Star.
London, England, 1817-03-06 00:00:00

LAW INTELLIGENCE.

COURT OF KING'S BENCH, MARCH 5.

SIR SAMUEL YOUNG V. THE 'NAST INDIA COMPANY.

This was an action to recover the value of thi.
difference between 513 and 57944r5es of salt, bought
by the plaintiff of the defend+nn, at the tare of be-
tween seven and eight pagod.is per carse. The facts
out tit which this procet.diug arose were the follow-
ing :—Sir Samuel Young (then Mr. Young) resi
ding in the district of Mesulipatatn. made a contract
1113April,1803, with a Gentleman of the name of Ca-
zalett, an.agent of the East India Company, who
had the management of certain salt works, for the
purchase of a qirantity of salt, not precisely ascer-
tained, for which he was to pay at the rate of some-
thing more than seven pagodas per carse. Sir Samuel
Young was anxious that the salt should be delivered
to him immediately, but Mr. Cazalett refused, unless
payment were first made into the treasury of the
Company. Si* Samuel Young replied, that he was
ready with the money, but that it would be inconve
loient for him to wai: for the salt until the value was
rrecisely ascertained by wei;:ht ; he, therefore, pro-
posed to take it, by an at 4-I,tut, or estimate, which
had been made surret tune before ; and that he should
pay or receive back any sum beyond or under 'that
estim de. when the quantity was melody known.—
l'o ibis proposal. it was alleged. on the part of the
plaintiff, that Mr. Cazalett assented. On weighing
the salt which bad been delivered to the plaintiff as
579 cams, it was fouiul to consist of 9.nly 513 canes,
th.tt he had paid the agent of the Comp +sly for 66
curses which had not been delivered to him. He had
also paid a further sum for duty upon the larger
I quantity, the retorts of which was alsa sought in the
prestnt action ; Mr. Cazalett not having fuifilled his
part of the contract by the repayment of sash a stun
as might be due, in consequence of the real quantity
of salt bei ig found below the estimate at which it
was taken by the plaintiff.
Mr. SeititLETT, on behalf of the plaintiff, put in
several letters to establish the terms of the contract,
and called parole testimony as to the nature of the
transaction.

On tie part °robe defendants, the ATTORNISY (;1:
NERAL contended, that all the papers front which Me
contract was to be collected bad not been produced
on the other side : be read to the duty several loners
which passed in the transaction, on wl:ich he founded
an :aritunirnt, that although the plaintiff and C.,za-
lett might have agreed for the salt in the first in-
stance by exact weight or measureaselt, yet that it
had been Af;elw.trd* modified and altered tot the e.it-
nest request of the plaintiff, who &sited to take the
salt by the estimate of persons cotneetent, in order
that he might not be delayed in the possession of the
commodity, which had risen in consequence of a re-
ported intention on the part of the Company to in-
crease the revenue upon salt. The Leaned Coon.
sel also relied upon vas ious depositions made in the
East Indies by Mr. Cazatett and others, in wh/ch
they maintained that the contract WAS by alchenn I. or
general estimate, and not by exact weight ; he sub-
mitted, therefore, that the plaintiff was licit entitled to
recover ; but that ',elfin,' his haste It) aiu In ad
vantage made a bad bargain, he could npt compel
the East India Company to make up his I::tscs.
Mr. SCAIILETT, in reply, compared all the d-cu
ments together, and contended that
.they did not at
all contradict each other ; the cot:tract was to tak,
the salt by exact weight or meastue, and the letter
produced on tat part of the &let:dams ly related
to a subsequent Fa: t of the saute tr:tosactiir, in
which the pl.rinuff, ter a temoorary purpose, and un-
til the precise quantity could be ascertained, agreed
to take the commodity by estimate.
Mr. Justice B.vt.ey, (who sat for Lord Elletsbo.
rough) after gulag through the whole .of the evi7
deeice, left it to the Jury tat decide, whether the first
contract had been superseded by a subsequent agree-
metit ? if it had, the plaintiff c-uld not recover ; but
if otherwise, he was etititied t. the verdict.

Verdict itir t►l:c plAisitiff C3uo.
READING ASSIZES, MARCH 4.

Amin Maim was eapit.slly indicted for feloniously
stealing, on the 1I th day of October last, twu
sheep, the property of Lord Viscount Folkstone ;
and in another inJictment lie was char;!ed wit!,
having stolen another sheep, the property of Mr.
Edwards. The prisoner, or. being put to the bar.
pleaded Guilty to both of the indictments—Death.
Solernon Ford and Francis Green were capitally in-
dicted for having, on the lOth of December, it the
parish of Bucklebury, stolen ten sheep, the property
of Daniel Wheeler.

Chatles Fullity, a carpenter, but a butcher occa-
sionally, stated, that on the 2.1 of December. the
prisoner Green called on him, and said, '‘ Master
Ford wants you to kill a pig or twn." He in conse-
quence went to Ford's house, and Ford said, he hail
sent for the witness to ka a few sheep, but if he
could Went kill tlem, he must gct.somebody els... la
the wood house he found ten sheep. each marked
with three D.'s. Witness killed all of them by the
direction of Ford.. The prisoner Green wag pre.ent
ail the time the witness was killiag them. Atter they
were all killed, Green and the witness took two
hearts to the Pack Horse, and the two prisoners add
witness ate the hearts, and Ford paid, or answered
for all they had there.

Maik Morgan was a carrier, he took up the car-
cases of ten sheep on Thursday the sth of Dtcem-
ber, from Henley to London; they were sold at
Newpate.market, and the produce was paid to the
prisoner Ford ; they were quite lean sheep, not fit to
be killed. Guilty—Death.

Hannah /Weave:ll was acquitted oft a charge of tout-
dtriug bier iiitant child.

CRUNWOOD C. PARRY AND OTHERS.

The plaintiff in this action sought to recover a
compensat,on in damages for tal.e imprisonment.
The ilamag:s were laniat £2,000. The
appeared, was a firmer in this county, who haii
fallen into some embarrassments, in consequence u!
which he was compelled to appear belnreAfie defer.-
dabts, %Ito are Commissioners of Bankrupts, and
was, it. appeared by their warrant, imprisoned for
twenty-lour days and nights. The Jury found a
verdict, damages £5.
MC; BOER OF MR. LOWOUZT.--John Woodism, (who
h.id ben apprehended on suspicion ot being concer-
n d in the murder of the above Gentleman) iias been
discharged, there being no evid nce that could war-
rant the Magistrates in detaining him.