The Sun.
London, England, 1827-02-10 00:00:00

LAW INTELLIGENCE.

COURT OF COMMON PLEAS, WESTMINSTER, FIB. 9.
While the Court were occupied in taking justifications of bail,
a person appeared to justify, against whom the attorney for the
plaintiff had made an affidavit, in which he stated that this was an
improper person to be accepted as bail, having been previously
tried as a receiver of stolen goods.
The COURT inquired of him whether this statement were true?

He replied, that he certainly had been tried as a receiver of
stolen goods, and before one of their Lordships (Mr. Justice Gase-
lee), who had honourably acquitted him.
The COURT now inquired whether the affidavit stated the cir-
cumstance of his acquittal, and on being answered in the negative,
their Lordships expressed themselves in strong terms on the con-
duct of the attorney, who must have been acquainted with this
fact also. They would not listen to an affidavit of this kind, and
should accept the bail.

SMITH V. SPARROW.

This was an action on a contract, which the plaintiff alleged
the defendant had entered into, in the purchase of a large quan-
tity of nutmegs. It appeared that on a Sunday in February,
1925, the brother of the plaintiff, who acted as a broker, called
on the defendant, who resided at Stockwell, and inquired if he
felt inclined to do any thing in spices. The plaintiff answered
he should have no objection, provided he could do it with ad-
vantage to himself. James Smith, the broker, then informed
him he had a large quantity of nutmegs, which he wasieclined
to dispose of at a rate of lie. 6d. per lb. Some dispute arose
as to the price, but the defendant finally agreed to take
them at 1 ls. 3d. per lb. The defendant had little doubt
but that by Ckristmas the nutmegs would he worth His.
per lb., and on James Smith inquiring whether he should'
resell them if an advantageous offer occurred, he replied
he might, provided he could obtain 12s. 6d. per lb.—
Immediately after this transaction, however, an alteration took
place in the market, and nutmegs fell in a short time, to 6s. 6d.
per lb., and after that so low as Ss. 6(1. About this time the
prompt became due, but the defendant refused to recognize, upon
which the present action was brought, and was tried before the
Lord Chief Justice at Guildhall, during the sittings after last term.
It was objected on the part of the defendant—first, that as the
whole of the transaction had been conducted by James Smith,
who had never given in the name of his principal, the defendant
had naturally supposed that he was dealing with him and no
other, consequently an action could not be maintained against him
by another person ; and secondly, that as the contract had been
made on a Sunday, it was void. On these grounds the Lord Chief
Justice had non-suited the plaintiff.
Mr. Sergeant WILDE had accordingly moved and obtained a
rule to show cause why the nonsuit should not be 'set aside, and
a. new trial granted.
Mr. Sergeant VAUGHAN now appeared to oppose the rule,
and conforming with the direction of the Court, he confined him-
self solely to the question as to the validity of a contract which
had been made on a Sunday. He contended that a contract en-
tered into on that day could not be binding on the defendant.

Mr. Sergeant WILDE and Mr. Sergeant SPANKIE, in support
of the rule, urged that this transaction on the Sunday had been
conducted entirely by the broker, and without the knowledge of
the plaintiff, who was not at all aware that it had taken place on
that day. They therefore thought this objection could not now
be brought against him.

The LOAD 'CHIEF JUSTICE, in deciding this case, remarked,
that he was dearly of the same opinion that he was at the trial,
that the plaintiff should be nonsuited. Speculations of this kind
had arrived at a dangerous height in the city, and were fre-
quently the means of doing great injury. They now occurred
so frequently, that the Ro: al Exchange was become an arena of
the grossest and very worst description of gambling. His Lord-
ship was most decidedly of opinion that the nonsuit should stand,
The rest of the Court fully concurred.

We have heard a report, which we cannot trace to
any certain foundation, that a lady residing on the Steyne was
poisoned a few days since by her footman (a foreigner), for some
grudge he entertained, but that fortunately, from the timely appli-
cation of proper restoratives, no fatal consequences ensued.—
Brighton Gazette