Star.
London, England, 1828-12-10 00:00:00

COGAN V. RAMADGC.

Mr. BACON opened the plowings, and M.. C. F.Vt'w.
LIMAS .tatcd the plai. tiff's ca e. The action was brought
by the plaintiff, a chensist and druggist, to tic ,vet the
sum of 141. 41. 2d. for drugs, &c. furnished to the de-
Undwnt, Dr. R.madge. a physician. This demand con-
sisted of two soma of 41. 19s. 7d. and 91. 4s. 7d. the
fritter being for articles sent to tie ditendant's house
in the year 1824, and the latter for medicines suppliecl
subsequent to that period for t• .e use of a dispensery is
G eville street, which had been establis' ed by the de-
fendant. The delivery of the several articles was proved;
but it appearing that the plain iff as will 01 the de-
fendant was a subscriber to the disp nsat y, Tax-
T Erman told the plaintiff's Counsel that th.ey could not
recover for those articles which con tituted the charge
of 9!. 4s. 7d.

Sir J. SCA BLITT, for the defendant, then vut in tome
letters from the plaintiff and his anomie', fur the pur-
pose of inducing an infereece that the first pan f the
demand, vie. the 44 19,. 7J. had been a isiekl. The
letters referred to t e demand of 9!. 4.. 7J. end made
no mention of the 41. 19s. 7J. The Learned Coons.'
also called the defendant's house keeper, who depo .ed to
a conversation between her and the plaintiff, in the
tonne of which .the latter spoke of a misunderstanding
having ezis.ed between the defendant and him respect-
ing a M ttifling bill.' of his, but said that all .s differences"
between them had since teen " settled:'

The case went to the Jury under the di ections of Lord
TENTCRDIN. who put it to them to say whether, upon
the defendant's evidence, they 'vete sat ialieJ that the
plaintiff% demand if 41. 19s 7d. had nee) p4id.
The Jury found for the plaintiff; d4mages 41.194.74
COURT OF COMMON PLEAS, Outsbasist., Dm 9.

DAVIS AND ANOTHER U. HORS.
This was an action of trotter, bresughe to recover cer-
tain pods which the plaintiffs, *LW were partners hi
business. alleged had been timpropetty stripped in tran.
situ. It was proved, on the part of die plaintiff's, that
an order bad been given by flied for the goods ; that
they had been stopped hef ne they were delivered to
them; that a demand had been made to have theta
given up, and that the defendant had refused to do ad.
For the defence, it was contended that the plaintiff.
could not recover, upon the ground that they %sere in a,
state of insolvency when the goods were ordered. TIP
prove this a person was called fiom the Under Sherifri
office, who stated that 29 writs had been issued siatell
January against Davis individually, and seven against
bins and his partner.
The Jury, upon hearing ON evidence, said that &by
had made op their mind., being clearly of opiniolt that
the pl4imiffs had nu right to sustain the present anion.
• The LORD Cum JUSTICE being of the same opinion,
the plaintiffs were awninged.

STEWART V. IS ILLIAMSON.
This was an action upon a chat ter•party, to recover
compensation for the deity of the chattered vessel. It
appeased um she wat to be provided wi.h a cargo of
herringvin Scotland, and to proceed from thence to thi
West Indies, to take in a fresh cargo these. The whole,
question in the vase tamed nFon the point of whether
'be delay arose on the pert &tof he encl.'s% or of the