The Sun.
London, England, 1810-08-03 00:00:00

HOPKINS AND LINCOLN V. PEOGLEISE.

his was gn atlion (tried before a Special Jury),
to recover' the sum of 11-91. 1 is. -gd. for thiriy
casks of yellow candle tallow sold to' the de-
fendant. .
GA RROW stated the case on the part of the
plaintiffs., float which it appeared that the ,defend-
ant, a quaker, and resident at BriStol, wrote to the
plaintiffs, who are considerable merchants in the
City of London, desiring them to let him know
their ',price for yellow candle tallow. The plaintith
accordingly informed him, when the defendant, by

a letter, dated the 2311 a day of the •ninth month
(Sept.) 1809, ordered them to forward him the
1-quantity, for the recovery of the amount :of which
thiS attion was brought, the defendant at the same
time reminding the plaintiff that when he used to
;live at another place (Elston) they were in the ha-
' bit of making some deductions from - the •regular
market price tor-goods sent to him, and adding that
if they would still-continue that practice, he might
do a great deal for them in. Bristol ; the goods to be
sent to the Flambro' Wharf, and forwarded by the
Thames and Severn Navigation. The plaintiffs then
set to work to execute this order. The invoice for
the goods was dated the 20th September, but the
letter to, the defendant, inclosing the invoice, was
without a date, 'but, the post-mark to the letter was
l G Oct. 09." Howeter,' about the Bth or 9111 of
the tenth month (October) the defendant obtained
intelligence that a large fleet, principally loaded
.-with tallow, was duly expected from the Baltic,
and expecting that such arrival would tend tolower
the price of that article, the Bristol Quaker wanted
to get off from his, carder to the plaintiff's, thinking
fie might get a little by such conduct, if he' could ,
succeed, and accordingly \wrote them a letter, dated
tentti month, 09," without naming any date,- in-
forming them, that he was not in immediate want of
the tahow, and that if they, thought it would be ac.-
vatitag,eous to wait the arrival of the Baltic fleet, not
to Scud the tallow he had ordered. .This-letter, the
Learin Counsel contended,' did ribt countermand
the peremptory older contained in the letter of Sep-
tember 28, but merely called on-- them to ,exercise-
their judgment as to the time when they should exe-
Cute the order which, had been peremptOrily given
them.—The- plaintiffs had 'received a peremptory or;..
der, and.no peremptory countermand of thaCorder,
and they. had. been desired to exercise their judg-
pent.as to the time of executing such order. They
had exercised their judgment ; they sent the goods;
and-therefore he maintained they had a right to a
verdict. • '

Mr. Thompson was called. He .deposed, that
the piaintiffs had no tallow, till the 12th October
following, the time when the order was given ;
that then 120 casks were landed, which had arrived
from St. Pelersburgh. On the 13th, the day' follow-
ing, 38 casks had been shipped for the flambro'
wharf.

Mr. Williams, the lighterman, deposed, that on
the 12th October, he received directions from the
plaintiffs, to take the goods to the Hatribro' wharf,
in order to be forwarded to Bristol. That order he
could not execute before the lath, fr4,rn the want
of convenient craft. He likewise added, that the
plaintiffs had spoken ro him on the 40a, or sth of
the same utonth, about the. removal of sonic tallow
to the Hambro' wharf. .

. .
Mr, Pigeon, the proprietor of the Hambro' wharf,
proved that the goods to. be forwarded .to the 1:4:..-
frroant, by the 'flames and Severn Navigation to
Bristol, were landed at his wharf un the
.14th Octo-
; if the goods had been tnere on the 12:h they
couid not have gone sooner than they did.
A letter from the defendant, dated in..the -eleventh
mouth was then read, by which he,refuscd to re-
ceive the casks sent to him, and declining .any in-
tei ference with them ;
_and stating ;hat he thought
lie had been u,ed in a very unha•pdsOme manner ;
and he thought that to,send the goo4s at the time
they had been sent, was an. attempt, on the part dt
.plaintltts, to remove.a burden troat'iheir shoulders
on to Ins. He not finding the goods _sent. as
expected, he should decline having any thing to do.
witk thein. •

,Mr. Sampson, Clerk to ." the Average Commit-
tee to regulate the prices of tallow. throughout the
Kinclum," proved that the price of such tallow as
!tad been sent to the, defendant was at 9Ets. on the
13th of October; and that it was at •the same
price on the 6th October preceding. On the 3,1 of
November it was at 955&
The ATToIiNEI GEN ettAL,for the defendant, ob-
served that. his' client resisted the payment of the
demand which the plaintiffs had made, because be
deemed himself justified in so doing.' The defend-
ant had not, norgbuld he have arty sinister designs in
going before a Jury. The plaintiffs had nut landed
•any tallow till the 12th Octouer, therefore
,it could
not be in their contemplation before that time to
execute the defendant's order. The defendant
learnt that a Baltic fleet had arrived, and expected
that that circumstance would-occasion a decline its.
'the 'mice of tallow, therefore wished desired
plaintiff's to wait' the event before tlit:7 tor-
iA;arded the tallow. They did pot do so, and
the defendant thought himself ill used., The
defendant wished then{ to take • advantage of what
altertliards took place, a decline in tae price. of tal-
low. On the 13th of October, the plaintiffs sent a
letter to the defendant, saying that thirty casks had
been sent for him to the Hambro' Wharf; our that
was net the fad, for the casks had not been re-
ceived at the Wharf till the t4th; as had been
proved. The plaintiff,. under these circlanstances
thought that he was nut btsund to take the tallow.
When the plaintiffs inionned the defendant that
they charged so ' much for tallow, he thought
,they had some teady to send, which .1r: I turned
out not to be the' case. -. But he, the ,Attorney=
General, understood, that the son of Mr. 'Hopkins,
one of the plaintiff's, and a Mr. Burgess,. were part-
ners in the concern, while their names were not
meteioped in the record. If that were proved to
be the case, the plaintiffs in the present action must.
be non-suited.

Mr. Benjamin Hopkins was then called. He de-
poSed, that he had a' participation in the profits of
the coAern carried On under the name of “ Hop-
kins and Lincuhi," as a remuneration. for his ser-
vieek That remuneration was after a specified
rate, which he received from the partner Hop-
kins, and' with whom only he had any concern.

)iished by WILLIAM ARMIG E.R SCRIPPS, South Molton.strect, Groavppo—equere.
it. tile Paper, Letters for the Editor, &c. (post-paid); must be addressed. ,