Star.
London, England, 1827-07-14 00:00:00

MURRIILL AGAINST WHITE.

This was an action to recover a sum of money which
the plaintiff claimed under a written agreement, for the
purchase of five licks of hay, at 51. per ton, upon which
the plaintiff, e timating the quantity of hay at 100 ton ,
had paid 5001. with a proviso that if the hay exceeded
that quantity the plaintiff was to pay for the excess, and
it it fell short, the defendant was to refund at the same
rate of Si. per ton. The declaration averred that the
quantity was oily 781 tons. To recover the value of the

difference between that quantity and 100 tons, at ci. pet
ton, die action was brought.
Mr. GUMMY said, that the defendant, who was a law
stationer, in Serle.street, occupied, in October, 1825, a
farm at Weybridge, and, as he was about to give up de
possession of it, he on the 4th of October, 18/.5, entered
into an agreement with the plaintiff for the sale of his
hay, consisting of five ricks. The, plaintiff paid 2501.
down, and 601. two days afterwards, each potty then
thinking that the quantity was about 100 tons. The
plaintiff was to be allowed until Lady.day, 1826, to clear
it away; this however, he did not do, but paid a suds
of money to Mr. Wells, the successor of the defendant
in the farm, for liberty to keep it longer there. When
it was cut and taken away, the quantity was found to
amount to only 78} tons. As, however, there might
be some little waste, and as the cattle of Mr. Wells had
on two occasions got to the ricks, some allowance must
be made for that ; but he (Mr. Gurney) would she*
that such waste could scarcely amount to a ton. The
plaintiff would be entitled to tecover whatever the Jury
might find to be the difference between the quantity of
the hay when sold and 100 tons, at 31. per ton.

The agreement was proved by Mr. Gunner, the
attorney for the plaintiff, and the quantity of the ticks
was proved by Samuel Wicks to amount to 781 tons.
This witness said that he began cutting away the hay
for the plaintiff on the Bth of April, 1826, and finished
it on the 19th of February, 1827. In the first three
ricks there was hardly any waste, but in the two last
ricks there was about 12 or 13 trusses wasted. This
was occasioned by the cattle nt Mr. Wells, who to .k
the farm of the defendant, getting at those ricks, which
they did twice.
William Murrell, a miller, proved that he, at Wells's
request, erected a fence round the ricks to keep our the
cattle. He did it for the plaintiff, to prevent Wells's
cattle eating the hay.
Cross-examined by the ATTORNIT GENERAL—It Was
most usual to buy hay by the load. He had bought
hay of Gentlemen by the ton.
Mr. Wells—Witness occupied the farm after the
defendant quitted it. He received a compeniation born
the plaintiff for letting the hay remain upon the farm
after Lady-day, 1826. His cattle bad not done much
damage to the hay.
Cross-examined —There would ha►e been much
damage done to the hay had it not been fenced, Witness
kept fifty head of cattle. He did not wish to have
them fed on another man's bay. The cattle were not
so particular on that subject as he was.
The ATTOXIMI-GENiRAL said, that notwithstanding
the evidence the Jury had heard, he should be able to
chew that the deficiency had been occasioned by the
cattle of Mr. Wells. The purchaser was to have taken the
hay away by Lady-day, 1826, and if he wished to pre.
serve it, it was his duty to have fenced it properly. Mr.
Wells admits that he )tad 50 cattle, and though he was
very particular, he allows that his cattle were not such
accurate distinguishers between venni and turAn
at their master was. The defendant, who is a law
stationer, and very little acquainted with farming; did
not know the difference between a load and a ton of bay,
which the plaintiff, a corn dealer, perfectly knowing,
dexterously inserted the word '• ton" in the agreement
instead of " load," by which he obtained 2cwt. in every
load, or one•tenth part more than he would have had,
if the sale bad been by the common way of selling by
the load. The miller, who is called for the plaintiff,
winking and laughing, tells you that he sometimes pur-
chases hay of Gentlemen by the ton—that is to say, of
those who do not know how to deal in hay. The fair
construction of this agreement was, to consider theesti.
mated quantity 100 loads, which was the understanding
of the parties at the time. The waste occasioned by the
cattle of Mr. Wells would then make up the deficiency.
John Acres, sen. and John Acres, jun. two labourers
on the farm, stated, that the cattle of Mr. Wells had
frequently got at the hay, which was eaten away in some
of the ricks in the heart of it, where it was thickest, and
would weigh heaviest. They would not state what
quantity of the bay was destroyei.

Mr. Guanny replied—The defendant knew well how
to make a bargain, fur he kept in hand the money
which was to be refunded. He was a law stationer and
a farmer, and was quite a match for any miller in Eng•
land. The word in the agreement is tons,' and that
was the understanding of the pa:ties.

Lord TRIMIRDRII said, that the word se tons" being
used in the agreement, the defendant was bound by it.
Verdict for the plaintiff—Damages 601.
CONSISTORY COURT, JULY Is.
ROSY& V. ROSE.

This case has been so often published, in proceedings
in this Court and a Court of Law, that the public may
be spared a repetition of its offensive details. It was a
suit for divorce, by reason of adultery, promoted by
Mr. Rose of the Legacy-office, Somerset-place. against
Louisa, his wife. The parties were married it, October,
1816. Mrs. Rose, it was alleged, was in the habit of
leaving her house at Highgate during the absence of
her husband on official engagements, and pursued a
course of profligacy, especially with a Mt. William
Blakemore, a person of the medical profession, resident
at Finchley, with whom she was sworn to have com-
mitted an act of adultery in Hornsey churchyard in ;he
year 1824. Mr. Rose instituted proceedings at law in
1825 against Mr. Blakemore, and recovered 1001. da-
mages; and in 1826 he the present snit.
On the part of the wife it was alleged, that differences
took place between the parties shortly after marriage;
that Mr. Rose came home of an evening intoxicated;
that upon one occasion he kicked his wife when she
was pregnant, and that be attempted the chastity of
Miss Susannah Bowyer, an inmate with the family, and
one of the witnesses in this cause.
After Dr. LUSHINGTON had been beard for the hus-
band, and Dr. JEssit ADDAMS for the wife, chiefly on
the credibility of the witnesses,

Sir C. ROBIN SON said, he would consider the gees.
tion attentively, and give his sentence before the next
Term.