The Sun.
London, England, 1829-07-17 00:00:00

LAW INTELLIGENCE.

ROLLS COURT, Jui.r 16.
ST. JOHN V. STIRLING.

This was a bill filed for the specific performance
of an agreement.
It appeared that General St. John (the plaintiff)
formerly purchased an annuity of 1,0001. from Sir
Thomas Champneys. This annuity was subsequently
reduced to 9001. a-year. The defendant (Sir Wal-
ter Stirling) proposed to purchase ir, and his agent
treated with General St. John's agent with that
view. After considerable negotiation, and several
letters having been written on the subject, an agree-
ment was entered into on the part of the defendant,
stipulating for the purchase of the annuity at a cer-
tain price. Difficulties having been started by the
defendant with respect to completing the transac-
tion,:the present proceeding was instituted.
His HONOUR held that the defendant's agent had
been fully authorized to enter into the contract for
the purchase of the annuity. This was evident from
Sir Walter Stirling's letter on the subject. With
regard to the statement that the title v,as in dis-
pute, such was not the fact. The monies in the
hands of the receiver had been impounded on ac-
count of some dispute as to the priority of another
incumbrance on the estate, hut the title to the an-
nuity was not questioned. The decree must be for
the specific performance of the agreement, with
costs.

COURT OF KING'S BENCH, JULY 16.
WRIGHT V. KING.

This was an action for false imprisonment. From
the statement of the Attorney-General and the evi-
dence, it appeared that the plaintiff was a carpenter
and builder, in the neighbourhood of Euston-square,
and was employed by a person residing at Hayes, in
Middlesex, to sell bricks for him on commission. At
the latter end of the last year the plaintiff had a
quantity of bricks consigned to him at Gainsborough-
wharf, near the Regent's-park-basin, and on their ar-
rival he gave orders for their disposal. The defendant
called on the plaintiff, and made some inquiries re-
specting the price of the bricks, with a view, as it
was supposed, to make a purchase ; but he afterwards
represented to the foreman at the wharf that the
bricks had been stolen, and desired him not to let
them be taken away from the premises without his
(the defendant's) orders. On Monday, the 24th of
November last, the defendant went to the constable
of the parish, and instructed him to take the plaintiff
into custody for buying and selling bricks belonging
to him (the defendant), he (the plaintiff) knowing
them to have been stolen. The constable then
went, accompanied by the defendant, and took the
plaintiff into custody. Verdict for the plaintiff—
Damages 501.

GEALE V. CAVE.

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL stated that the plain-
tiff in this case was a waiter at the Grand Hotel in
Covent-garden, and the defendant, Mr. Henry Wil-
liam Cave, was a gentleman who had resided at that
house. The plaintiff's claim was 9/. 6s. 6d. for
money paid on the defendant's account. It would
appear that in the latter end of 1827 the defendant
had made an engagement with a cousin of his (Mr.
Robinson, a surgeon,) to go to Cambridge, and the
plaintiff was desired to hire for them a horse and
gig, the expense of which was to be borne equally
between them. The gig was accordingly procured,
and was engaged by the parties for a fortnight or
three weeks. The charge for the hire was 11/. 18s.
a moiety of which had been paid by Mr. Robinson,
but the defendant had neglected to pay his share,
and therefore the present action was brought to re-
cover the amount, and also 3/. 7s. 6d. the amount of
several small sums paid for the defendant's washing
bills, and for some shirt collars and cravats for the
defendant.

A verdict was taken for the plaintiff for 9/. Gs. Gd

LOMI V. TUCKER.

Mr. GURNEY (with whom was Mr. Busby) stated
that the plaintiff was Dr. Lomi, and the defendant,
Mr. Andrew G. C. Tucker, was an attorney resid-
ng in Devonshire. He was a man of large fortune
and being desirous of making a grand display of pic-
tures in a gallery which he was forming, he had pur-
chased of the plaintiff some very valuable produc-
tion, among which was a picture by Julio Romano,
which was charged at 3001., and two by Poussin at
951. The plaintiff's bill amounted originally to
several hundred pounde, but the balance now claim-
ed was only 3G/. 10s.
A person of the name of Jeffery was called to
prove part of the case, and his cross-examination by
Mr. J. Williams created a good deal of laughter.
Mr. WILLIAMS—I suppose those two pictures for
which 951. are charged, were no more painted by
Poussin than by you or me.
Witness—Exactly so; but they are good pictures.
Mr. WitxrAms—What are they good for ? Wit-
ness—For a gallery.
Mr. WILLIAMS—Did the defendant, Dr. Tucker
—I believe he is called doctor as well as the plaintiff
—did he suppose that they were painted by Pons-
sin ? Witness—l presume so.
Mr. WlLLlAAts—Where is Dr. Lomi now ? Wit-
ness—ln Florence, I believe.
Mr. WlLLlArsts—ls he a physician. Witness—
Yes; a doctor in physic.
Mr. WILLIAMS—Indeed ! Has he ever practised
in England? Witness—l believe only to amuse
himself.—(Great laughter.)
Mr. WILLIAMS—Then he has not resided much
in this country ? Witness—No; he would not
bring his money to spend here, but brought over
his pictures.—(Continued laughter.)
Mr. WILLIAMS addressed the jury for the de-
fendant, and said the question was, whether the
plaintiff had not been already overpaid for the trash
which he had imported from Italy. The object of
his visit, or rather visitation, in London, was to gull
the English people with sham Italian pictures, and
the defendant had been his dupe, having bought, as
original, two pictures at least which were not the
productions of the master they were represented to
be.—The Jury found for the defendant.