Star.
London, England, 1826-11-08 00:00:00

SUBSTANCE OF THE NEW LAW OF

PRINCIPAL AND FACTOR:

Clause LA.-Gives to a consignee of goods the right
to consider the person in whose name the goods are
shipped to be the proprietor, unless he has notice to the
contrary ; and the consignee will, therefore, be entitled
to apply the proceeds in discharge of any sum due from
arch person, or of any engagement entered into on his
account. To guard against the improbable case of the
consignor having tits mere possession of the goods,
without any authority either to consign or to sell them,
the right of the consignee to treat them as the property
of the consignor is made to depend upon the fact of the
consignor having been " intrusted for dm purpose of
consignment or of sale ;" but to relieve the consignee
from the necessity of proving that fact, the clause pro-
vides that the person in whose name any goods are
shipped shall be presumed to have been " intrusted
therewith for the purpose of consignment or of sale,
unless the contras y shall be made to appear ;" casting
the negative proof, therefore, upon the party disputing
the fact.

2. The preceding clause hating relieved the consignee
from the necessity to investigate the title of the consignor,
this clause governs the relation between the consignee
or other person having the dncumentsof title, and those
with whom he may'deal. It provides that any person
intrusted with, and in possession of, any bill of ladin4,
India warrant, dock warrant, wateluse-keeper's carp
ficate, wharfinger's certificate, warrant or order for deli-
very of goods, shall be deemed and taken to be the true
owner of the goods, wares, merchandise, described and
mentioned in the said several dt,cuments, so far as to
give validity to any coot+ act or agreement entered into
by such person, with any oiler person, or corporation,
for the sale or disposition of the said goods, or for the
deposit or pledge them eof, as a st entity for any money
or negotiable instrument advanced or given by such
person or corps:n*6.in, provided the person making the
advance shall not have notice that such person is not the
actual and bonefftle owner.
3.—Enables a creditor of any person in possession of
any such document of title to acquire an interest in the
goods to the extent of that persbn's interest thereii,,,
although no present advance shall be made, the dis-
tinction being, that a person making an advance shall
be considered to have a valid title, even against the true
owner, because he has been induced to give credit to the
appearance of title in the individual possessing the docu •
scents; but the person obta;ning security for an antece-
dent debt is only to acquire such interest as the debtor
could properly and equitably transfer-to him—namely,
his own interest in the goods.
4.—Protects persons oho may purchase and pay for
goods, wares, or merchandise, from agents, although
the tact of their being merely agents should be known,
provided such dealing shall proceed in the usual and
ordinary' course of business, and that the purchaser
shall not have notice at the time of the purchase or
payment, that the agent is not authorized to sell the
goods, wares, and merchandise, or to receive the pur-
chase money.-

This clause -effectually 'meta the class of cases considered so hard
upon merchants, by which a purchaser might be made liable to pay
a second time for goods intrusted to an agent for a Waited purpose,
but not for sale, but which he had neverthekss sold, and such sale
not being in open market, was .not binding upon the proprietor of
the goods._

s.—Makes deposits or pledges of goods,o?documents
of title, by persons known n t to be the proprietors
thereof, valid to the extent of the interest which coulu
or might have been enforced by the factor or agent at
the time of such deposit or pledge.
eves the right of the pi incipal, as between him
and his factor, or agent, and also as against the as.'
signees of the factor or agent, in case of bankruptcy—
also, to receive the purchase-money for goods sold, in
case they shall not have been paid for, but subject to
any set-off on the part of the purchaser ;* also, to receive
back the goods of the principal in pledge, upon repay-
ment of the advances made upon such pledge.
The remaining chases relate only to the principal and his factor
or agent, and sly not affect the rights of persons dealing with the
factor or agent.
7.—Subjects factors or agents to he prosecuted for a
miscltmeattor, who may deposit or pledge any goods,
wares; or merchandise, intrusted or consigned to his or
her care& management, or any of the said documents
of title to possessed or intrusted, and who shall apply
or dispose of the money or nego iable instrument bor-
rowed or received by such factor or agent, to his or her
own use, in violation of good faith, and with intent to
defraud the owner of any such. goods.
S.—Provides that factors, or agents, are not to be sub-
ject to prosecution for having deposited of pledged goods
intrusted or consigned to them, provided they are not
made a security for any greater sum than at the time of
such deposit or pledge was justly due and owing to such
factor or agent, from his or her principal. But bills of
exchange, drawn by or on account of such principal,
are not to be considered as constituting any part of
such debt so due and owing from such principal, so as
to excuse the consequence of such deposit or pledge,
unless such bills shall be paid when the same shall
respectively become due.
9.—Protects (from the penalties imposed by the Act) partners of
factors, or agents, who may Dot be accessory or privy to the mom-
missies:ts, of the beforementioned offence by such factor or agent.

10—Lablaw the peistipel t, takeilie same proceedings, and seek
the IMMO remedy, against !him:ter sr agent, for misconduct, which
he might have taken if the Ass had net passed.

The Memoirs of the ve:eiari comic dramatist,'
O'Kurrg, are just published, in Two Octavo Volumes. They
embrace a long and loireadne period of seventy years, and deli-
neate, with the peculiar beintrar of the Author, the State of So-
ciety in Ireland at the ndeldia of the last .Century, including
Original Anecdotes of calibrated Pima (in that country and in
England), connected with the Drama, the Fine Arts, and Fashion-
obi• Life.

CITY FRASTINIL—The following is the bill of fare,
for the Court of Assistants of the Worshipful the Com-
pany of Wax Chandlers, London, 1478 :—Two loins of
veal, and two loins of mutton, Is. 4.d.; one loin of beef,,
4d.; one dozen of pigeons and one dozen of rabbits,
9d.; one pig and one capon, Is. one goose and a hun-
dred eggs, Is. id.; one leg of mutton, 2jd.; two gallons
of sack, Is. 4d.; 8 galls. of strong ale, Is. 6d.-7s. 6d.
CONSUMPTION OF CORN IN ENGLANIS.—.The popu-
ation of England and Wales, in 1765, was rated at six
millions, and Dr. ADAM SMITM estimated, that for the
immediate consumption, by that number of individuals,
7.556,350 quarters of grain was necessary. The popu-
lation of Great Britain, at present, may be estimated at
14 millions in round terms. The total amount then,
absolutely required for annual Consumption by the
country (exclusive of Ireland. which is always a grain•
exporting country, and, consequently, able to support,
from its own resources, more than its share of popula-
tion), will be but 15.299,816 quarters of all descriptions
I To this may be added one-tenth of the entire
fur seed.

...;;""*.••-•.^....ntsrmart•4so7-- +"^--VO-• • • .• •

LAW REPORT.

VICE-CHANCELLOR'S couaT, Nov. 7.

COURT. OF KING'S BENCH, Nov. 7.
SUM V. CLIMEXT.

Mr. GUAM moved fora rule to show cause why the
verdict of the Jury, given for the defendant, the Pro-
rietor of The morniNg Chronicle, in the above cause,
should not be set aside, and a new trial had.
The case, it will be recollected, was that of an action
brought by a Police Reporter of The Times Newspaper,
against the defendant, for certain expressions calculated
to injure his character, contained in a Marlborough-street
Police Report in The Morning Chronick Newspaper.
The LORD CHIEN JUSTICR was of opinion, that the
verdict in the cause ought more properly to have been
for the plaint;ff, with damages of .51.
Mr. Justice liatiav thought no actual damage had been proved,
as the plaintiff bad not lost his situation.
Mr. Guasry said that be had been injured in his reputation by
the libel, and was entitled to the protection of the law.—The rule'
was granted.

:x• PA 111TIROXIlla lUOW, /14. •
The defendant, who had taken the benefit of the
Insolvent Act, came into Court to move for a rule to
shew c•iuse why he should not be discharged from
custody, exempt on the recogniz4nces, which were
estreated with respect to Lord Clifton, the son of Earl
' Darnley. The affidavit of the defendant was read,
stating that he had been injured considerably in has
health by a confinement of six years. He prayed that
he might be discharged from custody on judgment on
his recognizAnces. The Court granted a rule to shew
cause.

CIMMUYALL INFORKAIIOIII4

The Commou SERGEANT moved for a criminal infor.
matron agaiisst a Clergyman and a Magistrate of the
c %rot, of Lincoln. The application was made on the
part of the husband of a L ;dy• who, before ber mar-

NATAL STANNANT AIID annum lIIIIIINe ASSOCIATION.-ILAINIC ANA

Oltlsif V. WV P. IL AVAIL •ND OVUM-^T-_
•
In this case a bill had been filed by five *Sim's, as
well for themselves as others, orginal subscribers to the
above Company, and at present holders of 1,700 shares.
The prayer of the bill was, that the Managing Direc-
tors be compelled to repay to the Subscribers the sums
which Oey had respectively advanced on their shares.
The equity named in the bill was, misconduct on the
part of the Directors. It was alleged that some of the
Directors originally named in the Prospectus had re-
fused to act, and were replaced by the others without
the concurrence of the Subscribers. It was further
charged in the bill, that the Directors kept back 3,800
shares, although application had been made to them for
double the number proposed to be issued, namely,
(10,000), and it was stated that they were influenced in
so doing by a regard for their own private advantage,
intending to reserve those shares to themselves in case
the profit'succeedeJ, bat to dispose. of them should the
result prove unfavourable.
To this bill the defendants put in a general demurrer,
on the grounds of " want of equity." Another objection
was advanced by them, namely, that the bill wanted
pasties, inasmuch as all the persons in the case were not
in Court.

His Honour, in giving judgment, said, that being of
opinion that the defendants were guilty of misconduct,
he felt himself bound to overrule the demurrer. With
respect to the other objections stated by the defendants'
Counsel, namely, that the bill wanted parties, the general
principle was, that all the parties should be named in
the bill. He was aware that in some special cases the
Court admitted one to sue on behalf of many ; but it
never was held that, in all cases where the patties hap-
pened to be numerous, a similar indulgence was to be
granted. Feeling, therefore that he was bound to ad.
minister the law as he found it, and not to establish
new :tries, it became his duty to allow the latter objec•
Lion, and refuse the prayer of the bill. His Honour
further observed, that although the 6 Geo. I. (the Bubble
Act) had not been alluded to in the course of argu-
ment, he thought it in some measure applicable to such
Cases as the present.

131TERIAL DISTILLERY COMPANY.
His HoNowt nest proceeded to give judgment in a
ease arising out of the above Company. A Shareholder'
filed a bill against the Managing Director, for the re-
covet y of 11.0/. advanced by him on 20 shares which he
purchased on the faith of the statements put forth in
the original prospectus of the Company. According to
this prospectus, the capital of the Contpany was to be
600,0001 A to 'be raised by 12,000 shares of 501. each.
Officers it was said were to be appointed for every e•
partment—a deed of settlement to be executed, and an
Act of Parliament applied for, to enable the Company
to stie and be sued by its officer.. The plaintiff charged
in the bill that two of the persons named in the original
prospectus had refused toact,and were replaced by others;
a second prospectus was subsequently issued, differing
materially from the first. A few of the shares only had
been disposed of, and a first call of 51. on each had been
psi.* on still fewer ; notwithstanding this, the Directors'.
m ide a second call of sLand proceeded to purchase exten-
sive distillery premises, and expend large sums for other
purposes. For chase reasons, and because the Directors,
had in these matters acted for their own private etnolu-
Ment, and sold at a high premium several shares which
they had in the first instance retained, which had the
effect of defrauding the petitioner and the other share.
holders ; the petitioner now prayed, that the 1001. ad-
vanced by him be repaid to him. To this prayer one of
the Directors had put in a general demurrer, alleging
want of equity on the part cf the petitioner. His Honour
was of opinion that the demurrer ought to be overruled.
The plaintiff was entitled to recover the one hundred
pounds, and the only difficulty was, whether he could
recover at laW or in a Court of Equity. He did net
lay much stress on the difference between the first and
second prospectus ; this would be a more fit subject of
inquiry for a Court of Law; being convinced that this
proposed Company was a mere snare to induce per sons to
subscribe to what the Directors intended to convert to
their own profit. He thought it came within the rule
laid down in Holt v. Wollaston.*

Mr. WAKILFIELD applied for time, that the defendants
might have an opportunity of pleading de novo, to which
his Honour assented.

• This was the eekbrated ease, arising ont of a Company, estab-
lished for the purpose of extracting oil from radishes !
ROLLS' COURT, Nov. 7.
•

Sir JOHN S. COMM! sst this evening for the second
time since his appointment to his new office of Master
of the Rolls, and disposed of such of the petitions before
him as weie not gone through with on Friday last, the
first evening of his Honour sitting. There was on this
occasion, as on Friday last, a very Lull attendance of
Barristers and others. The Bar was filled with silk
gownsmen. The petitions, some of which occupied a
considerable portion of time in their hearing, possessed
nothing of public interest.

_,~-.~~.__r ~._

riaggi bad lived in the parhh where the Clergyman pet.i'
formed his Sunday dyty. Mr. was a married
man, and the young Lady before her marriage was on
terms of intimacy with the family, and in the habit
of visiting at his house. • Mt.: on healing that
the young Lady was about to be married, endeavoured,
by every means in his power, to prevent its taking
place ; he wrote anonymous letters under the sig-
nature of " Vern," in which he stated a sort of
intercourse between the young Lady and himself to
have taken place. The Gentleman to whom she was
about to be married disregarded the imputations, and
the marriage took photo. Since that time Mr. -- had
repeated his chat.ges against the Lady, in the most in-
decent and offensive terms. Her if stated expreisly,
and in the largest terms, that there was no foundation
for the charges. The Learned Sergeant then read
part of letters, which were couched in the
offensive terms already stated.
The Loeb Cam Jussses—Take a role to thew cause.

THE AGE rtawseanis.
Mr. SCARLITT, immediately on his coming into
Court, moved for a Rule Nisi, for a Criminal Iniorma-
tion against R. D. Richards, the Printer, Publisher, and
sole Proprietor, of the Age Sunday Newspaper. The
Learned Counsel stated, that he made this application
on the part of Mr. Easthope, the Member of Parliament
for Saint Alban's. In the defendant's paper of the Ist
of October last, an article appeared, containing reflec
tions on the conduct of Mr. Easthope. It stated, that
Mr. Easthow, whom it designated as " a prig of a
stock.broker," had brought a quantity of Chil an Bonds
into the Stock Exchange, because he had received in-
formation that the Dividends on Chilian Securities would
not be paid, and the article contained other imputations
against Mr. Easthope. The Learned Counsel said, he
had the affidavit of the chairman, and other yet sons, of
the Stock Exchange, denying the truth of the statement
contained in the defendant:. paper. Mr. Easthope had,
in fact, purchased a quantify of Chilian Bonds, instead
of having sold them.—Rule,nisi granted.

WELSH RIOTEIL
Sir WILLIAM OWEN, the Attorney General for Wees,
moved for a writ of certiorari, to have the trial of cer-
tain rioters, concerned in demolishing a house, removed
from Cardiganshire to some adjoining county in Eng-
land, on the ground that it was impossible to procure a
fair and impartial trial in Wales, for the following rear.
sons : About twelve years ago there was an Act of
Parliament passed for the enclosing of commons in
Wales, in consequence of which p large tract of land
was inclosed in Cardiganshire, of which a Gentleman,
named Brackenbury, was a purchaser to a considerable
amount, and built a splendid mansion thereon in 1820 ;
but before be was long in possession of it, an immense
multitude attacked and set fire to it, whereby it was
utterly destroyed. The perpetrators of this act remain
as yet undiscovered, although rewards to a great amount
had been offered. Mr. Brackenbury, not dismayed by
this, built another hou e, which was completed in April
last. After he had been ten days in possession, a mob
collected in the neighbouring mountains and bleW
horn. In a few hours six hundred persons assembled,
and surrounded the house; they warned the inhabitants
to withdraw in an hour, or else they should be burnt.
'The servants consequently left the house, and in a few
minutes after it was destroyed. A ringleader of this
mob was shortly after apprehended and tried; but
though he had been clearly identified, he was, to the
(great astonishment of all present, acquitted; such w is
Ithe prejudice entertained by the lower cusses against
Mr. Brackenbury and the inclosures,:that it was impos-
sible to obtain a fair trial; independently of this preju-
dice, there was another reason—the witnesses were all
Englishmen, who did not speak the Welch language,
and nine out of ten of the Jury did not understand
them or the Judge. On the late trial, the Jury
expressed a wish that the evidence of the principal
witness should be interpreted into Welsh for them, but
Sergeant Haywood, who presided, objected to 1-, on
the ground that, by law, all proceedings in Courts of
Justice should be in the English language.—(Much
laughter.) The consequence was, that tire prisoner was
acquitted, from the Jury not understanding the evidence.
—Rule granted.
sssß ma e: -sena ILAWLINSON, SSC&
Mr. &Antat she Wed cause against a rule obtained
last term for a mandamus, to compel Mr. Rawlinson,l
the Magistrate, to hear the information of the Commis
sioners for paving the North West district of the parish
of St. Pancras, charging several hackney coachmen with
refusing to remove from Howland-street- to Tottenham-
court-road. The refusal, according to the view taken
of the Act of the 12th George HI. by the Commissioners,
rendered the parties liable to a penalty. The Commis-
sioners, in consequence of complaints respecting the
improper arrangement of hackney coaches at the end
of Howland-street, ordered the stand to remove to
Tottenham-court-road. The Knights of the Whip being
refractory, several were summoned to appear at the
police office. The Magistrates refused to take cogni-
zance of the complaint and convict the parties, being of
opinion that the Commissioners had not power to remove
coach stands. They were therefore desirous of taking the
opinion of the Court upon application for a mandamus.
Mr. ScriaLzzr now contended that the words of the
Act only gave the Commissioners power to direct and
regulate hackney coach stands. Trrotv words "direct
and regulate" could not be considered a poster to re-
move. In 1771, a general regulation with respect to
hackney coaches gave them the privilege of ternaining
in any street more than thirty feet wide.

Mr. ANDREWS held the same line of argument.
The SOLICITOR GRIRRAL, in support of the rule,
contended that the Parish Commissioners hml power to
remove coach stands in their district, and that they
could not do the business entrusted to them by the Act
without that power.
The LORD CHU/Finance, in giving judgment, said
—" I think the Commissioners were justified in saying
coaches should not stand in Howland-street. I say no.
thing about Tottenham Court•road ; that may be out
of their jurisdiction. They had power to say the stand
should not remain in Howland•street.
Judges HOLROTD and Lams:Daus were of the same opinion.
The rule for a mandassus was made absolute.
COURT OF COMMON PLEAS, Nov. 7.
WALSH AND OTHERS O. LORD HOWARD DI trauma.
This was an issue directed from the Court of Chan-
cery, to try the legality of the attestation of the will of
the late General Harvey. The question turned upon
the evidence of the signing witnesses to the will, one of
whom said that he verily believed the signature to be
his own handwriting, but he had no tecollection of ever
having signed a will.
The Jury returned a verdict for the plaintiff, thereby
establishing the legality of the will, of which so much
has appeared in the Court.of Chancery, and on which,
we Roderstand, more than 50,0001. is depending.

A A... -