Star.
London, England, 1802-02-04 00:00:00

LAW INTELLIGENCL

COITRT OF COMMON l'i.! k 3, I ED. 3.

PACI.E.Tog D. THE E!ST TXMA

M. Serjeant BAILEY, 011 the palt iIIC Defen•
(Lints, contended that they had :t right ro exclude
the Plaintiff f i iqn bidding at their falcs : he agreed
with his Le:r.ned L. other, that this was a qn.•t.
lion of comiderable importance not only to the
Plaintiff and jefentlanrs, but to the community
at large, for rut the refult of it dcpenled whetter
that which had been the prat tice upwards of Sixty
years, and was effential to fecurc to the Eatt India

Company thole fluids, out of which they were to
pay the expences of chartering (hips employed in
their trade, the interell due to the holders of India
Stock, and the ulterior demands of Government,
Mould he Linftioned or deemed to have been ille-
gal ? Without fuels a reltraint, any perfon who
was a beggar in his citeumilances, might, after
hiving made default in the completion of former
contrafts, bid for goods upon fpeculation, without
the lealt probability of ever paying for them. It was
necelfary, in order to enable the India Company
to carry on their immenfe trade, that they fhould
make their commas of fate upon a certainty of
their being fulfilled by the buyer. He contended
that the condition of tale which the Plaintiff con-
fidered he was not bound by, was reafonable-4t
WAS a condition precedent of which the Plaintiff
was aware before he became a purchafer of goods
at the Company's tale,_ and he therefore ought,
previous to his bidding for any lot, to have been
well allured he had the means of completing his
contrail. The Eaft India Company might have
impored a condition of exclulion from their fales
with regard to thole who did not pay the purchafe-
money immediately—they had, however, thought
it more for their own intercft and that of the pub-
lic, to allow the parties time to make good their
runtraft,upon a depofit being made, and forelie-
ing there might be circumftances which might oc-
cation a temporary embarratiment in the affairs of
merchants and others engaged in trade, they had
referred it to a tribunal, confitting of the Direaors,
to confider whether any perfon who was not ready
to fulfil bis contras by the appointed time, was
fuch a charafter, in point of folvency, as they
ought to have dealings with in future ? He in-
ferred that the Legifiaturc having only thought
proper to make a Parliamentary regulation with
refpea to the penalty for non-payment of the de-
pofit, bad left that which attached on the non-per.
formance of the contras, precifely as it flood upon
the Company's own regulation. His Learned
Brother had, in the courfe of his fpeech, confider-
ed the concha& of the Direaors in this inliance as
berth and rigorous, but he fubmitted the fads of
the cafe did not warrant any fuch conclution ; on
the contrary,gthey had ailed in the moil temperate
manner poffible towards the Plaintiff. He Was a
perfon who had frequently made d :. •• -
ing his contras into executiet., 4,,a Having made
a purcha.-e to a large amount, which he was una-
ble to,furil at the itipulated period, he had applied
to the Direaors .r further time. Inflead of
carrying the law to its fall extent againft him, by
infilling upon the forfei:ure of his depotit, and
obliging him to pay the lots and expences of a re-
tale, they had allowed him the delay he required,
hut at the fame time exprefsly told him they re-
fcrved the right of refuting to let him bid again
at their files, till they had received fatisfaetion as
to the caufe of his not paying them fooner—he
acceded to this condition, and afterwards when
he had availed himtell of the benefit of it, and had
paid the money, he pretended he was not bound
to give the Direaors any filch fittisfaainn, for that
in point of law they had no right to demand it.—
Having urged a variety of other topics, he con-
cluded by it:quelling the Court, a> his Brother
Shepherd had been taking notes, to indulge him
with a fecond argument.
Mr. Serjeant Be sr addreffed the Court in reply,
maintaining, upon the grounds of iiis former ar-
gument, that the prefciat anion was maintainable.
He a rpcated, that the right of bidding. at the Eall
Indi.t Company's ales was a veiled right, which
nothing but Parliament could take away. Upon
the flabjea of the fatisfaftion, the Company re-
ferved the right of demanding ; he was at a lois
to know what it meant : it might mean that the
plaintiff fhould engage Mr. Roos, their Counfel,
in tingle combat it. harriers doled, or it might
mean that the plaintiff (honld make a pilgrimage
to the Eaft Indies, or perform ceitain ablutions an
tb.:: waters of the Ganges—it was a phrafe fu inde-
finite, that it was impollible for any one to guels
at what it was intended to convey. He trufted
the Court would be of opinion, the Company
ihould have exprelfed in their conditions what the
nature of the fatisfaaion was they required from
thofe who failed in performing their contras, and
that they had no right to refer it merely to their
own difcretion and, caprice.
Lord ALVANLEY.—There is no doubt but the
Eaft India Company lave a right to impofe con-
ditions with regard to their tales, provided they
are reafonable ones t and it is of the utmoft im-
portance to um public, that the piyments for the
commodities they import Should be punanally
made at the time appointed, and that perfons
fhould be deterred by penalties from bidding, if
they have not the means of carrying their contrafts
into effc.. The only emettion is, whether they
have a right to impofe fuels terms as the Direaors
may haunt upon or relax ? The words of the con-
dition of tide are very vague-1 do not know what
is meant by raying, that a perfon who has made
detiault in fulfilling his contras, flail not be en-
titled to bid at future fides till bolus given fatis-
faftion to the Direaors. It may mean, in the
opinion of the Direaors, the fatisfation of a Gen-
tleman. There is only one way in which the word
fatisfaetion can be eolith-tied in a Court of Law,
laud that is, by the party paying the money, and
it appears the money has been paid with interelt.
I have an opinion, which, in my mind, precludes
toe neceflit y of a fecund argument i I think the
wol-d: of the condition can admit •but •of one con.
pie • F-. 1 7- .2i? .nrawir.statro.n.mon.:mrawst-