Star.
London, England, 1806-03-07 00:00:00

LAW It*TELLlcittiCE.

COURT OF JUNO'. BENCH, MARCH 3. •

WILLIAMS V. THOMAS.
This was an iffue out of the Court of Chancery
and the only queflion in the Code was, whethEr a cer-
tain partnerfhip was a general or particular one.—lf
the former, then the plaintiff to have a vet did for the
amount of his bill of exchange ; and if the latter, in
that cafe a nonfuit to be entered. The educe had pro-
ceeded but a Ilion way, when it appeared that the
partnerfhip was particular, and that the bill in fret
lion was not recoverable, as againll the firm.—rag
Plaintiff was accordingly nortfuited.
euroisa V. DOWDSLL.
The plaintiff is a haberdaker, and the defendant
the :nailer of a public.houfe, ;he Three Tuns," at
Portfmouth. The adion was brought to recover
the value of a parcel alledged to have been left in de-
fendant's cußody. and negligently 1011. It appeared
that the plaintiff's travelling clerk went to defen-
dant's and demanded if he could be accom•
modated with a bed? On being anfvrered in the air.
mative, he defired to be &even up Rairs, which was
accordingly done ; and. according to his evidence,
he depofited the parcel in queilion by his bed ode.
He then went to the town of Portfmnuth, and ram-
bled to another public houfe, where he flopped till
ten o'clock at night. On his return be miffed his
bundle, which he Paid had been Rohn out of
the bed room in his abfence. To rebut tbis
ninny the defendant's fervent' were examined, who
oil declared they had never feen the party with a
bundle, nor did he mention that he bad left a parcel
at the time he went not of the honk. It alto appeared
that he had made enquiry at the other public houfe
after the parcel, as if doubtful where he had left it.
It was contended that there was no pretence for fay-
hit the publican was refponfible: the parcel had nut
been left in his care, nor was any mention made of
its being placed in the bed room. The Jury were of
opinion. under all the Circumftences, that the dent.
, dant was not liable, and therefore gave him a verdiet.
MAILCH
There were three Special jury caufes fet down for
trial this dap, but four jurymen only attending, two
ware put off, and the third involved an quettion of
commercial importance. It was an ;talon brought`
by Sir Francis Baring agaioß the %I'd Exchange'
Afore:we Company,' upon a policy of inforance.--•
'the defence was. that the relic! loft was not fee-
worthy, but the defendant failing in his cafe, the
plaintiff obtained a verdia. The following Common
fury caufes were alto tried—

Will V. MACKIN.
This was an %Sion for goods fold and delivered.
Sir V. Gress, for the plaintiff, fiated, that this
salon was brought to recover the value of two pair
of watches ; and although it was not dual to put.
Ade a pair of watches in this country, as you would
Wy a pair of gloves, yet thofe in queflion were for
. tie Todd& market, where fuels a commodity was
always fold in couples. The plaintiff wasan eminent
watch-maker in the City, and the defendant a Turkifh
merchant, reading in Maidenlquare. He bad come
to the Plaintiff's (hop, accompanied by a Turkifh
demean, of the name of Bentalib, dreffed in the
of his country, and an interpreter of the sane
oleclano. Having examined a great varietral
FTie
'watches, they fixed on two gold, and two Chet t
bat, in order to make them faleable in Turkey, k
• As ameffary to make fume alterations ; the dial.
i . Oita were altered to Afiatic chars/tett, double cafes
were made for them, and chafed or engraved in a
peculiar manner. The defendant agreed to pay at
the rate of ed. each for thelgold, and Isl. for the
Myer. The defence, the Learned Couctel ondetlood
to be, that Ur. Bentalib was the purchafer, and not
the defendant; but it could not be fuppofed the
Plaintiff Amid credit a total aranger, who, perhapei
May pay a vifit to Mahomet before he could Gad
him again I or, if he Ilsould die, there would be ire
equal difficulty in difcdvering his perfonal reprefetetro
rive.
In the courfe of the examination' it however ap.
-geared, that there WU? a rumour of an Extraordi-
nary Envoy from the emperor of Morocco to this
country, and the Plaintiff having a quantity of polar
watches to difpofe of, he addreffed a circular letter
to all the Turkifit and other merchants, who could
alaft him in this line of bufinefs, and.' among the'
re% to the Defendant, who, in confequence thereof;
brought Bentalib to deal with him; but the defen-
dant did not appear to have taken any refpoofible
part himfelf, only accompanying him. He after.
wards offered to pay for two of the watches, which
was refufed.
The Plaintiff was accordingly nonfuited.
NOWCROFT IN SITTON AND ANOT/1111.
This was an ailion brought by the Plaintiff, a
tradefman at Bolton, in Lincolnfhire, to recover of
the Defendants, Elizabeth and Eleanor Tritton, the
rum of three hundred pounds, advanced to them in
their bufinefs of haberdafhets and milliners in the
fame town. The Defendant, Elizabeth, pleaded her
bankruptcy in bat of the a/lion, and Eleanor pleaded
that (be was only a fervent to her fillers and not a
partner. The quellion therefore was, whether the
Defendants carried on trade as partners, or whether
Elizabeth, the bankrupt, was a tole trader?
The only evidence of the partnerfhip was that of
she Defendants having a board over their limp door.
I,,iegibed " Trittons, Haberdafters and Milliners."
On the contrary fide there was an abundance of ter
t i mon T. that of apprentices being bound to Elizabeth ;
th it of her regulating her Wanes according to her
.).rn pleafitre ; taking journies to London, and
Eleanor defcribing herfelf as only the atrittant of her
filler.
Lord Et ern eranuc n Paid all the evidence wasn't,
one fide, and the Jury found a verdict for Defendant.
FENWICK V. AItMbTRONG•
'1" ' was an aftion for tf,i. under the following
tiro .nc..:, :
TI .laintiff is a (hip owner and the Defendant a
man who fupplies the merchant fervice with feamen.
In the prefent cafe he gave his undertaking, that
three men, defignating them by name, should con-
tinue on board the Plaintiff's brig for the (pace of one
month, the Plaintiff making the required advance of
i6l. and upwards. The men were (hipped on the
;nth of Oetober 1411, and failed to Ramsgate, where,
on their arrival, they deferted and left the (hip. The
Defendant's undertaking was proved, and the Naha-
i.lT obtained a verdift.