Star.
London, England, 1818-05-12 00:00:00

1-411' INTELLIGENCR.

COURT 3F KING'S BENCH, MAY 9.
DOVER V. PYRE.
This was ar. action by a brushmaker, residing in
Round-court, in the Strand, against the defendant, a
calico-priuter, to recover the sum of W. 6d. being the
amount of a bill delivered for brushes used by the
defendant in his trade, pursuant to order. The dif-
ference in dispute between the part,ies was about
ls. Bd. and the trial of this momentous cause occu-
pied three hours of the valuable time of the Court.—
Witnesses were examined on both sides.
The Jury retired for about an hour, and found a
verdict for the plaintiff—Damages I/. 18s. 10d.

COURT OF COMMON PLEAS, MAY P.
LIGHTFOOT D. CREED.

This was an action of considerable interest to
Stock-dealers. It was a case of assumpsit, in which
the plaintiff sought to recover the sum of 451. which
was alleged had been paid away to the defendant's
use. The question hid been tried at the Sittings in
London, after the last Hilary Term, when, under the
direction of Mr. Justice DALLAS, the Jury found a
verdict for the plaintiff, subject to a point of law. In
the course of the present term Mr. Serjeant Hutto=
,obtained a Rule to chew cause why the verdict should
not be set aside upon certain points ; namely, that the
matter arme out of a gambling transaction ; and,'
next, that the sum alleged to have been paid by the
plaintiff to the defendant's use had not been done,
*tiler directly Gr impliedly, by the authority of the
former.
Against the Rule Mr. Serjeant VAUGHAN now ex-
hibited cause, and briefly detailed the circumstances
of the case: The plaintiff, on the 23d of October last,
called upon the defendant, and requested to purchase
from him 30001. 3 per Cent. Consols, at the market
price of the day. 'The defendant agreed, and the
transfer was to take place on the 30th of the month.
The defendant, it appeared, at the time was actually
possessed of stock to the amount in question, al-
though it had been entered in the name of Messrs.,
Martin and Co. his bankers. It appeared further,
however, that on the same day he had sold two other
parcels of like stock to other incliviAnils for the
amount, and had thus contracted enzageriitnts for
60001. more than was, bona
,file, in his possession.
The Learned Counsel (lict.tock) argued upon the
fact that it was a gaming and not a fair transaction.
This objection, however, could not be maintained,
inasmuch as it could not be ascertained whether, the
sale made to the plaintiff had been antecedent to, or
had preceded the other sale. The great objection,
however, arose from another part of the case. From
the notes of the original trial, it appeared, that on
the 30th of October the plaintiff called upon Mr.
Bailer, the broker of the defendant, to have the stock
duly transferred, in pursuance of the contract. The
broker pez,:eaded to effect this; but it so happened
that on the very day a considerable rise had taken
place in the 3 per Cent. Consols, and it was found
upon investigation that the sum transferred, as before
stated, was minus 45/. The plaintiff, to obviate this
difficulty, paid the deficiency, and thus made up the
net sum for which he contracted with the defendant,
relying upon the latter to make good the sum ; the
defendant, however, did not yield compliance, and
hence the present proceeding arose.
Mr. Ser;cant IIULLOCIC argued, that the defendant
had not given Ins authority either directly or indi-
rectly to the pliintiff to pay away the sum stated fbr
his use. After considerable argument, the Court de-
clared their opinion to be, that the consent of the de-
fendant, either expressed or implied, should have
been given as to the payment of mone., on this ac-
count, and that such admission not having been made,
a verdict of nonsuit must he entered.—Entered ac-
cordingly.