Star.
London, England, 1813-02-06 00:00:00

MARTINI T. COLES.

This was a question of great interest to the public,
as to the power of a Factor to pledge goods consigned
to him from abroad to be disposed of in this country.
•p-In the present case, the plaintiff had consigned a
quantity of coffee to a person named Vos, as his fac-
tor, who, immediately on his arrival in this country,
indorsed the bilis of lading over to the defendants, who
are brokers, desired them 4, to do the needful"—
that Was, dispose of the coffee. Vos having previ-
ously had advances made to him by Coles, the latter
• conceived he had a lien on the coffee to the amount
of these advances, and could hold it as a pledge from
Vos till those advances were repaid. The plaintiff,
in the meat tilm, demanded that the coffee should
be given up to him, or the value of it paid over.—
This was refused by the defendant ; and on that re-
fusal the plaintiff brought his action of trover, which
wai tiled before Lord Eilenborough, and a verdict
obtained for the plaintiff, his Lordship reserving the
riot as to the power of a Factor to pledge the goods
of his principal.
Mr. KLCUMAUSON WAS heard at length in support of

.
the verdict, and Mr. WALTON in support of the poin►
of law taken at the trial.
The Coat delivered its opinion, that the Factor
had no power to pledge: The advances to `cos did
not give the defendant any lien on the goods of the
plaintiff : and therefore, when demanded, the coffee
should have been given up.—The verdict, therefore,
was established.

COURT OF COMMON PLEAS, FEBRUARY 4.
ADDON V. CLEMENTS.

This was an action for .IC4I, the price of fourteen
maliegany chairs, represented to have been made
pursuant to the express directions of the defendant.
John Haddon said, his father kept an upholsterer's
and cabinet-maker's shop, in the neighbourhood of
Moorfields, and Mr. aernents called there one day
during the month of July, 1811, saying, that he was
pleased with 'the rattern of some chairs that were
standing in the shop, and was desirous to have a
dozen common chairs, with two•arm chairs, finished
for his house in the same style. The order was ab-
solute, and the chairs were immediately cut out and
begun with all possible expedition. The common
chairs were to be Jr; each, and the armed ones were
to be charged according to the value of the work-
manship. In consequence of the application of Mr.
Clements, the finishing of the chairs was delayed,
and when they were completed he refused to have
them, alleging he had ordered them on the express
proviso, that he was first to let or sell the tenement
in which he lodged, and which he had not been able
to accomplish.
Mr. Williams, a merchant of Cornhill, was called
on the part of the defendant, who deposed, that he
accompanied Mr. Clements to the shop of Haddon,
when some chair patterns were shewn him, which he
approved of, and desired that f.urteen might be made
for him in the same manner and fashion. It was,
however, intimittal by Mr. Clements, that unless he
could find a purchaser or tenant for the house in which
he then resided, he would not take tl:c chairs, upon
which Young Haddon observed, that they were in
the constant habit of making such chairs for the
trade, and it would make little difference whether he
took them or not, as they would be able to find a
customer elsewhere.

The LORD CIIIEF JUSTICE observed, that it seemed
impossible to reconcile the testimony of the witnesses
called on each side, for the latter positively mention-
ed a conversation that happened in the tormer's pre-
sence, who absolutely denied all remembrance of it.
The Jury, after some consultation, returned a ver-
dict.of kl 4 for the plaintiff.

BEEIDELY V. SPOKES.

This was an action brought by an attorney, to re-
cover a sum of £ll 14s. 4d. reptcsented to be the
value of business done pursuant to the directions of
the defendant.

It appeared, that a person of the name of Abbey
having advertised for a partner in trade, the present
defendant entered into an agreement with him, and
employed the plaintiff to prepare the necessary in-
struments for perfecting their partnership. The idea
of co-partnership was afterwards relinquished ; —but
the employment of the plaintiff was mutual on the
part of Spokes and Abbey, the latter of whom had
permitted judgment to go by default. The charges
were proved to be very moderate.
On the part -of the defendant, it was endeavoured
to be maiotained, that lie did not employ the plaintiff,
but permitted Abbey to procure the instruments of
agreement to be pripared, and therefore could not be
called upon to pay the expence.
Sir JAMES MANSFIELD would not admit the defence;
inasmuch as the defendant had signed the agreement,
the preparation of which made one of the items in the
plaintiff's amount. The Jury returned a verdict for
the plaintiff.