Star.
London, England, 1825-02-25 00:00:00

bad still broke his contract with. arra to the notice,'
and according to his own shearing, had not introduced
the picture into the auction room till the day of sale,
which had not given it so fair a chance as those that
had been viewed on the preceding day. The picture
asserted to be the one in question, sold to Mr. Chal-
mers, only produced seven guineas, whereas that be-
longing to the plaintiff was valued at sizif pounds.
The question for the consideration of the Jury was,
whether the defendant bad in fact at all sold the plain-
tiff's picture? and if be had, whether be wassnot liable
for the loss sustained by his breach of contract, in not
giving noticel Upon consideration of these facts, the
Jury returned a verdict for the plaintiff—Damages
Fifty Guineas, subject however to a deduction of Seven
Guineas, which had been paid into Court..

CASTLRS V. ATER.
The plaintiff, who is an attorney at Shadwell,
brought this action to recover from the defendant, who
keeps the Ship public-house, at Shadwell, and was
formerly chief mate to Captain Parry, in one of his
voyages of discovery, the sum of 191.45. Bd. for busi-
ness alleged to have been done by the plaintiff, as an
attorney, for the defendant.
Ftom the evidence it appeared that the plaintiff had
transacted some business in endeavouring to make out
the claim of a poor old woman, named Clegg, to some
.freehold property at Whitby, and in the course of the
business the defendant's wife had accompanied Mrs.
Clegg to the plaintiff's office. A letter was also pro-
duced, which a man named Mitchell swore that he
wrote, by the defendant's desire, and took to the plain-
tiff, in which letter the defendant asked for certain pa-
pers in the plaintiff's possession, and promised to pay
any expenses incurred. The defendant, by his Counsel
(Mr. Scarlett), solemnly denied that he ever authorised
Mitchell to write such letter, or that he knew of its being
written. Mitchell, upon cross•examination, admitted
that he had been confined in Clerkenwell-gaol for three
months, for want of sureties, for an assault. The plain—
tiff's son proved, that, upon calling upon the defendant,
he expressed his surptise that the plaintiff should have
sent in his bill so soon, but that he would call on the
plaintiff and see about it.—This was the substance of the
evidence for the plaintiff.
For the defendant, Mrs.Clegg was called, and proved
that khe employed the plaintiff, and that the defendant
was no further connected with the matter than that he
had agreed to purchase the premises of her, and that
she had named him as a trustee fur her. She admitted
that she had borrowed money of the defendant's ode,
which she had not repaid. Evidence was given that
the defendant could write.
Mr. EDWARD LAWF.S having replied,
The Loan CHIEF JUSTICE charged the Jury, and said,
that if the evidence of the plaintiff's son was to be be-
lieved, there could not be the smallest doubt but that
the defendant considered himself as the person liable to
pay the plaintiff's bill. He did not see anything to
impeach the testimony of the witness Mitchell ; and the
fact of the defendant having agreed with the witness
Clegg for the purchase of the property of her, spewed
chat he had an interest in the transaction. It Was cer-
tainly a curious fact that a man who could write him-
self, should ask another to write a letter for him; but
the defendant might have done that for the express
purpose of not having his hand-Mr icing brought against
him. If, under all the circumstances, the Jury were
satisfied that the defendant employed the plaintiff to
transact the business in question, then his Lordship
thought that they might safely find a verdict fur the.
whole amount of the plaintiff's dimmed.
The Jury found for the plaintiff for the whole amount
of the bill,excepting 101. w hich had been paid on account.
SHERIFFS'. coma, FEBRUARY Ts.
BUTCHER AND OTHERS U. NICHOLLS AND ANOTHER.
This was an action for the recovery of the amount of
a bill of exchange, of which the defendants were the
drawers. Payment was refused by the defendants,
upon the ground that proper notice had not been given
to them that the acceptor had not honoured the bill.
Mr. LAW called evidence to prove that the bill be-
' eame due on a Saturday ; that it was presented, not
paid, noted, and that or. the Monday morning it was
taken to the house of the defendants; the wile of one
of them directed the person who had the bill to call at
her husband's counting house, in Thames-street; that
on Tuesday or Wednesday morning, the holder_called,
as directed, and was told by the defendants that they
were exonerated from the responsibility, as due notice
had not been served upon them that the bill had not
been honoured.
Mr..BAR-NAED contended, that as there was no po-
sitive proof that due notice had been given to the de-
fendants of the non-payment of the bill, his clients were
not aa.esable. There were but two indorsees on the bill,
besides the holder, and the Learned Cour.sel contended
notice should, therefore, have been served on Tuesday,
and that the mention to Mrs. Nichols was of no avail.
The Jonas stated to the Jury, that the notice given
on the Monday, at the house of the- defendant, was
quite sufficient to make the drawers responsible, and
that as there, were three names on the backlof the bill,'
Wednesday would have been sufficiently early to give
the notice, as each indorser was, according to the po-
sition of his name, entitled to a day's notice.—The
Jury immediately found for the plaintiff.
Mr. LAW said, it would be a comfort to many per.
sons to know, that if they called at a counting-house,
and that it was shut up, when they had a bill to present,
the mere caU was sufficient notice.—The Jury said
they thought so.