The Sun.
London, England, 1829-12-16 00:00:00

his at Bunny, for which he was to receive a sal ,ry of
701. per year. The business was to be carried on in the
name of Shaw. Some time after this agreement WO
concluded, Shaw came to London; to make purchsFegr
and to enable him so to do be was furnished with the fel" •
lowing letter, addressed to the plaintiff by the defendan
Wt
" Gentlemen,—The bearer of this letter, Mr. rie;
Shaw, has succeeded me in my business at Bungay/_
his being a stranger in the London market, I beg to in-
form you that I can recommend him as a person to wtogl
you may safely give credit,
(Signed) " MITCHELL.
The Learned Counsel said, he would prove that the de'
fendant was aware that the representation he gave to the
plaintiff was false, and should therefore be entitled to a
verdict

Slater, a clerk in the house of Morrison and Ca.
the plaintiffs, stated that Shaw was a complete stranger
to that firm, and that they were induced to give hial ere-
dit on the representation of the defendant's letter.
William Shaw examined—l entend the defendant's
service in 1826, for which I was to receive a salary of 701.
per annum. I was in no ways interested in the business
on my own account, at the time I produced the letter and
applied to the plaintiffs for credit. The goods I received
were all sold for the benefit of the defendant. Did not
tell the plaintiffs anything about the agreement existing
between me and Mr. Mitchell. There had been no con-
versation between me and the defendant previous to thel
letter being written respecting the London markets.
continued in the defendant's service up to 1828, when f
left him, and commenced business on my own se-
count. I was a short time afterwards made a bankrupt.
the plaintiffs had no notice that I had left the defendant,
and continued to supply me with goods as before, and at
the time of my bankruptcy they were creditors for nearly
1001. I commenced business in a shop immediately op-
posite to the one I conducted for Mr. Mitchell.
Cross-examined—The plaintiffs had no knowledge of
my agreement with the defendant until after my bank-
ruptcy. When the letter in question was written, I hid
told Mr. Mitchell that I expected I should receive 5001.
had Mr.
failed Se
which my wife considered she was entitled to. This was
the plaintiff" case.
rijneallt provingS r A
yl Efrsauubdmulietntetdm,
otthivaet,
there was no case to go the Jury. not be
The CHIEF JUSTICE said, he thought he should
justified in stopping the case, it was for the defendant to
show be did not write the letter wilfully to misrepresent.
Mr. Serjeant SeANKIE then addressed the Jury at great
length. He certainly thought this a case for his Lord-
ship to decide, turning as it did upon a point of law which
was now a well established principle, viz., that before a
party giving a representation by which credit was ole"
tained, could he made responsible, it must be dela,
shown, not only that such misrepresentation was false Ou
deceitful, but that the party was actuated by fraudulent
motives at the time. It was not enough that the
representation was untrue, and the defendant could n"
be made responsible unless at the time be
the
thereforeplaintiffs
the letter the Jury could think it was his intention to ea''.
trap and take advantage of the plaintiffs, and such a Oa"-
elusion he felt confident they never could come to. The
defendant had sufficient cause to suppose that Shaw ""I:
trustworthy, and for two years the accounts were regular,'e
paid, therefore the plaint'ff bad not acted under
influence of a letter written two years before,
they gave credit for the goods for which the action 0,11
brought, and they must put up with the loss by their ono
negligence; but (said the Learned Counsel) it will be
loss to them, for what with actions of libel and other ac,
tions, in all of which they are represented as the lar,cerib
haberdashers in the kingdom, there will be no loss. ..th
thousand posting bills would be nothing compared 0')
the publicity these actions obtain for thern.--(l'aughtietr. to
The LORD CHIEF JUSTICE summed up, 0d left
thought,
at
the Jury on the question whether or not they made
the time the letter was written, the defendant wilfully
a misrepresentation.
Verdict for the plaintiff—Damages, 88/. 10s. wrote

y.yyl9E

COMMISSION OF LUNACY.
(THIRD DAY.)
At eleven
es
this day,
day,assembled, Jury having the Co 111"
mission
Mr. Styan, a tea-broker, called—Rnew Mr. Davitirstia,
recollected, at a late sale of tea of the East India COl
play's, he made a very singular observation. He caliel
out to the auctioneer—" Mr. Auctioneer, every lot e„
Padrae tea you have in the catalogue I shall bid 5.. for%
yWo iunt.n,ue,
gs Witness
Froms
i‘a d‘c thiso what
woaff was
offer
lews
oaosab
observed
ibg
ruoltkahree,:: and as
tabhso the
be ,'as
I
ceeded, Mr. Dav'e: ap[roached in a menacing mdantrstiso
witness observed, " Mr. Davies, I have nothing t°,-',.as
insane. kad nOvo
singular CO''
Davies four or five years, and had remarked a
ti ast in his manner within this last vear.
house,JolnthKouegnhdtr
fromick ,
hisproprietor
of
whileF u r
lni
ei v
,va las' -
in
sCiftel
that he was not perfectly sound in his mind.
Mrs. Brookbank, examined by Sir C. WE:111E00'1i
Mr. Davies was her nephew, and bad manifested a strilr:
change in his natural disposition, lately having got ljec,
boisterous. His mother was very indulgent and
tionate, but be entertained strange delusions respectq
her, and said he was afraid she would murder hint' J/1,,
also said that he intended to get into Parliament, 39 0,
had such a share of oratory that every Member would,o
afraid to speak after him. Also that he hoped he 0°
not die yet, as he was destined to save his King and cut
try. He constantly repeated that his mother tvoolui;a
her own throat ; knew that he cart ied fire-arms aboutio'i'l•
At one time, when a shopman, named Arthur, fromea
pot-lane, came to her house to see her nephew, he ao
" That man is nothing but a spy." On one oecasielio/
calling on Mr. Davies, at Dr. Burrows's, and finding bet
apparently quiet; she asked him to take a ride with fal,
in her carriage. This caused him ;instantly to seltiat
out, and call for the ass:stance of the keepers, 53)44 -0
she had come for the purpose of taking him away „de
another occasion, his sister accompanied the witness ;:ive
Mr. Davies, and on their approaching him he ebanner
much irritated, and abused his sister in the grosaestin
sisterol
Cross-examined by Mr. Baouottaat—Was
Mrs. Bywater, the mother of Mr. Davies. Wil.ol4:si
former husband's name was Ross, to whom Mr. Dar'
was first bound apprentice. Witness had a husband
vious to Mr. Ross, whose name was Cranhrook,
a surgeon. Mrs. Bywater, the mother of Mr. "-eer
was at one time a cook in the family of Mr. Jones, 3 ,114
tleman in Wales. After Mrs. Bywater came to to 0,4
married Mr. Davies, but she could not say that be
Wfio
porter in a warehouse. He was something in the
(1,
way. She had never empower.d Mi. Davies te ,c)/
money on her account, or any man living—(Latigbt`
except my husband. If°t
The examination was proceeding when our PaPer
to press.