The Sun.
London, England, 1826-10-12 00:00:00

LAW INTELLIGENCE.

COURT OF KING'S BENCH—OunamAtt--.(Tilis DAT.

COLN V. AI6GOVVA.N.

Mr. CAMPBELL stated that the plaintiff had been in part-
nership with another, and had carried on the business of
stationers ; the defendant, among other businesses, sold
type, at the West-end of town. From the end of 1822
till the close of 1824 the plaintiff, with his partner, had
been in the habit of supplying
at which time the partnershipthe defendant with paper,
was dissolved, and the
claim on the defendant amounted to 1,5001. An account
was then delivered to the defendant; he subsequently called
on the plaintiff, who continued to carry on the stationery busi-
but one item of W.; Mr. Cole could not satisfactorily explain
found it all correct
ness, and said he had looked over it, told
this item, and Therefore had assented to forego that sum ;
but had not been able to succeed in getting paid, though
the defendant had promised repeatedly to close the
account.

Mr. DENMAN contra, claimed a set off for type that the
defendant had delivered to the partnership.
The learned Counsel then suggested a reference. This
was agreed to, and
The Jury found a verdict for the plaintiff, damages
1,600/., subject to a reference of the cause and all matters
in dispute.

THOMAS V. CRANSTON.

Mr. Potiocic was for the plaintiff.
The action was by
the indorsee against the acceptor of a bill of exchange for
291, Oi. 'When the ihdorso called on the ticieutiant, who

lives at No. 11, Fish-street-hill, when the bill became due,
for payment of it, at first he said the bill had been ac-
cepted for-the accommodation of the drawer, who was to
have supplied him (the defendant) with the means of
paying it, but who had not done so, and therefore he
should not pay it. On another occasion he did promise to
pay it.—Verdict for the plaintiff 29/. be.

SIMMONS V. ROCK.

Mr. MARRYATT stated the cue to the jury. The plain-
tiff resided in Gloucester-street, Queen-square, and
let lodgings. The defendant was an attorney in the coun-
try, and took apartments of the plaintiff, for which he was
to pay Si. a quarter; he occupied the rooms fifteen months
and bad paid Si. on account of the rent, but the plaintiff
had not been able to get the balance. There was some-
thing on account, of which no charge was to be made, and
therefore the plaintiff only went for 10/.
The plaintiff's daughter proved the agreement, and the
occupation on the part of the defendant.
Verdict for the plaintiff, 101.

DICKINSON AND OTHERS V. MOSES.
Mr. MARRYATT was for the plaintiff.
The action was brought by the plaintiffs, as assignees
of a bankrupt named Creed, who had carried on the busi-
ness of a man-mercer, against a publican of the name of
Moses, residing in Vinegar-yard, Drury-lane, for the pur-
pose of recovering goods belonging to the bankrupt's
estate, which he had got into his possession under cir-
cumstances of fraud, and after knowing that an act of
bar

__Akruptcy had been committed. The defendant was in
he habit of looking out for what is called bargains—cloth
bargains and was introduced to the bankrupt by a person
named Isaacs, of whom he had bought the goods infinitely
below what they were invoiced at to the bankrupt. When
rogues fall out, sometimes honest men get their own, and
therefore the Learned Counsel thought the information

that would support this action had been communicated by
Mr. Isaacs, in consequence of having had a dispute with
his associate the defendant, probably about the commission
he was to have received from Mr. Moses. The defendant
refused to buy the goods even at the low prices at which
he obtained them, until after he had seen the invoices of
them to the bankrupt.
Mr. D. Cook proved the act of trading, and petitioning
creditor's debt; and also a demand made upon the defend-
ant for, the goods alleged to have been fraudulently ob-
tained by him.
George d'Esfonge had lived with the bankrupt in 1824
and in part of 1825 as shopman. The bankrupt was insolvent
during the whole time witness lived with him, several executions
were put into his house. In September het year, he entered into
an arrangement with his creditors to pay them by. instalments,
one of which was to be paid in March, 1826. To meet this ar-
rangement, the bankrupt sent out goods to pawnbrokers, and
other places, for the purpose of raising money. Remembers
Mr. Emanuel Moses being introduced to the bankrupt by Mr.
Isaacs; Moses called at the bankrupt's in October last
to buy bargains. The bankrupt stated that he was
embarrassed, and wished to raise money ; Moses saw the goods,
and also the invoices of these goods to the bankrupt. It was
agreed that if the defendant bought any of the goods, the invoice
or invoices of such as he should buy should be made out to him in
the name of Isaacs, as the seller. There were invoices of three
different parcels of goods made out in this way to the
defendant, of the goods he saw and bought. Two of
the invoices ivere made out by Isaacs, and witness believed
the other to have been written by the defendant himself. The in-
voices were all made out in the name of kW. ; the total amount
was 1481. of the goods so invoiced, and which cost the bankrupt
just about double that sum. The defendant offered to buy the
whole of the goods the bankrupt had at a given sum, and said he
could convey the whole away, without any of the creditors know-
ing any thing about it. This offer was not accepted.
By Mr. OUlLNEV.—Saerifices were made by embarrassed per-
sons, but it was not usual to make a sacrifice of the one-half.
Henry Isaacs, examined by Mr. CHITTY—Knew both the
bankrupt and defendant ; introduced the bankrupt to the defend-
ant; defendant offered to pay witness 5 per cent. for any of the
goods hi might buy belonging to the bankrupt, the invoices to be
made out by witness. Witness, defendant, and the bankrupt, met
in October, 1624. Defendant said to the bankrupt, " You rogue,
" I may as well have a bargain as any body else ; I have got a 1001.
note here, which has never been changed, and I shall buy the whole

lot." Defendant added, that he could convey away the goods in hack-
ney-coaches, and the creditors of the bankrupt would never know
soy thing about it. Witness *hewed the bankrupt's invoices of
the good. to_ bloSee before he bought them, and desired him to give
the best , price be could. Delinniant said he would not give
more than about Bs. (id. a yard fur cloths that were invoiced to
the bankrupt at lbs. or lbs. lid. a yard. At the defendant's
request, the invoices were made out in the name of witness as
the seller. The goods were taken away by a porter at night,
employed by the defendant. Since this action had been brought
the defendant had had interviews with witness respecting 1-60
ing town till after the opportunity of trying this setiou was over.
By Mr. GuaNtrr—Did not say to the defendant, that it' he re-
ceived 20/. he would go into the country. Told defendant that he
had behaved to him (witness) like a rogue, but yet that he Itati
no desire to hurt him, or to appear at the trial on either• side.
Defendant stated, that if the verdict was against him it would
ruin him.

- Swain, a shop= of Mr. Dickinson, proved that the
goods sold to the di.fendant at 108. 6d. a yard, were previously
sold by his principal to the defendant at 15s. Od. Mr. Dickin-
son's profit had only been about 5 per cent.
Mr. GUANEY could not resist a verdict; but the question was,
what the amount of that verdict ought to, be. He considered
that the amount ought not to exceed the difference between the

10.. 6d. per yard pail, and the 15a. 6d. stated to be the price
of the goods to the bankrupt.

The-Lonn Otter Jusites: said, there was no doubt of the
plaintiff's being entitled to recover for the full value of the goods,
without any regard to the Sum that bad been paid to the bankrupt
by the defendant. The amount of the goods to the bankrupt was
about 170/. and it would be for the jury to say whether that sum
ought to be the amount of the verdict.-.-Damages, 150/.