The Sun.
London, England, 1826-10-23 00:00:00

SHINING INTELLIGENCE.

LLOYDS.—(Titts Day.)
DRAL, Ocr. 21 .—Wind variable.--Pasted the Frederick,
Curtis, from Jamaica; Christopher Scott, Dougal, from Vir-
ginia, for London ; the Chief, Pattison, for St. Vincent's ; Cle-
mentine, Warton, ftn. Naples ; and the Malaita, Kent, for Porto
Rico.

Poaystiouvu, OCT. 21.—Wind S. to S.S.E.—Parsed, Lady
Margaret, Cohen, from Calcutta, sailed March 23d, damaged
her rudder and put into Madras, sailed May 7, from the Cape,
Aug. 4, and from St. Helena, 27th ; left at the Cape, the Osprey,
M'Gill, with rudder damaged, and the Castle Forbes.—Re-
main, the Woodbridge; Sir G. Prevost, and Vinelia, all fur
London. . - -

FA LIIOUTH, OCT. 21.—Wind S.E. and S.S.E.--Arrived, the
Sandwich packet, front Lisbon, with dispatches, sailed 11th inst.
Duke of Marlborough packet, do. sailed Bth, and Magnet, ditto,
sailed the 4th.—Sailed, his Majesty's brig Royalist, for Lisbon ;
Cygnet packet, for the Leeward bands, and the Lady Mary
Pelham do. for St. Domingo, Jamaica, and Vera Cruz.

LAW INTELLIGENCE.

COURT OF KING'S BENCH, GIIILDKALL...-(Tale DA 1. )

EVANS V. WARD.

Mr. POL,Locic opened the pleadings.
Mr. Scam.r.wir stated the Cate. This Learned Gentleman's ap-
pearance caused some inerriinent, from the circumstance of his be-
ing without his wig, and in a blue coat and white waistcoat.
After the laugh, in which he joined, had subsided, he expressed
his gratitude for the Bench's indulgence, in allowing him to appear
as he did. The fact was, he had travelled 30 miles this Luorning,
before he reached the Court, and had not had time to get his
wigi &c. His client, he thought, would not have much difficulty.
in obtaining a verdict. The action was brought for the non-per-
formance of a contract. In October, 1824, the plaintiff entered
into a contract with a broker of the name of Linthorn (the agent
of the defendant, Mr. Ward), that he should have the whole Odle
whalebone to be brought from the South Seas by the ship Amity,
at 100/. per ton. The plaintiff had been unable to obtain a'..pet-
forinance of the contract after the ship arrived in 182§Lsul the.
reason probably was, that between the making of ihe'contraet and
the arrival of the ship the price of this article had risen 50 or 60
per cent. The sum sought to be recovered was the differetire be-
tween the 1001. and the aunt at which the whalebone Wal subse-
quently sold.
Thos. Rogers.-.I am clerk to Mr. Linthorp; he is a broker;
he was employed as a broker by Mr. Ward. I have seen this
contract before, I made it as clerk to the defendant, with the plaintiff.
Previously, a contract had been made with a Mr. Ferguson, for
the sale of some whalebone ; he failed, and this contract was
made in consequence, the one with Ferguson having been rescin-
ded. This contract was made on the sth of October, 1824 ; a
copy of it I sent to the defendant on the same night. I saw him
the following day on 'Change. He then told me he would not
sign it,, for Mr. Linthorn had no authority to make such a con-
trait ; 1 received back the copy I had sent ; .something had been
written on the back, with a pencil, hilt I could not make out
what it was ; accounts rather unfavourable to the fishery had
been received that morning ; this account did not affect the price
of the whalebone at the moment, but it was afterwards confirmed,
and the price advanced perhaps 50 per cent. After the contract
with Ferguson was cancelled, Mr. Linthorn mentioned this con-
tract with the plaintiff,to. as a thing to be attended
_

Linthorn had been out of town when
this contract was made, for some time, and did not return till long
afterwards.' I had no personal knowledge of Mr. Ward, till I
was introduced to him on the Exchange, on the morning he told
me he had given no authority to make the contract. I did not
then know the place where the defendant carried on his business.
The defendant told me that at that moment he had not received
the contract ; be bad left his home, to which it had been sent,
before it arrived. I entered the contract in our book, but the
book was not signed. I had told Mr. Tennant, with whom a
contract was made when the one was made with Ferguson, which
also was afterwards rescinded, that I had made this agreement
with the plaintiff, and he informed the plaintiff of what I had said
to him before I saw Lim on 'Change.
Re-examined.—Mr. Linthorn is very often out of town at par.
titular seasons of the year. 1 attend to his business when he is
out. I had the same. authority to transact this business for Mr.
Linthorn, that I have Jad for doing every thing else that I have
done for him.

Benjamin Linthorn.-1 am a broker. Remember the con-,
tracts with Ferguson and Tennant; they werseancellerl with the,
approbation of all parties.. The whalebone was sold at 1001. a
ton, and when these eontracts were zescintled, Mr. Ward told itie
he would sell at the same price, the moment he could get a good
buyer, and I understood the defendant that I was to sell again at
that price if I could get it. My clerk effected the sale in my
absence.
Cross-examined..--I did not consider myself authorised to sell
the whalebone without Mr. Ward's authority.
Re-examined--My habit is this, if a merchant gives me autho.
rity to sell at 100/. a ton to-day; if could effect it to-day I
would, but if I could not until to-morrow, I should conclude the
contractcontract twviatshmaoutdeagwaiinthem
Fergusonnni an
catiing with that merchant. The
the 17th Sept. ; it must have
been cancelled in about twelve days afterwards ; on the same day
I told Mr. Ward that Ferguson had failed, and that the contract
was rescinded. It wee on that day he told ma he would take the
same price of another buyer.. He did nut name any time within
which only he would take that mousy, but from my habits of dealt
ing with him I should not have considered myself justified in sell,-
ing on Any other day without renewed authority.
By the Cousr--1 have had several 'dealings with Mr. Ward,
hitt never transacted business fbr him except on the days I hall
Thomas Newman...7T am a clerk to the plaintiff. On. the 8*
communication with him.
of May I Produced on behalf of the plaintiffs Contract to tbeds.
fentlant, asked for the whalebone, and tendered 6001. The'd".,
fendant said he did not know any thing of the plaintiff's busincie
on this occasion.
John Litscomb.-,-I am a landing waiter. at the
,Custeros.
tended to the chip Amity; on her arrival the quantity of whale-
bone taken out of her was 79 cwte.
made
eilwliaitinh
nSipeecoknmbal.al—flofan Iwiroaktacern;., therefor
its
question. I sold it to Messrs. Robivaon and Co. in the beginne'
of 1t3211, at 1851. per ton. Iswits only subpoenaedbeginning
shout an hour
ago, and.therefore have had no opportunity, of ref,- eh'
raory with respect to particulars. e-. ing my
Watson--I purchased the whalebone, which
sold ; II got 135/. for the most of it, but
afterwards
m much am 160/. for
some of it, a ton. the7washo.alontrui
Cleaeby—l am ',broker ; at the beg'll-
315i13, the prips of whaleboutanta from _ a inning of
1.101. to 170/. pee tott...,

I have been many years a broker ; if I received an authority to
sell, should there be no alteration in the markets, I do not con-
eider it necessary to communicate again with my principal before I
effect the sale.

Mr. AEnxnaoN addressed the Jury for the defendant, the
grounds of defence were, that from the mode of dealing between
Mr. Linthorn and hie client, he had had no authority to effect thi
sale, Mr. L. not having communicated with the defendant on the
day on wbieh the supposed contract was entered into; and that,
even if Mr. L. had bad authority, yet that his clerk had not, so
as to have enabled him to hare acted conclusively, without the fur-
ther sanction either of his master or Mr. Ward.
The COURT summed up, and left it to the jury to diapOse of.
If they were satisfied that Mr. Linthorn bad had a general autho-
rity to sell on behalf of the defendant, there could be no doubt of
the plaintiff's being entitled to a verdict for about 140/. ; if the
authority was not general, and that the defendant was entitled to
have been communicated with again before the contract was made.
the decision would have to be in his favour.-...Verdict for the
defendant.