Star.
London, England, 1803-12-28 00:00:00

LAW INTALLIGENCE.

COURT OF JUNO'S BENCH. DEC. 24.
paws OF INGLAND NW.
Mr. Gists opened the pleadings in this cafe, from
which it appeased that this aftion was brought by
the Governor and Company of the Bank of England,
as the Indorfees of a Bill of Exchange, for 3351. 35. 6d.
againft the Defendant, as acceptor.
Mr. Exactas, in his addrefs to the Jury, obferved,
that it was matter of great furprife to him that this
anion was defended, and that a man (hould be a can-
didates for fuch abfolute difgrace. One of the Clerks
of the Bank of the name of George Stanley, called
on the Defendant. for the payment of this Bill, when
it became due. The Defendant was not ready to pay,
and he was dire/led to call at the Bill Office at the
Bank. Mr. Stanley had been out exercifing that
morning wirh his corps, and being rather late, lie was
in a hurry, and loft the Bill in quefiion. He thought
he had left it at the haute of the Defendant. He im-
mediately returned to the Defendant's houfe, but he
was not at home. He law his brother, but he knew
nothing of the Bill. The name of G. S. was upon
the Bill. And this worthy Gentleman, who never
t.,ok up the Bill at all, who was not ready to take it
force time after, when Mr. Stanley called upon
Lim, to know what be was going to do with the Bill,
told him, he had paid it; he tot it off the file and
(hewed it to him. There was a receipt on the back
of it, figned George Stank,.
Mr. Stanley wss called, who proved this opening ;
and he fail, lie had once called upon the Defendant
before, with a who was not ready to pay it. He
had afterwards called at the Bill Office of the Bank,
and tat-cn it up, In that he knew the mode of paying
bills th:it had not hi. honoured honoured when prefented...

Mr. ULMPLY was aVa.ut to proceed fur the Derail.,
;lam, wh,n Lord Ett.suboss ()Gm anted him, if he
ci.,tlrl prove the payment of this Bill by his Client ?
Mr. Goa liar laid, he could beve no dire& evidelice
of that ,though he had no doubt that hehad pa.d it.
His Lordfhip humanely obterved, that if the !aft
of payment could not be proved, a w, u.:LI he as seen
rot w go unto any farther difcudon sin Ale
N.; man in his fences, acquainted with the manner of
paying bills :at the Bank, woui.d have paid this 6:11 in
t:.c manner the Defendant %via% fa:d to have paid IL_
Verdia for rainta, 2351. 3.. 6-1.

THORVT:.."I Aril` CO. 9. Sit EP A!.41.1.

This aifito; w4sbrntiglit by the Piaintiti, who are
relpeCtable general Pt tsvifion the
lOter.Jants, who are engage.' in the fame .4 Ay of bu.
Eve',,. It was Iss•ouLt for a Wadi of ccati :al, in nut

delivering tc2 puncheons of MIL Citifies, that were
fold at 75. Bd. per gallon.
It would not be neceffary, Mr. GARROW faid, to
occupy much time on this fubjea. The contrast was
entered into on the 2oth of May. He faid be did not
impute any want of morality to the defendant in this
bufmcfs ; perhaps he thought he had a right to do it.
He could fuggele no reafon why the defendant had
not performed hi. contraft but this :—Soon after that
period it was propofed by the Chancellor of the Ex-
chequer, to lay 4n additional tax on Irifh fpirits, and
that tax was ably to operate on fpirits thereafter to
he made. The confcquence of tThs was, that Irilh
fpirits rote, fide from 76.8 d. to tos.6d. and afterwards
to t is. 3d. per gallon—Thefe fats ware proved.
Mr. ERSKINE laid, he could prove that his Clients
had offered there Gentlemen other fpilits, that were
equal in ftrength and flavour to thofe they had pur-
chafed, and 70 of the original puncheons were in the
number of thofe that were tendered.
Lord ELLSNBOKOUGIi obferved, that unlefs they
had offered the whole of theoriginal too puncheons,
it would not do. It would be extremely dangerous to
admit of fultelitution ; if the Defendant had not de-
liv eted tittle fpirits, the fingle queflion was, what was
the amount of the damages ? The number of gallons
contained in thefe 102 ptineheons,amounted to 11,776,
and the Gentlemen of the Jury found the Plaintiff
might have derived a profit of 2s. tod. per gallon on
thefe fpirits, and that was the meafure of their da-
mages, viz.—Verdia fo • Plaintiff for t,6681. ss. 4d.

THORNTON AND CCt. V. FRENCH AND CO.

Mr. Gaaaow Rated, that this affirm was alto
brought for a breach of a contra& The Plaintiffs
bargfined with the Defendants, Bogle, French, Bur-
rows, and Canning, for two hundred bands of prime
Merl pork, at 51. ss. per barrel. There were two
defcriptions of pork in the provillon market, which
were perfeftly diftind and perfally well known. The
one was called ma's pork and the other prime mels
poi k. The last defer:l)6mi of pork mull have fifty
pieces to the barrel. The price of this pork amount-
ed to 10991. 1.75. sd. including iotarance and interel.
As it appeared from the lilt caufe, if a man entered
into a contra& with me, he was bound to perform
it ; and, wrhout my content, he could not fubflitute
another contra& in it place, even if it were much
more advantageous to me. Men mud be kept to
their eontrafts, otherwife the greatelt cOnfulion mull
univerfally prevail in the commercial world.
It appeared in evidence, that thefe zoo barrels
were not prime rnels pork ; but it appeared by the
fame evidence, that a tender was immediately made
of other 200 barrels, that aftually were prime mefs
pork ; and it was contended, on the part of the De-
fendants, that this contraet was fo general, that it
would be fully fati,fied by the tubftitution of the lift
200 in the place of the firft. But this was denied on
the part of the Plaintiffs ; and
Lord ELLENBOROUGH was clearly of opinion that
this contrail was to far a f;,ecific contra& as to ren-
der it neceffary for the Defendants to thew that the
fall zoo barrels were on board at Dublin, which
was defcribed to have been the fituation of the first
zoo. It did not appear from whence the heft 200 came,
and ;therefore the Gentlemen of the Jury found a
Verdi& for the Plaintiffs for 10991. including info.
ranee and inrereft.