The Sun.
London, England, 1827-01-10 00:00:00

LAW INTELLIGENCE.

COURT OF KING'S BENCH, GUILDHALL, JAN. 9.
LIABILITY TO SERVE ON JURIES.
On the name of Mr. James Kemp being called in the first spe-
cial jury list this morning, that gentleman having answered, and
taken his place in the jury-box, submitted to the Lord Chief Jus-
tice that he was not eligible to serve ;—1 st, because he was not en-
gaged in any trade, but merely employed in a public office ; and,
?.dly, because he was not a housekeeper, hut only occupied a part
of a house in the city.
The Lonn CHIEF JCSTICE having inquired of Mr. Kemp whe-
ther his family were domiciled in the city, and having received an
answer in the affirmative, expressed his opinion that Mr. Kemp
had been rightly summoned, and was qualified to serve.
Mr. Kemp was then accordingly sworn.
ME.I.HUISH AND CO. F. PEARSON.
This was an action to recover from the defendant a considerable
sum of money, which the plaintiff had advanced a third party on
the credit of a quantity of cotton goods, of which the defendant is
said to have been, jointly with a firm of Fielding, Brander, and
Co. purchasers. The circumstances of the case were briefly these :
In December, 1823, Messrs. Melhuish, who are extensive mer-
chants in London, received advices from the firm of Fielding and
Co. merchants, of Rio de Janeiro, with whom they were in cor-
respondence, and had had dealings, that these latter had given an
order for cotton goods to the amount of 1,012/. 18s. 3d. to the
house of Brown and Co. of Lisbon, to be forwarded to their
(Fielding's) order to Rio Janeiro. Rills of lading and invoices of
the cargo were at the same time transmitted, and it was notified
to the plaintiffs that they were required to accept hills of exchange
for the amount of the goods in favour of Messrs. Brown, of Lisbon,
the vendors. The plaintiffs accordingly gave their acceptances as
requested, •
which were duly honoured, and in return received bills
of exchange front Fielding's house. Before these bills became
due, however, Fielding and Co. became bankrupts, and upon in-
quiry it was found that the goods for which the plaintiff's had in
fact paid by their bills, had reached Rio Janeiro safely, but they
were disposed of, not for the sole advantage of the house of Field-
ing and Co. but for that of the defendant, who was then a partner
iu the house of Booth, Pearson, anti Co. jointly with them. Pay-
ment for the goods was demanded of the latter, but without suc-
cess, and therefore this action was brought.
Mr. Fielding being examined, said that at the time of the order
being given he carried on trade as a merchant at Rio Janeiro,
where the defendant's house of Booth, Pearson, and Co., were also
engaged in business. Mr. Booth applied to him to enter into a
joint speculation in goods which he named, as being best acquaint..
ed with those most suited to the market. A verbal agreement .
was entered into accordingly between these parties, and in pur-
suance of this, Fielding and Co., ordered the goods of Brown and
Co., of Lisbon. The goods arrived at Rio Janeiro, and. were
placed in the hands of the defendants,- for the purpose of sale.
The defendants acted as general commission agents, and witness
did not know that there had been any dealings between them and the
plaintiffs before this. The defendants were to have an interest in
the goods if they arrived safely, but witness does not think that if
the goods were at all damaged, the defendants would have any
interest in them, as they were insured in the names of Fielding
and Co. alone.
The SOLICITOR-GENERAL having addressed the Jury for the
defendant,
The LORD CHIEF JUSTICE left it with the Jury to say whether
upon the evidence they thought that the defendant was or was not
a party to the original purchase of the goods, because, if he was,
the plaintiffs ignorance of his interest at that time would not bar
his claim now against him when the goods had been proved to
come into his hands.—The Jury found for the plaintiffs in full da-
mages laid in the declaration.