were approved by

p: 4,00 vi.hom agrve-
on, in, a.l,rk in time fionse of I detkilf!ant, usually
employed in buying, who told the plaint iff he should
shew the goods,and state the pi ices to Mr. Morrison,
and if be approved of them the bargain was settled,
and the plaintiff might call in a day Or two for his
money, and he was to allow 71- per cent. off time
invoice charge, in consideration of prompt pay-
ment. The plaintiff accordingly called again as
desired, butt was informed that he could neither
have money nor goods, for that the goods had
been seized on by the assign-es aids father, who
had been a bankrupt, and whose goods they were
ged to be, and that they were taken away by a
messenger front the Commissioners of Bankrupts.
The plaintiff, conscious that this allbgitioo was
wholly unfounded, and the goods were really his
own, and never had belonged to his father, brotight
the. present action.:
The Clerk in the house of Todd and Morrison,
who had made the bargain and received the got.uls,
was •examilted MA witness. lie admitted the fact
of the bargain, and promise. to pay the money in
-a day of I'NO, if Mr. Morrison should approve
the goods and teeters ; but he- stated that there
Was one of the Assignees to the Bankruptcy of the
eider Harrison in the house at the time the goods
were left.; that lie was informed of the circum-
stance, saw the goods, and concluded they be-
longed to the estate of the bankrupt, and the next
day there came to the house a messenger accom-
panied by another person, and carried the goods
away, but that they gave an indemnity to Todd
and .Mortison.

, Mr. Justice ABBOTT, in stating the evidence to,
the Jury, observed, that the tlefendauts had no
right whatever to change the possession of the
property, On the grmind of any conversation they
migl►t have with the Assignees of the elder Har-
rison. They had received the goods from the
plaintiff by their accredited clerk, on the specific
promise.of paying. the money for them in a day or
two, if Mr. Morrison approved the articles and the
price. It was therefore their duty to pay the
money or return th'e goods ; any question touch-
Mg the property in the goods lay between the
AsSignees of the' eider Harrison and the plaintiff,
and therefore the proper course for the As,ignees
to pursue, would be to file .a bill in the Court of
Chancery, and the Lord Chancellor would have
directed an issue to try the question in a regular
way before an inferior Court, and .to decide the
question of property' in the artieleS ; but the de-
fendants had no right whatever to transfer the
property to any other hands than those of the plAn-
tiff, and he must be answerable to 103 in this
ection.

Verdict for the plaintiff ; but referred out of
Court to decide whether the defenihatit was en-
.
titled to deduct the discount.

LIGHTFOOT V. GORDON;

• This was an action to recover the pensity of
'LOW. under the Act of the 7th Gen. 2, for having
Wig:tined- to deliver to the phintitt a-certain quan-
tity of stock in the funds,-nndef certain considera-
tions, on a particahir day, whereas in fact he had
no such stock to deliver, and refused to perform his
contract.

The Act in.questio-n was passed for the potting
an curl to theTractice of gmnbling in the stocks
bv.pers.ntis,whOreally-tneant to transfer no stock,
nor had -anyto transfer, but was merely a pre-
tence for laying %ragers respecting the eventual
price of stocks-. on a specific ►lay, and paying to or
receiving tram each other the difference, accord-
ing•to the sums of the %vager.

Mr. GEMNEY, for the plaintiff, stated. that.bis
client, Mr. Lightfoot, was a real dealer in the
funds, and did not act for the sake of mere,gam-
bling, but with an intent really to receive the stock
agreed for on the given day, and to pay the price
agreed on. Mr. Gordon, however, was in the lmnbit
of .making such bargains with quite different views.
F9t when he, made those bargains he did it with
fain intention, if stocks should fall in the interim
from the price agreed on; he would be very ready
to make good his bargain, because he miLlit put
handsome gains into 1118 pocket r but it stocks
should rise, and it might cost him a good Sun) to
make g‘usd his agreement, then,he had no stock
to deliver and would pay ;no difference. He had
agreed•with a Mr. T. Lightfoot, the plaintiff, on
the Nth of Jan. last, to deliver to him at a given
price, on the 27th Feb. Consols to the amount of
50.001;--.-but when the day arrived, Storks had eon
siderahly, risen, andit wwild have'cost the defendant
a considerable sum to make good his bargain ; but he
found it more convenient to say he hail no stock,
and worthd pay no difference, and told the plaintiff
he might take 'his remedy at law. Mr. Lightfoot
finding lie had no redress in that way, was. advised
to, resort for reparation to this action, on the 7th
of Geolge 11. against a ruin Nvho was•certainly a
proper object _lor the severities of that Act ; and
the result would teach Mr, Gordon in future never
to make such engagemerits but upon much larger
slims, the profits on veliich would better enable
hint to parthe penalty.
Joseph Lightfoot was sworn as a witness, and
corroborated the facts stated by Mr. Gurnev—...bot
It appeared on his cross=examioation by Mr.
Topping, that- he was himself the principal in this
action, and had instructor' the Attorney to sue,
!and not his brother, Thomas, in whose name the
action was brought, consequently lie was, tinder
the direction of ihe Learned Judge, Nonsui;cd..

BURK V. ROYAL EXCHANGE' ASSURANCR COMPNNY.

This was an action brought by•the plaintiff as
owner of the ship Carolina, which was insured by
the•detendants fin her voyage front Amsterdwn to
Petersborgh. in her passage site was detained'
hv the ice at Biorko Sound, and cinnpelled to
wiitter there. Front the intensity Of the cold, the
crew were landed, and a house provided fott theM
on shore, while the ship .was left to the care of.
the mate. This person, in the month of January,
had made A fire in the cabin of-t-he ship, and slit)•
t;equently. went on board another vessel, for the
purposQ of procuring a greater degree of Warmth.
At twelve o'cloels;tat uight, the mate looked Co-
wards his ship, and saw that she was perfectly
safe, but at four o'clock in the morning, when
.he ug„in lonked, tie vessel was in flames, anti
was nearly destroyed..
Witnesses wei.e. called, on the. part of the plain-,
tiff,fitO'provc That it was the custom in Russia for
the' sailors to leave their ships in winter. In
Cronstadt, no out Vida sacred to* be oil board,

nor was and• fire permitted, but the vessel was
placed tinder the superintendame of the Police:
At Riga and Biorlio tires were permitted, and it
was usual to have a watchman on•board.

Mr. SCAIIf.P.TT cOntended, on the part of the
defendanti, that the accident had happened frcoi
the culpable negligence of the Mate, and that the
plainfiff" was therefore not entitled to recover.--
The ship conid nQt have been destroyed in the_
,A'ay it was, if the Mate lool.taken due care to ex-
tiugaish-the fire in'the cabin.

Mr. Justice ABBOT, in his charge to the Jury,
:observed, that fire was one or the things which
the insuratkce—covered, but it was the duty of the'
party insuring- to take care that his vessel was
seaworthy, and that she was placed under the di-
rection of competent persons ; whether the latter
has been the case in this instance it was for the
v determine.
Verdict for the defendants.

LORD MAYOR'S COURT, GUILDIIAL4

THE NEW POST-OFFICE:

THE CORPORATION OF LoNDON V MARY HOOD.

. .
This was an. inquiry to ascertain the amount of
compensation due to the tfefendant, who was'
claimant in the case, for a compulsory removal,:
tinder the Act of Parliament for the erection of a
New POst-Office, from a,house occupied by her
in St. Martin's.le-Grand, and which was situated
on the scite of the intended erection.
The-Commos SERJ.EANT stated the case to the-
Jury on the pait of the Corporation, end ob-
served; that the stmrof 2001. bad been offered 5y
I Irett body to -the claimant as a fair remuneration
fof her losS and damages. He should prove that
tire snin tendered to the defendant was fully ade.
(plate to the loss sustained by hvr. The sum
claimed by- the defendant was 15701. which he was'
confident the Jury would consider most enormous,,,
and totally wide of that to which she was fairly.
entitled.

Mr. Montagne, the City Surveyor, proved the
value of the prettiises, loss of y trade, &r. and
he considered that 200/. was a very liberal cont..
pensation for the removal.

Air. Kaye, Surveyor to the Post-Office, deposed
to the same effect.

Berjeant C)PLE•i" briefly addressed the Jury
in support of the claim set up by the defendant,
which he should prove was by no means so ettor-
tuous-,"and " %vide of the mark.," as the Lear )ed
Common Serjeant had wished to sheer.,
Mr. Bevan, a'surveyor, and several other per-
sons, were then called to prove the value of the-
premises, the profits of the trade carried on h%;
Mrs. Hood, which was that of 'a tailor, and the
Toss and inconvenience sustained by thee removal
of that bUsines's to another neighbourhood.
The ,COMMONT SiqUEANT‘ having commented
upon the evidence on both sides, left it to the
jury to give such damage as the justice of the
case scented to demand.

The Jury consulted a few moment's, and re=
turned a vt!rfliet, awarding to the claimint the
sion of 4001. being 2001. over and above the offer
wade by the City of LLo►:don.