Star.
London, England, 1822-10-25 00:00:00

LAN' INTELLIGENCE.

/

COURT OF KING'S BENCH, OCTOBER 24.

- -
WINTOSH AND ANOTHRR V. HILTON AND CO.
This was an action by Messrs.•Milotosh and Stir-
ling, of the Campsie Alum Manufactory, near Glas-
gow, to recover the amount of a demand for goods
sold and delivered to a person named Beattie, as
agent of the defendants, Messrs. Hilton and Co. of
the Isle of Dogs, in the year 1821. The sum de-
manded was about 4001. for alum supplied to the
defendants.—The single question in this cause was,
whether Beattie had acted as accredited agent of the
defendants, in ordeiing the goods supplied on their
account? It was not disputed, on the part of the de-
fendants,'that the goods had been supplied, but the
defence was that they had paid Beattie for the amount,
and that they had no immediate dealings with the
plaintiffs. On the other hand, it was suggested that
Beattie was not forthcoming, and that the plaintiffs
had never received the ;slice of the goods. Several
instances were adduced in evidence, in which Beattie
had acted as the special agent of the defendants dosin
to tfie month of June, 1821. The goods for which
the defendants were now charged were supplied be-
tween that period and the 29th of November in the
same year.
The LORD Cuter JUSTICE was of opinion, that as
there was no proof of the•defendants having ever'
countermanded 13eattie's authority, or repudiated his
agency during the period in question, they were
liable in point of law.
In consequence of this ruling, the defendants sub-
mitted to a verdict, and the amount of the damages
was referred to Mr. TA I.FOURD.

RAMSDEN AND OTHERS V. ASHTON AND OTHERS.

This was an action of debt by farmers of Pest Horse
Duties, to recover the amount of certain duties due
t( them from the defendants, for the letting of horses
in the year 1821.

Tile defendants were licensed to let horses, and re-
tided in Gray's Inn-lane. The object of this action
was to try two important questions respecting the
of persons letting horses for funeral solem-
nities, to the duties payable, in respect of horses so
emyloyedr—l. 'Whether horses let for the convey-
ado" of hearses and mourning coaches beyond the
bills of mortality, and- within ten miles of London,
are liable to a duty of ls. 9d. per diem only, or to
onelom th the sum paid to the persons letting, for a
day's employment, where the distance is not ascer-
taineJ ? And 2. Whether hearses and mourning
coaches, which require a hackney coach license
within the bills of mortality, are liable to duty, when
the number of horses employed in the conveyance of
such :arri;u:es escreis a pair? The plaintiffs inshted
upon the affirmative of both propositions, which de,
',ended upon the construction of the 9th Anne c. 23,
and Ist Geo. I. stat. 2. c. 5, s. 3; 24th Geo. IIL c. 27,
s. 7; 32J Geo. 111. and 42.1 Geo.-111. c. 37. Several
tudgrtakers were examined as • to.the facts necessary
to raise the question, und, at the suggestion of the
Leamed Judge, it, was agreed that a special case
should be framed for the opinion of tile King's Bench
upon both questions.—A verdict for the plaintiffs for
nominal damages was taken, subject to a case.