The Sun.
London, England, 1829-09-03 00:00:00

SPENCER V. GRANT.

Mr. Scrjeant WILDE (with whom was Mr. Price)
stated that this was an action to recover compensa-

tion in damages fur breach of agreement. The
plaintiff is a druggist in this city, and in August,
1827, entered into a contract for the purchase of the
defendant's business in Broadmead, for which he
agreed to give the sum of 3401., on condition that
the defendant should not open another druggist's
shop within the city. Some time after the plaintiff
had entered upon the premises, and commenced bu-
siness, the defendant, in breach of the covenant,
opened another shop in the immediate neighbour-
hood, in the same lbw, by which the plaintiff's
business had been much injured; he therefore

Taught this action for compensation. The Learned
Counsel understood the defence was, that the agree-
ment had never been signed ; but he would find
that defence avail him nothing, as it bad been held
by the Courts of King's Bench and Common Pleas,
that if an agreement could be proved to be in the
hand-writing of the parties, it was not necessary that
the name should be affixed to make it binding.—
Although, said the Learned Counsel, the copy of
agreement held by the defendant was signed, and
when he was applied to to produce it, he said he had
burnt it; this caused thsonly difficulty in the case;
but he would prove the terms of the agreement, and
should be entitled to a verdict.

The notice to produce the original agreement was
admitted.

Mr. Serjeant WILDE then called Mr. Williams,
who proved that he was present in August, 1827,
when the plaintiff and defendant entered into an
agieement for the purchase of the defendant's busi-
ness. Witness signed the agreement.
A copy of the agreement, with a receipt for 3401.
was then put in.
Mr. C. F. WILLIAMS objected to its being received
as evidence, there being no proof that it was a correct
copy.
Chief Justice TYNDALL said he would admit it as
evidence ; but in case the verdict should be for the
plaintiff, he would give leave for the defendant to
move the Court to set it aside, or enter a nonsuit.
Mrs. Turnbull—Knew the defendant. He used

to live in Broadmeail about ten months ago. He
opened a druggist's shop in Christmas-street. She
left the plaintiff's shop, where she used to deal, and
went to the defendant's.

Alfred King—Was in the employ of the plaintiff,
and assisted in the shop. !lad plenty to do when he
first went, but after the defendant opened his shop in
Christmas-street, the business fell off. There was
another boy employed in the plaintiff's shop, but
the business declined so fast he was discharged.
Witness could have done more himself than there
was to be done.

Cross-examined by Mr. C. F. WILLIAMS— Am
nearly sixteen years of age. The other boy was
between eleven and twelve. Was never in a
druggist's shop before.
Mr. WILLIAMS—Then you and the other child
used to dispense medicines to his Majesty's subjects ?
Witness—Yes, Sir, we did.—(Laughter.)
Mr. WILLIAms—And then, they left the shop,
and the business fell off?—Witness : Yes, Sir.
Mr. WILLIAMS—I should think so.—(A laugh.)
Wm. Cunick examined—Was in the employ of

(he plaintiff at the time he commenced business.
Remembers the defendant coming into the shop about
two months afterwards, when the plaintiff said he
was dissatisfied with the business, and defendant

offered him 2001. to take it off his hands. Oa this

occasion high words arose between them, and the
defendi.nt threatened to knock the plaintiff's teeth

do‘ln his throat. Plaintiff replied that he sbould
like to see him at it.

This was the plaintiff's case.
Mr. C. F. WILLIAMS addressed the Jury in a
humorous strain for the defendant, and contended
that the decrease in the plaintiff's business did not
arise from the defendant having opened anothershop,
for, with all the exertions on the part of the pl►►intiff,
only one witness could be produced who had lefr
him. Why did not the pl.iintiff produce his books
instead of the sharp young gentleman—the dis-
penser of medicine to his Majesty's subjects, and
who he (Mr. Williams) should think, for the
first time, had that day put on a pair of trou-
sers.---(Laughter.)--This, with the exception
of another child eleven years of age (also a dis-
penser of medicines)—(a laugh)—were the only evi-
dence to prove a diminutiow of business. He knew
the intelligence of a Bristol Jury, and was confident
they would attribute the loss of trade to its proper
cause, viz. employing children in petticoats to dis-
pense medicines. He felt confident they would
think the plaintiff had not conducted himself in such
a manner that entitled him to come into a Court of
Justice and ask for damages for loss of business.
The CHIEF JUSTICE briefly summed up the case,
and the Jury, after a short consultation, found a ver-
dict for the plaintiff—Damages 1001.
The Court was occupied the remainder of the
day in hearing a case which related entirely to a
matter of account of no public interest.
Special Jury cases are appointed for Friday morning.
Mr. Justice Burrough remains at Bridgewater,
but we are happy in being able to state that his
Lordship's health is improving.