Star.
London, England, 1810-08-10 00:00:00

MESSRS. WYE lb COLE.

This was an action of a:sun:pit on an agreement of
the nature of a charter-party. The plaintiff having a
quantity of wine to send to the Isle of Man, from
Guernsey, agreed with the defendant to charter his
vessel, the Port Packet, for that purpose, and as plain-
tiffs had not a cargo sufficient to load the vessel com-
pletely, they intended to carry merchandize for any
person who might want such a conveyance. When the
time appointed for shipping their wines, however, ar-
rived, they were informed that the Port Packet had
taken on board a cargo of stones for Portsmouth,
but would return in a few days. As the delay
would have been a matter of very great incon-
venience to them, they immediately put their wines
on board a vessel called the Mary, then lying
at Guernsey • aad now brought the:. action for
£231. 17s. ;he amount of the additional expence
incurred by engaging the Mary, and also the loss
sustained by having been deprived of the opportu.
nity of making a profit by shipping certain merchaa-
dize in the Port Packet, for which they would have
received a handsome freightage.
Lewis Gilson, who acted as agent in chartering
the Port Packet in May, 1809, produced the deed
under which the vessel had been engaged ' • but as it
appeared to be signed only by Mr. Robert Wye, and
of course was binding on him only, contrary to the
form of the declaration, the plaintiffs were nonsuited.
DEACON AND OTHERS, (EXECUTORS OF DEACON)
V. FORSTER AND HOOD.

This was an action brought by the executors of a
person of the name of Deacon, formerly residing at
Sheffield, against the defendants, for the amount of
a debt due by them to the estate of the deceased.
It appeared that the defendants, as partners, had
carried on the manufacture of Prussian blue at
Newcastle ; and the deceased had been in the habit
of supplying them with the hoofs of oxen, which
were the principal ingredient in the composi:ion of
the colour. Forster, it was St.t/d. WA • perfectly
conversant in the business, but had no capital.
Mr. Hood, therefore, being a monied man, found
capital, and Mr. Forster dill. Tke business, however,
not turning out so profitable as Mr. Hood expected,
he had seceded from the partnership, without giving
any notice to those who had been in the habit of
dealing with the firm. The deceased, not being
a ware of the dissolution of partnership, which took place
in April, 1805, and having received A letter in the
May following, signed in the usual manner, " Forster
and Hood," which contained an order for a quantity
of hoofs, sent them as requested—which he would
not have done had he known that Forster alone car-
ried on the business. Forster afterwards became
bankrupt ; of course, Hood, who was solvent, and
but for whom the eredit would not have been given,
became liable for the debt, if a verdict was returned
for plaintiffs.
It way contended for defendants, that the con-
duct of Mr. Deacon, after the dissolution of the
partnership, was of itself sufficient proof of .his
knowledge of that event. At the close of the part-
nership a balance of a former account was sent to Mr.
Deacon, and the letter inclosing it was not signed For-
ster and Hood, as formerly, but " Foister and Co."
Deacon, in his subsequent letters, had thus addressed
them ; and several invoices were made out in the same
name. But after the bankruptcy of Foster a new in-
voice had been furnished in the name of Forster and
Hood ; and the present action was brought experi-
mentally, as they might by possibility have a verdict ;
and, if defeated, executors were not liable to costs. A
person also, of the name of Matthew Locke, bad
made an exposition to Mr. Deacon of the state of
bankrupt's affairs, prior to his bankruptcy, for the
purpose of procuring time for the payment of his
debts, to which Mr. Deacon had assented.

This exposition was put in and read, hut in no part
of it was the name of Mr. Hood mentioned, as a part-
ner or otherwise ; the word partners, however, appear-
ed, without specifying whom they were. Mr. Dea-
con's answer to this proposition for time was also read
—it merely stated, that if the assertions contained in
the exposition were true, and the other creditors
agreed to it, he should not object, however inconve-
nient he might find it to lie out of his money for the
period requested.
Lord ELLENBOROUGII observed, that if two persons
were in partnership, and one of them seceded without
giving due notice, that person continued liable as a
partner. In the present instance, if Deacon had seen
the dissolution in the London Gazeite (allowing for ar-
gument sake that it had been there advertised, which
however did not appear to have been the case,) and
received subsequently the letter of the sth of May,
signed in the usual manner, « Forster and Hond," it
would have been sufficient to have created a doubt as
to the fact of the dissolution ; but when that letter was
received signed in the ordinary manner, Deacon cer-
tainly had no right to be dubious. The questio t sim-
ply was, To whom was the credit given on the Bth of
March, 1806? Of course to the persons who had re-
ceived it before, as the partnership was AOC contradic-
ted.--. Verdict for Plaintiffs £255 damages, 403. costs.