Star.
London, England, 1822-11-02 00:00:00

defendant, mid that his slim t tn* no one but Mrs:
Crean ; -to her he.had given a bill dr =hangs) and
to her he considered himself as liable.
Mr. Ma RRYAT said, that he would shew clearly
that Mrs. Crean had no interest; and as to the bill
alluded to, which had been. given for pe4of the debt,
it was payable five months after doe; AM had been
sent back by Mrs. Crean, because the executors would.
not receive it. The bill would be shewn to be reason-
able in all itiitems: to one or two of them, perhaps,
the Baronet might successfully object, for ere were
a few 'glasses Of brandy and water charged ls. 6d.
each, being 6d. more than allowed by law. Attempts
had been made to obtain payment; but the Baronet
was not always very easily to be found by persons"
,who came to demand money in payment of debts,
and-would sometimes sit at a window and nod his
head at them when they came to his door, as if to
defy them because be was safe in his own house,
which they dared not break open. He had therefore
been arrested for the sum.
The LORD CHIEF JUSTICE said these remarks were
not very gracious after the candid manner in which
the ground of defence had been communicated by
the defendant's Cdunsel.
The will of Mr. Crean was produced to shew that
his executors were directed to carry on the business,
and that no interest passed to his widow. A third
executor was named, but he did not prove or interfere.
Mr. COMMON SERJEANT objected that this executor,
ought to have joined in the action.
The LORD CHIEF JUSTICE agreed that if the action
had been brought for a demand accruing to the
plaintiffs as executors, the third ought to have joined,
though he had not proved the will ; but here the
claim was made by the plaintiffs in their own right,
and therefore it was enough if those who acted as
conductors of the trade sought to recover the debt.
Mrs. Crean proved the length of time during which
the family remained at the Star and Garter. No par-
ticular inquiries were pursued as to the items of the'
bill, as it was agreed that they should be settled out
of Court. She received the bill of Sir Gregory, but
was obliged to return it to him, accompanied by a
letter, explaining that it was at too long a date for the
executors to receive.• •
'On this evidence, the LORD CHIEF JUSTICE thought
there could be no doubt that the action %,/ ikS brought
by the right parties ; and the defendant submitted to
a verdict, the damages to be Ascertained by Mr.
D. F. JONES.

HILBERS 17. PETITPIERRE.
This was an action on a contract, dated the 13th
of December, 1821, by which the defendant agreed
to deliver to the plaintiff 100 casks of tallow on the
31st of January, 1822, at 48s. per cwt. Previous to
the time when the tallow was to be delivered, it rose
to 51s. per cwt. in consequence of which the defendant
refused to supply it.
. Mr. Rayner, the broker who made the contract,
was called to prove it. It appeared that be imme-
diately negotiated with Mr. Edward Petitpierre, the
broker of the defendant, Who had several times be-
fore made contracts of this nature for him, which
had been recognized and acted on by the defendant.
On cross-examination, he stated that Mr. Hilbers had
on, perhaps, Six occasions in the preceding six months
received the differences in similar contracts instead
of- the:tallow. Mr. Hilbers had bought up tallow
very largely, and thus contributed to raise its price.
'Mr. CAMPBELL addressed the Jnry for the de-
fendant, contending, first, that- there was no suffi-
cient proof of Mr. Edward Petitpierre's authority to
make the bargain; and secondly, that it was evi-
dently a mere wager on the price of tallow, in which
nothing but the difference ever was intended to pass,
abd *hick war therefore void in law.. It would be
very hard if Mr. Hilbers Might thus take advantage
of a rise in the price occasioned by his own acts to
take money out of the pocket of the defendant, who
had been a bankrupt, but was now again in business,
and 'who, if the 'present action should succeed, would
be brought to a second and irreparable ruin.' •
The LORD CHIEF JUSTICE directed' the Jury, if
they believed the contract to be by both parties un-
derstood as a mere wager, to find for the defendant,
as iP would then be illegal. If they thought the
• agency was riot established, they would also find for
the defendant ; but if they considered the contract as
made bowl fide, and by the authority of the defendant,
they would give the plaintiff a verdict for the dif-
ference between the price specifies in the contract
and that borne by the article at the end of the Ja-
nuary following —The Jury found a verdict for the
plaintiff—Damages, £296 Bd.
BALM B. SORRELL AND ANOTHER.

The plaintiff declared upon a bill of exchange for
£2009, with the common money counts.
The case was this merchant, named Lewellyn,
being desirous of shipping a cargo of goods to Con-
stantinople, applied to the plaintiff, a resident Greek
merchant in this country, to advance money upon the
credit of the proceeds, which the latter agreed to do,
on condition that the cargo was consigned to his fa-
ther, a Greek merchant, having an establishment at
Constantinople. Money was advanced on these terms,
and the goods were consigned to Constantinople.—.
Before they arrived -the plaintiff's father died, and on
their arrival they were put into the Court of Chan-
celry at Constantinople, and under the authority of
that Court, the defendants, brothers, merchants re-
siding in that city, were appointed consignees, with
authority to sell the goods for account of the plain-
tiff's late father's representatives, and transmit the
proceeds to England ; and accordingly they remitted
a paper writing to the plaintiff, stating the proceed-
ings which had taken place at Constantinople with
respect to the goods, and striking a balance of the
proceeds, amounting to IE2OOO, which they prothised
to pay the plaintiff 91 days after sight, unless a sum
of 1:600, forming a portion of she prossieds, was otter-
wise paid by the parties interested. In the soatement
thus written, the defendants professed to =mint
with Theodore Ralli, the plaintiff's father, and not
with 'the plaintiff, Eustatia Ralli. On this statement
of the case,
Mr. CAMPBELL, for the defendants, made two obr
jections to the plaintiff's right to recover. 1. The
paper declared upon as a bill of exchange was not
an instrument for the payment of a sum certain, and
at a time certain, butnpon a contingency, which might
or might not happen, and therefore could not be'
treated as a bill of exchange; according to the cus-
tom of merchaats. 2. The plaintiff could not recover
*on the money counts, inasmuch as the defendants
did not reins to account with the plaintiff, but with