Star.
London, England, 1808-03-03 00:00:00

~~

- - •
•
.them apPeired ha. Several persons in the business.
:declared they were fresh eggs.
On the part of the Defendants, their shopmen de-
posed, that one hundred and a half of the eggs were
bac4. but the Jury, notwithstanding, found a verdict
for the Plaintiff.—Damages, 61. 10s.

it

. . ~~

COURT OF KING'S BENCH, MARCH t.
STOCK BARGAINS. .

Nii.marms v. Simbis.—This was a, special action
against *be defendant, for net transferring 5001. corn-
trkettiallitock, according to agreement.
Mrt GARROW observed, that the case left him little
to:say by way of explanation. The Plaintiff was a
respectable citizen, and brought his action against the
Defendant, who was the Proprietor of stock in a fund
estalgished for keeping up • the. Commercial Road.—
It was a transferable stock, and the Defendant being
disposed to Pact with 5001. of it, employed a person
named Watkins; as his agent, to sell it. Mr. Wat-
kins soldlt to the Plaintiff, and the present attic was
to enforce:le transfer.
Mr. Holsworth Fishwood deposed, That he was
present when Mr. Simms gave instructions to Mr.
i'liratkinotb 'sell 5001: of his stock, who said he should
expect 'a premium of 201 per cent. upon it. Mr.
Simms-mss one of the Trustees of the-Stock, and Mr.
Watkins was -1 Clerk ii their employ. Some time
after; he heard Mr. Simms say, that Watkins had
sold the stock. -
: On cross-examination, he said that Mr. Simms's
expression was, that he had employed Watkins to find
'apurchaser for his Stock. Simms never said in his
presence that he had authorized Watkins to receive
the money for the Stock. In short, the Agency was,
that Watkins was to find a purchaser, and Simms
was to make the transfer.
Mr. Serane decribed himself as a Proprietor of
Commercial Stock, and said he also employed Wat-
!kins to sell 5001. Stock for him, at the same time
that Mr. Simms did, both agreeing that they would
have 20 per cent. premium. Watkins sold his Stock
at the stipulated premium, gave him a check for the
money, and he made the transfer upon Watkins's
bargain.
Mr. Charles Bladon, the nephew of -the Plaintiff,
remembered Mr. Simms calling at his uncle's house,
after the transaction with Watkins, and asked him if
Mr. Wiltshire had paid the money to Watkins for
the purchase of Simms's stock ? Witness replied, that
he had. Mr. Simms then said, that he had not re-
ceived the money from Watkins, and should not
transfer the Stock. Witness stated, that his uncle was
in the country, and aske 1 if he should inform him of
the fact ? Mr. Simms re plied that it was immaterial,
and that he should have the laugh against him for
doing business in such a way.
Lord ELLENBOROUGH thought there was something

irregular in.the transaction, and said that the transfer
should precodecthe payment.
Mr. Watkins stated, that. he was the Accomptant
employed by the Trusteei. of the Commercial Road,
and received ord-ra from the Defendant to sell 5001.
'Stock, at 20 per cent. premium on his account. He
accordingly soli it to- Mr. Wiltshire, who gave him a
'draft upon his banker at 14 days forward, for the
money. That draft was duly honoured. He ac-
Rtuainted the Defendant with the transaction, and he
expressed his approbation of the bargain. Subsequent
to that the witness met with embarrassments, and was
prevented from paying. over the money. Mr. Wilt-
shire, he said, dealt with him as the Agent of the
seller. Mr. Serane got the money for his Stock, and
pajd the witness a commission.
Lord ELLENsoliouc.u—What,.Sir, do you, as a btu-.
ker, part with the stock of your principal, upon the
'Credit of a draft that has 14 days to run ? Or, if you
40, did you ever find an individual so inattentive
to his concerns, as to part with his stock for a draft
at 14 days ? Watkins—No, my Lord.
Mr. PARK—He is the agent of Mr. Simms, my
Lord, and the draft has been honoured.
Lord ELLENsottouon—But he is an agent upon the
usual terms. Watkins—Simms, my Lord, did not
object to my agency till he discovered my insolvency.
Lord ELLENsoaotton—lt comes to this, is an agent
employed to find a purchaser for stock authorized to
sell it at 14 days credit ? Watkins—l should not
have sold at 14 days credit, had I not expected
the stock to fall in the market, and therefore was de-
sirous of concluding the bargain.
Lord ELLENBOROUGH—Did you communicate that
fact to the Defendant your employer ? Watkins—
No, my Lord.
Llrd ELLE:quo/tom:au—Then the Defendant is not
bound by it, and the Plaintiff must be called.
The Plaintiff was accordingly nonsuited.
THE KING D. JOHN LLOYD.
This was an indictment for a nuisance. The de-
fendant has a house on Snow-hill, the back premises
of which extend to an alley called Cock Court, through
which, for half a century and more, there had been a
circuitous passage, reaching from one part of Snow-
hill to another. The defendant had obstructed this
passage, and therefore a bill of indictment was pre-
, (erred by Cordy, a pawnbroker at one extremity, wEo .
considered a private entry to his premises material to
his business. The obstruction was by the erection of
two walls inclosing a coach-house and stables, for the
oitcommodation of the defendant.
''"Several witnesses proved that it was athoroughfare
Watil this erection was made, and that free ingress and
Agress had never been interrupted.
. Mr. Stonehouse, inspector of pavement for the city,
.said that it was lighted with two lamps at the expemas
.of the city ; but lighted
it was a poor miserable hole ii-
knwhich he at first was afraid to trust him Self. - •
' The Counsel for the defendant said, that the single
question was, whether it was a public or a private
-way -? 'aid one thing was quite certain, that it seas a
inatterof particular convenience to have 3 pawnbro•
'ker at the corner, where a person might deposit hit
watch in'safe custody, before he ventured into this daft;
gerous recess. No one could pretend this was of any
convenience ais a public way, because it had no exit
but at Snbsi-hill, and was five times as far round as
the'ordinary road in the High-street.
Several of the witnesses, however, said, that on fair.
days, ancrany great shews of cattle, it was convenient
to go down this passage to Snow-hill, instead of going
by VoCir-lane.
Lord ELLF.NDOROUGH directed the Jury, thatralest
thc,Defendant could shew a continual obstruction,
this appeared to be a public highway, and there was
a verdict against the Defendant.—Gvaxr.