The Sun.
London, England, 1827-04-20 00:00:00

LAW INTELLIGENCE-(THIS DAY).

COURT OF KING'S BENCH.
VIZARNI V. HAYWARD.
Mr. CHITTY opened tEt pleadings.
Mr. Scanmtrr stated the case. The plaintiff was a far-
mer, residing at Bridport, the defendant a Smithfield
agent, and the action was brought against the defendant to
recover the suss of 2151. damages sustained by the plaintiff,
in consequence of an improper delivery of potatoes be-
longing to the plaintiff, and contrary to plaintiff's orders.
The plaintiff, in March 1526, sent 450 Backs of potatoes, to
the Loudon Market; the defendant agreed to sell them for
him. A person named William Simpson, agreed to buy
them, but from the knowledge of him the plaintiff had got,
he directed the defendant not to part with the potatoes to
him until he had got cash for them. He had given an accept-
ance for the 1491. on account of the potatoes, but they were
not to be delivered till after that acceptance was paid. The
acceptance had never been paid ; the greater part of the
potatoes had been delivered to Simpson, by which the loss
now complained of had been sustained, and Mr. Scarlett
anticipated no difficulty in showing, by proof, the liability
of the debt.
John Rose proved the signatures of a memorandum of
agreement of the Sth March, 1826, of Hayward and
Simpson, whereby the former agreed to sell, and the latter
to bay, the potatoes.
Benjamin Love knew Simpson. The acceptance of
William Simpson, now produced, and drawn by Mr.
Hearne on the 17th of March, payable at fourteen days, for
1491., was in the handwriting of Simpson. Witness was
a surveyor. He had agreed with Hearne to sell the pota-
toes, if Mr. Hearne could not.
Mr. Poetoce: crow-examined witnese--Was a❑ ac-
countant and surveyor, and had been so for many years.
He did not take Simpson to Hearne. He never saw them
together. He had not particularly authorised Simplon to
use his name as a reference with respect to Simpson's cir-
cumstances. Mr. Hearne did apply to him respecting
Simpson's character. Simpson said be had a claim for a
large amount, in the hands of the Accountant-General, but
which he did not recover.
Rusher, a wharfinger, received an order from the
defendant for the delivery of the bulk of the potatoes to
Simpson. He delivered part or them, but could not say
how many. He acted on the order on the Ist of April,
which was the date of the order. Knew b. person of the
name of Heyward.
Cross-examined.—Saw Simpson. Simpson read a kind
of letter about the potatoes on the 31st of March, in virtue
of which he demanded the potatoes. The letter stated
something about the acceptance. Witness refused to deliver
the potatoes, until he had got the order now produced.
The defendant called at the wharf, and wrote out the order,
but Simpson was not there, nor was the order ever per-
mitted to go into Simpson's possession.
Re-examined.—The whole would have been delivered,
had it not been that Mr. Hayward arrived on the same
day, and stopped the further delivery.
Priest presented the acceptance for payment on the
3d April, but it was not paid.
The COMMON SERGE tNT addressed the Jury for the
defendant. If they found for the plaintiff, he said, a more
severe consequence, from an act of good nature, could not
be visited OR any person than would be inflicted on the de-
fendant. The plaintiff had some intimacy with the de-
fendant, who was a flax and corn-dealer in Smithfield,
but never had the slightest intention of being a potatoe
commission agent. The potatoes, in the first place,
were of a most inferior quality, and they were sent
to London at a time when the price of potatoes was
exceedingly low, though they had been charged by the
plaintiff at a very high rate ; they were, besides, only fit
to he given to cows and pigs, who thought that in them they
had got an excessively hard meal.—(Laughter.)—
The plaintiff, when the sale was made to Simp-
son, was in London, and he himself was the person
who made the bargain with Simpson, and who
took the acceptance from him ; but having found out
his true character, he (the plaintiff) went to his friend, the
defendant, represented what had passed, told him that
Simpson was a most respectable man, put the accept •
ance into his hands, and induced him to take upon
himself the responsibility of the sale. The defendant
never dreamed of receiving profit in any way ; he felt sa-
tisfied that, from the plaintiff's having taken the acceptance,
he had given Simpson a legal right to claim the potatoes,
and therefore he hoped the Jury would find fur the defend-
ant; but if they should be compelled to find for the plaintiff
the Learned Counsel trusted that they would by no means
give a verdict for the full amount claimed, which was most
exorbitant according to the quality of the potatoes.
Staff, a few years ago, had been a potatoe grower,
he had grown them for about four or five years. Saw the
plaintiff in the beginning of last year, who told him that
he had sold the potatoes in question to Simpson; he said
the price was five guineas per ton. Witness had a sample
of the potatoes ; the reason he got the sample was
that the plaintiff had informed him he had a large quantity
of them in the country, and wished to learn his best way
of disposing of them. Witness told him, after trying the
sample, that he would try to sell them in the country, for
that they would not do for the London market. He told
witness of the acceptance he had got for 14dl. Witness
said, " You'll never get it paid." Certainly he thought the
potatoes were not worth five guineas a ton.
By Mr. SCARIETT—The plaintiff said he had left in-
structions with his friend, Mr. Hayward, not to let Simp-
son have the potatoes without first getting the cash. He
knew that the plaintiff, besides being a farmer, carried on
some sort of flax business, and in that way had a connec-
tion with the defendant.
-§Wrn. Hine, clerk to the defendant, knew the plaintiff. Re-
membered the plaintiff calling on the defendant sometime
about the beginning or middle of March. Witness was present
at the time. Plaintiff there told defendant that he had
sold a quantity of potatoes to Simpson, and that he wished
the defendant to attend at the wharf to see them weighed
off. Defendant at first declined, alleging that it would take
up too much of hie time. On being pressed by the
plaintiff, he at last consented. Plaintiff then produced the
acceptance, stating when it would become due, and telling
the defendant not to deliver them before that day. Wit-
ness was acquainted with the connection that subsisted be-
tween the plaintiff and defendant, and, from that ac-
quaintance, could state that the defendant had never acted
as commission agent for the plaintiff or for any other
person.
After the examination of several other witnesses, who
deposed to the same facts,
Mr. SC A.RLETT replied, and the Learned Judge charged
the Jury.
Verdict for the plaintiff—Damages 261/. 12s. l Id.

COURT OF COMMON PLEAS.
BRODERICK V. RIDGEWAY.

This was an action brought for the recovery of
8231. 131. 11d., the amount of a Bill of Exchange, drawn
by a Mr. Pierce Sweetman, and accepted by the defendant.
The facts of the case were shortly as follows :—ln 1825,
the plaintiff, Mr. Broderick, the barrister, advanced
14,0001. to Messrs. Sykes, Smith, and Co., the bankers,
and as part security for this sum, they handed over
to him the bill in question, on the 12th of December,
1825. Sykes, Snaith, and Co., had several transactions
with 31r. Sweetman, and on the lith of November 1825,
being indebted to them upwards of bOO/., he sent them the
said bill and two others, accompanied by a note, request-
ing the bills to be placed to his credit, which was accord-
ingly done, and which rendered him creditor to the extent '
of upwards of 5001., but before he derived any benefit
from this, Sykes, Snaith, and Co. failed. Before their
failure, however, Mr. Broderick was paid the whole of his
debt, and the present action was solely for behoof of the
assignees of Messrs. Sykes, Snaith, and Co., and it was de-
fended at the instance of Mr. 'Sweetman, for whom it was
contended, that as no advance was made to him on the
bill, it could not in law be considered as discounted, and
therefore that Sykes, Snaith, and Co. were mere deposito-
ries, and had no right to transfer the bill ; to which it was
answered, that as, by the note handing the hills, Mr.
Sweetman expressly authorised the bills to be placed to his
credit, that plea could not be maintained.
The CHIEF JUSTICE told the Jury, that if they were
of opinion that the note accompanying the bills authorized
tteeTpi
lu;
them to he discounted, they should And for the plaintiff
nominal damages, reserving for the consideration of the
whole Court the question whether, as the plaintiff had no
interestle
li
;ji
amountthdaeaf
mtieonr:aghttetahselerfi, the damages could be extended to
ury,
nion there adding, an our's cothnastidetrhaet)lown,erfeouonfdopfoir
was no authority to discount.

An extraordinary sensation has been caused
in Hamburg'', where enormities are very rare, by the
murder, in the night of the 13th instant, of M. A. D.
Jamen, a Hanoverian Canon, and Captain on half-pay.
The police has offered a reward of three hundred dollars for
the discovery of the murderer. This event is not to be
compared with the tragical fate of the Abbe Plank, in
Vienna, as the person murdered has drawn upon himself a
bad suspicion, which decorum will rather cover with a veil.
He was not robbed ; the principal wound was under the
chin, and penetrated upwards into the skull. His bands
were much wounded, probably in attempting to defend
himself.