The Sun.
London, England, 1826-10-16 00:00:00

WINNEL V. XXIGUT.

The plaintiff was a silversmith, and the defendant an tltiorney
of this Court. The action was brought to recover va-
lue of certain plate supplied to the defendant by the plaintife The
goods had been sent so long ago as the beginning of last year, and
rather than have had a law suit, and particularly with a lawyer,
the plaintiff had agreed even to take back the goods, which how-
ever had not been returned.

Hennell, jun., was the son of the plaintiff. Took the
order for the plate supplied from a Mr. Griffiths, for the de-
fendant, which he transmitted to their Sheffield house. Several
times witness had called on the defendant for the account, after
the articles had been sent in, which the defendant refused to pay,
saying there had been a scandalous overcharge made. The goods
were charged'at a fair price.
• Cross-examined by Mr. PoLLocx.—The goods were never re-
turned to the plaintiff's house, after they had been sent to the
defendant, and then forwarded agiin to Mr. Knight.
• Mr. Pollock's eyidence would change the appearance of the case
altogether. A very excellent set of plate had been produced, which
Mr. Knight (by Mr. Griffiths) agreed to purchase, desiring
some slight alterations to be made on the articles. The ar-
ticles were then taken away to have those alterations made,
and being surprised at the time that elapsed between the taking
away of the goods and returning them, the defendant discovered
the trick that had been practised by the plaintiff. An excellent
set had been shown ; that set had been bought, and instead of
making the desired alterations, the plaintiff had got a new set alto-
gether made, much inferior to the set bought, which had been at
length sent to the defendant, but which he immediately objected to.
The goods had been ever since lying at the defendant's as the
plaintiff's property.
Edwin Griffith..—! am an Officer in the army ; I am particu-
larly acquainted with the defendant; I was present in Mr.
Knight's house when young Mr. Hennell called with some plate ;
I selected a set from what he brought, and he was sent back for
the remainder of the set. He went for the remainder, which be
brought. This was the set Mr. Knight was to have, with a
slight alteration on the tea-pot, and the crest was to be pat on
the set. The crest was to be put on this very set. It
was taken away on the same evening for this purpose. This was
on the 10th of January,' 1825. I have seen the set at Mr.
Knight's, which was sent Aim subsequently ; they differ in pattern
in the first place from the set ordered, and I do nut think them
so showy nor so good as those ordered. I saw the plaintiff
and his son after this at their shop, when I told the plain-
tiff the defendant was determined not to have the set sent to
him... I saw the very set in a glass case that I had purchased for
the defendant. I pointed to the set in the glass-case, and said,
that was the pattern. The plaintiff said it might be so.
By Mr. Guaxxv—The goods were all plated. The tea-pot
was to be taken back, a larger supplied, and an extra guinea paid
fur this.

Dr. Ilelville-1 am acquainted with Mr. Knight ; 1 saw the.
part of a aet,of plate at Mr. Ilenuell's, which he told me was ir,
tended for thS defendant. Afterwards I saw the defendant, aAd
again' called' at the plaintiff's to say, that Mrs. Knight Irt ntld
not have the goods,' they had been delayed so long in being seu
,t, in,
Verdict for the plaintiff, 13/, is. 6d: ; costs 40s.