Star.
London, England, 1806-06-05 00:00:00

LAW INTELLICEACE

ticcitner Or KING'. jtusr,
atsism, AND ANOTHER V. KEMP AND ANOTMEE.

This was an elion for 951. the value of a quan-
tity of porter calks, furniihed to the Defendanti,
who are tefpellable wine and brandy merchants in
Mark lane. The witneffes called ic prove die delivery,
proved alfo diat the plaintiffs agreed to frirnith the
defendants at fix 'months credit ; and hiving corn.
menced their aftion' by forting the defendants with
fpecial writ, feveral days pretions to the &edit expir-
ing, they were non:Aired, and will have all the coils of
the aelion to pay.
ANDIRTON AND ANOTHER V. STOTT AND IDLE.

This was an anion brought by the plaintiffs, to re-
cover the difference between the Value of thirteen
pipes of Wine, which the defendants, Meffrs. Scott
and Idle, had omitted to deliver according to con.
train, and at the value of wine at the link fuch delivery
Ihould have taken place. It appeared, that the con-
tra& was it 471. los. per pipe; and the wine, after
having the plaintiff's ittirials, A. W. put upon the
calks, was moved into the defendant's cellars, from
whence it was never removed on account of the ;slain-
tiffs. Mr. Townfeed, the manes oldie Horns-Tavern,
at Kennington, bought wine of the defendants about
the time when the delivery Ihould have taken place,
and gave them 921. per pipe.
Mr. Pas K. in behalf of the defendants, contended
that, to fatitfy the fiatute, a memorandum in writing
mnik pats between the buyer and feller, or between
their embodied agents; and that an anual delivery
mun take place, in order to make the contran bind-
ing, neither of which be Paid had been done ; but after
confiderable altercation, Lord &Ls menanuou held,
that the marking the wine with the letters A and W.
the initials of the plaintiffs firm, Anderton and Wood,
was a fufficient memorandum; and the delivery into
the defendant's cellar, on the plaintiff,' account, was
a fufficient delivery to fatitly the liattue, and make
the contrail binding. Mr. t'ARK then attempted to
prove, that the defendants had been deceived as to
the period of credit they were to give; but that fai-
ling to the ground, the plaintiffs obtained a verdin
for pl. allowing a difference of 41. a pipe.

.
UNS 3.—MITCALS V. DOUGLAS.
This was an :talon, brought by the plaintiff, who
is a wet:l-man, againft the defendant, the nu ner of
the fhip Thamile, to recover 81. t Bs. 6d. for work and
labour performed, ih towing the (rid veffcl from
Gravefend to Blackwell. Mr. GARROW who opened
the plaintiff's cafe, Paid ht. was at a 101 l to knew what
Ittt of defence could be let up, unlefs it was that the
defendant meant to take advantage of the expreflion
ufed by the Plaintiff's Attorney, when he demanded
payment, namely, that the plaintiff wifhed to be paid
for pi/wing the veffel up the River, and intended to
difpute the plaintiff's being a tiretifiel pilot. If ft, it
would avail nothing, tithe fbould (hew that the vettet
was towed up the River, and that the charge was a
fair one. The plaintiff's cafe was proved, and the de-
fendant's Counfel obferved, that his client had furnifh-
ed him with nu available defence. The Jury, there.
fore, found a vertha for the plaintiff-81. Its. 6d.

AftRICAN V. NARPIR.
This was an aetion of affault. The plaintiff is a
clerk in a merchant's connting bottle, and with his
wife, daughter, and a fellow clerk, lodged in 'the
houfe of the defendant. The defendant infifted upon
the plaintiff and his family coming home by eleven
o'clock at night ; but, as it was imprffible IlriElly
comply with this injunction, the defendant, at tall,
contented to the plaintiff's having a key. It appear-
ed, however, that the defendant regretted this acqui.
efcence after he had made it, and between it and t 2
o'clock on the t ith of Oatiber WI, lie knocked at the
plaintiff's door, and demanded a furrender of the
key. The plaintiff was in bed, and being vexed at
having his telt broken, he got up, and demanded why
he was diffutbcd? An altetcation enfued, fcoundrel
and rogue were vociferated, and in the end-the de-
fendant pulled the plaintiff down flails 1-y his fhitt,
and gave him in charge to the watch. The watch-
man entreated the gentleman might be permitted to
drefs himfelf, and in the fetiffle the plaintiff got into
the defendant's pat lour, where the latter locked him
in, and kept him a prifoner ten minutes. To corn-
penfate this violence, tliejury gave the plaintiff-a ver-
did for sl. together with all colts