Star.
London, England, 1809-06-05 00:00:00

MASON v. RiDDIFORD AND ANOTMet.

Mr. PARK stated that the plaintiff was a respectable woorten-
&aver in Holborn. The defendant!, Messrs. Riddiford and
Hughes, eminent wholesale woollen-draperi in Basinghall-street.
The plaintiff, on the 17th of December last, having occasion for
V2AriOUS sorts of cloths, went, for the purpose of purchasing them,
to the defendant's warehouse, and bought various pieces, and,
among the rest, ten pieces of blue superfine woollen cloth, at
Cs. per yard, of which a bill of parcels was made nut ; and re-
ceived, as a pattern of the bulk, 13 yards, for whieh he paid £l9 ;
the rest was to be delivered on the 31st of that Month; on which he
was to acceptabill for theamount, payable in four months. Hesent a
friend of his, Mr. Lindsey, to call for these ten pieces of cloth ; aria
then Mr. Hughes said that this cloth had not come from the manu
factor/ in the country; that they Were going to send t 0 the country,
and that they would rend it as soon as it came from thence ; thas
he expected the goods in a few days ; that the manufacturer hue
behaved in a very unhandsome manner in not sending to them
the goods ; but that he believed they had omitted to send them
because of the advance of price. Mr. Lindsey told Mr. Hughes
that this was nothing to Mr. Mason, for that he must insist on
the delivery of the goods according to the contract, and that he
must bring an action for enforcing the contract, if it was not com-
plied with ; and Mr. Hughes said, if Mr. Mason brought an action
against them, they must bring an action against the manufacturer.
Another application was made for these cloths on the '2Bth of Ja-
nuary ; and Mr. Hughes said, that he would have nothing to say
to thg subject, observing that Mr. Mason had behaved unhand-
somely to him, and that be might proceed in his action. The
Contract being proved by the bill of parcels,
It then appeared by the evidence of Mr. Daniel Price, a consi-
derable woollen-draper in Cornhill, that the price of woollen
cloth of this quality, which although called superfine was not of
the very Lest kind, advanced from the middle of December, when
it was zt-'2,1 P. to the beginning of February, to about 30 or 32t. a
y.ud;—by the evidence of Mr. Butler, of Basinghall-street, from
'2ls. to about sus. a yard;—by the evidence of Mr. Grimes, of
Ludgate-hill, the advance %/as only from about 215. to gas. Per
!*ardonaking the advance from the middle of December to the be-
ginning of eebruary, in superfine woollen cloth, only 7s. per
yard !

The defence was, that the sale in this case was only conditional ;
that they offered to the Plaintiff these cloths afterwards, and he
would not make up his mind until they were sold to another. But
this was not made oat to the satisfaction of his Lordship and the
Jury, who found a •erdict far the Plaintiff, damages 120 l being
tk the rate of Ts. a yard, for the advance in the price of cloth from
the middle of becember to the beginning of February last, the
quantity of cloth being 360 yards, each piece running 36 yards ;
and yet, if we mistake net, =my persons were charged tive;and
some tiz potuids, far a coat of superfine cloth, under the idea of
its being upwards of two guiaeas per yard!

kisY v. KIiRNOTs
Thii was an action to recover six guineas, the pricy of an Metro -
lova to suppurt the head of a deceased child. The Defendant
wu a diuggiA, who had the misfortune to have'a female child,
the muscles of who,e neck semis unable to support the head, and
the Plaintiff had made the tuacitine in question for that perpose.
The Defendant had offered ti. 3s. which was rejected asnot being
a sufficient compensativa. Mr. Sheldtake' and several other per-
sons whose business it was to remedy the deformities of the hu-
foal person, Stated, that they would not have ".one any thing
snider a sutu cunsideiably larger than the Plaintiff had charged,
and Ane in particular said he would not attempt any thing under
ten fluillils*
Lord ELLEN/It:mm;(1w told the Jury every man was entitled to
a•fair retnnneratiou for his labour, but he hoped they would dis-
ntenance that mode d capricious charge by which these per.
calu
cons would extort front the nectssitics of the afflicted, and which
reatedizbeTuald tie reach of the ),eu:-. Verdict
sar
r:t tine neces y r
*lst Plaittili of Q. 415.