Star.
London, England, 1821-07-17 00:00:00

COLLINS V. COMBER.

This was an action for money had and received.
Mr. MARRYAT stated, that the claim was £l5O,
for money lent. There was a farther sum of £93, to
which the plaintiff was fairly entitled, but which, at
law, he could not, perhaps, recover.
gitnuel Daly was called to prove the defendant's
acknowledgment. The witness said—ln the month
of November, 1820, I called upon Mr. Comber at his
counting-house, in Huggin-lane, and demanded £243
on the part of Mr. Collins. Mr. Comber said that he
did not owe £243: Mr. Collins..had lent him £l5O,
and that sum he would pay ; but the remaining £93
was a gaming debt, and he would not pay it. I
called upon Mr. Comber again the next day, and,
shewed him two slips of paper which contained an
account of the £93. Mr. Comber acknowledged the
figures in the•account to be his.
Cross-examined by Mr. Scitansrr.—l am an agent
to Colonel Brown, of St. Vincent's. I have known
Collins six years ; he is a coal and corn-dealer. He
has no counting-house that I know of ; he lives in thel
Clapham-road. I do not know that he is a marker
at a billiard-table. I have heard from Collins that
the £93 was lost at hazard ; and the £l5O was lent
the day after, at the Bull lan, op Shooter's-hill.
Mr. Scant. Err was extremely glad that he had got
an opportunity of addressing the Jury he had been
a good deal alarmed lest the plaintiff should be non-
suited before the case was fully opened to the Court.
The circumstances through which the defendant's

name had come into contact with that of a professed
gambler were :—Mr. Comber, a young man of great
respectability, had lately set up in business, and met
the plaintiff at Brightonyin the summer of 1820. Mr.
Collins walked about well dressed, vacillated between
the Libraries, the Assemblies, and the Steyne ; and
repeated collision produced a slight intimacy between
the parties. The acquaintance so commenced, the
plaintiff took great pains to improve; and at a sub-
sequent meeting in town. he asked Mr. Comber to
dinner. In an evil hour the defendant accepted Mr.
Collins's invitation. The parties dined ' • they drank
freely after dinner ; they played two or three games
at backgammon; Mr. Comber recollected nothing
afterwards, and nest morning be found himself in
bed at the house of his entertainer. At breakfast, Mr.
Comber said, We drank too deep last night." " We
played rather deep too." was the answer of his host.
Mr. Comber said he had no recollection of anything
but the game at backgammon. " 0 yes," returned
Mr. Collins, " you lost a trifle to me at hazard ; but
we'll talk of that some other day." At that time the
matter passed without further discussion ; but a few
days after, Mr. Collins claimed £l5O, and produced
a writing (somewhat resembling the hand of the de-
fendant), which he called a note for that amount.—
Mr. Comber then began to suspect some foul play.
He said, " I have no recollection of this note, or of
any gaming." The plaintiff insisted that the note
had been given. during the evening of the dinner, and
that the money had been lost at hazard ; Mr. Com-
ber replied, " That is impossible, for I do not even
know the game." No money, as the Jury would
suppose, was paid under such circumstances; soon
after, Mr. Comber heard that Collins was no other
than a marker at a public billiard-table ; he saw that
the transaction was a fraudulent one, and positively
refused all notice to the plaintiff or to his demand.—
A professed trader, bowefer, was not to be so easily
got rid of. Collins knew that the defendant bad
means, and he knew the aversion which a Gentleman
would be likely to feel at having his name introduced
into a difference at play. He therefore said, " I can-
not recover this money from you by law—(that was
the £150; for of the 08 now mentioned, the de-
fendant never before beard)--but if you do not pay
me, I will insult you wherever I meet you." Now,
very fortunately for Mr. Comber, the plaintiff, in this
instance, kept his word. He did, in public, and upon
several occasions, demand 1:150 from the defendant,
and those very demands furnished (what otherwise it
might have been troublesome to make out) an answer
to the present action. From the witnesses who were
present at those demands, the Jury would learn that
the story of the loan, and the Bull, at Shooter's-hill,
was a trumped up tale. It would be shewn that the
plaintiff had repeatedly demanded the £l5O as money
lost at hazard; that it had never been claimed upon
any other grlund ; and that the defendant had con-
stantly denied that he owed a single shilling.
Mr. James Jeakes said—ln July, 1890, I was walk.
ing with Mr. Comber through Threadneedle-street.
We met the plaintiff, Collins, who was then a stranger
to me. Collins said, " Are you going to pay me that
money r Mr. Comber said, " I owe you nothing,
and 1 wish to have no conversation with you." Col-
lins they abused Mr. Comber grossly, and we went
into the Antigallican Coffee-house in order to get rid
of him : he followed, and became so outrageous that
the company desired he might be turned out ; the
landlady sent for a constable accordingly. Next
morning, while I was in the defendant's warehouse,
Collins called. He recommenced the conversation
of the preceding day. I went out for a constable,
but he decamped before my return.
Mr. John Lvans—l am a tobacconist in Bishops-

gate-street. On the- 17th of November, 1890, Mr.
Comber came into my shop with Mr. Collins. Mr.
Comber desired that I would send for a constable.
I thought there had been some dispute with a hack-
ney coachman, and went out to look for a street-
keeper. I could not find the street-keeper, and asked
what the constable was to do? Mr. Comber said,
." this man charges me with a debt of £l5O, and I
owe him nothing: he has attacked me in the street,
and raised a mob round me." Collins said, 46 you
are not a man of your word : you have partaken of
my hospitality, and you have lost• 1.350 to me at
hazard, and you refuse to pay me." Comber denied
that he had lost any money. Collins said, ,g your
character as a merchant is of more value to you than
£l5O, you had better pay me; for if you do not,
although I cannot recover in law, yet I will bring an
action, and have the circumstances stated in order
to expose you."
The Loan CHIEF Junior thought that the plain-
tiff had no case.
Mr. MARRYAT consented to a nonsuit.
COURT OF COMMON PLEAS, JULY 16.
HEMING V. MEKNES.
This was an action on a breach of warranty of a
horse. The plaintiff's servant swore that his master
purchased two horses, one grey, for £l3, the other
black, for £l2, from the defendant, who warranted
both sound. The black, however, was discovered,
on the same evening on which it had been bought, to
be broken-winded, and was consequently returned to
the defendant, who refused to take it back. The de-
fendant's witnesses •swore that he had not warranted
either of the horses ; and that he had not sold both
together for 1425, the price of the grey being £lB ;
and he therefore refused to take one back without
the other; but offered, if both were returned, to re-
ceive them and return the money. His Lordship
left it to the Jury to say whether it was likely that
the plaintiff would purchase horses without, as one
of the witnesses for the defendant had stated, even
asking if tfley were sound ; or that, if the defendant
had not warranted the animals sound, but sold them
with all thtir faults, he would have consented to re-
ceive them back and return the money.
Verdict for the plaintiff. £l6 14s. the price of the
horse and the cost of his keeping.

COURT *OF EXCISE.
James Smith, a publican, was charged with having
compounded six gallons f liquor with a mixture
made from grains of Paradise, quassia, and other
pernicious ingredients, not malt and hops, with intent
to defraud the revenue. A second count charged
him with having the liquor so compounded in his
possession for purposes of adulteration. A third
count in the information charged him with having
had in his possession four pounds of grains of Para-
dise, for the purposes of adulteration, Ecc. whereby he
had forfeited on each count the sum of 1:200.

Judgment was awarded against the defendant on
two counts in the penalty of £lOO.
Richard Maw was charged with having fabricated
a .mixture from beer grounds and other ingredients,
to resemble ale. Another count charged him with
having the same in his pons on.
The proceedings in is case were compromised.