Star.
London, England, 1822-04-16 00:00:00

READER V. ELLIS.

F

SI

~►.~`

4 :

•
r
I •

rt

if

L -,-
.4

This was an action to recover the value of 57 pun-
cheons of geneva, consigned by the plaintiff to a per•
son named Tan Brokenhaff. •It appeared that the
plaintiff was a merchant residing at Amsterdam, and
was in the habit of consigning goods to Tan Broken-
haff, as his factor. Tan Brokenhaff usually employed
the defendant as his broker to sell. • Previous to the
arrival of the gooCsr in question, he had fallen into
embarrassments, and obtained advances from the de-
fendant, pledging to him the expected goods as secu-
rity, and the property was lodged in the London
Docks in the defendant's name, to give him a lien on
them. Tan Brokenhaff ultimately' failed, and the
defendant took possession cf these goods, as having
purchased them ; and in reply to the application of
t.:e• plaintiff to have the goods or their proceed,
given up, he set up a claim to them, as having a
right to detain them in payment of the money due
from Tan Brokenhaff to him. The plaintiff, cm the
contrary, contended that the defendant could have no
claim to the goods, inasmuch as it was an esta-
blished law, that, though an agent or factor c0u1..1
will the goods of his principal outright, he could
not pledge them.
The CULL? JUSTICE held this to be the law,_ and
observed. that in this case it was clearly a pledging
of the goods, even before they came to hand ; and,
therefore, that the plaintiff was entitled to a verdict.
Verdict for the plaintiff—Damages 4:523.
AUTVIESON V. THE EXECUTORS OF HARDY, DECEASED.
This was an action on a promissory note for £5OO,
made by James Hardy, deceased, in favour of the
plaintiff, dated December 16, 1519.
Mr. GURNEY, in stating the case, said, the plaintiff
had married Mr. Hardy's daughter, who had given
l*n, the note in question as a portion with his wife.
It would have been unnecessary for him to have
stated this, but he understood it was now to be con-
tended this note was a forgery. He would call se-
Neral witnesses to prove the hand-writing, and then
leave the question to the Jury.
R. Brookes knew the late Mr. Hardy for 30 years
before his death, and had frequently seen him write;
had no doubt but the signature to the note now put
into his hand, was his writing; the body of die note
was the plaintiff's hand-writing. Hardy died in Fe-
bruary, 1820. Witness saw the note in January
preceding ; he had frequently heard Hardy say he
would make the plaintiff, who had married his
daughter, comfortable when-he died.
(,'rocs-exantined.—ls a builder by trade ; was a
bankrupt three years ago, but was carrying on busi-
ness now. Had known V.aintiff 20 years, more or
less; had frequently bought goods of Hardy; thinks
he had dealings with bim in 1818; saw him in Ja-
nuary, 1320, at Newcastle-upon-Tyne. Had seea
him write a dozen times or more; the last time was
about six years ago; had heard that plaintiff was
once in prison, but could not say
.how lung
Via: on a Jury which tried him some ye irs ago, but
could not recollect how long since.
:Thomas Wilkinson, an Attorney, residing at Durei
ham, knew Mr. Hard) ; believes the signature to
Hardy's hand-writing ; had no doubt of it; had seen
him writ; frequently ; the last time was in Septem-
ber.lBl9, when he executed a codicil to his will. •
Cress-extmined.—Made the codicil to his will at
Hardy's own house ; never saw him out after.
J. Jackson, a cabinet-maker at Newcastle, knew
the late Mr. Hardy ; had seen him write ; and be-
lieved the signature to the note to be his hand-
writing; had-heard him say he would do something
for his son-in-law.

unfortunately failed in
trade. Got his certificate, but not having capital to
go on, had given up business, and now lived by
working as a journeyman.
R. Francis, a hatter, residing at Newcastle, knew
lUr. Hardy, and had seen him write ; believed the
signature to the note to be his writing. Heard him
saw a short time before his death that he would do
something for him. Did not know plaintiff till a
short time before his death, when he heard -Hardy
say that Mitcheson was to have the greater part of
his property.
Crou-examined..—Had been in prison lately, but
unjustly. Was a baribupt about six months ago;
-4 never had any dealings .witb Mitcheson in ac•
bills ; does not recollect saying, that
known bow bad a character Nitcheson was,

commodation
had he known