Star.
London, England, 1810-08-09 00:00:00

/ het ;Olt appeared to exist on The port of the defenaadt ArGUST 17.--,DELL 4. SLIM •
as to the quality of the deals; but as he had not, ac-1 This was an action of troves, brought by the as-
cording to the words of the contract,referred it to the signees of a bankrupt named Friend Andrews, who
brokers to decide, the Jury gave a -verdict for plain- formerly kept the Royal Oak public house, at Brigh-
tiff ;an allowance to be made for such of the deals as ton, to recover back a certain valuable deed, said to
were damaged, which is to be ascertained by the bro- have been improperly, obtained by the defendant.
kers, their estimate being subject to the revision of a , It appeared from the evidence, that the bankrupt,
third person. . 1 previous to his leaving his residence, and previous to
A COMPOSITION SOLD 7011 PORT WINE. I his being made a bankrupt, conveyed to the defen-
COWJE I,• DAY. dant, in consideration of £BOO, his furniture, stock in
, This also was an action for breach of contract, and trade, and lease of his house ; and that he had ap-
was brought to recover the amount of the loss sus-
plied £4.00 of this sum to discharging all the debts
mined by the defendant's not having fulfilled his coo. owing by him at Brighton. It also appeared, that he
'tract with the plaintiff; the defendant having con- did nit leave Brighton in consequence of any embar-
tracted to sell 13 pipes of port wine, while the wine rassmertt of circumstances, but in consequence of a
'delivered was not port wine, but of a very inferior , quarrel between him and one of his neighbours ; and
quality. ! although he quitted his house immediately after exe-
The Arrortxre-Gesattax. stated the contract.— cuting the conveyance, his intention of disposing of
Among other articles, he contracted to sell to the plain- his stock in trade was known to several persons some
tiff 13 pipes of port wine, at £37 per pipe, the plain- days previous to the deed being executed. Sume
tiff paying the duties. The wine was not port wine,'
Itime after, however, the plaintiff in the present ac.
'nor did it taste like it, but was a composition called tion, a liquor merchant, to whom Andrews owed
Guernsey red wine, which was not worth more something more than £lOO, sued out a Commission
'than W2B per pipe. He should prove that the of Bankruptcy against him, and now: sought to recr.
clefendant knew, when it was sold to the plaintiff as vei back the deed of conveyance given to Slce, of the
port wine, that it was nothing more than Guern- stock in trade, and lease of the house, upon the
.sey red wine, he (the defendant) having bonght it as grounds of its having been fraudulently executed by
such. The wine delivered was a composition of Andrews, with intention to defraud the rest of his
every thing In the world that was of a bad quality
: creditors.
and of a red hue ! He could more easily tell what :
A question arose, in the course of the cause, as to
the composition was not, that what it was. It was not
the liability of Andrews to be made a bankrupt :
port wine, nor was it in any way like it either in -
P
taste or quality.contract was then read, which called the 13 , üblicans merely selling beer or liquors to be con-
sumed in their house, not being considered as dealers
The
I pipes of wine port wine. udder the Bankrupt 1 aws.
It appeared that Andrews was in the habit, as is
Mr. Harboine, a broker, deposed thathe sold a quan-
tity of the-same sort of wine for the defendant, to a 1 usual with publicans, of sending out porter to be con-
Mr. Durnsey, as port wine, which, on receiving, he • sumed by his customers in their own hotices ; and
immediately returned, finding it to be nothing more i thatonce he furnished two bottles of brandy to Mrs.
than Guernsey red wine, which was selling at that i Fit zherbert, and two bottles of wine to his landlord.
time at £2B ; witness understood that Mr. Cowie I Lord ELLENEOROUGII said, one important question

tasted the wine at the docks before he bought it.
In answer to a question from Lord Ellenborough,
the witness said the wine called Guernsey red wine
was partly French red wine, but altogether it way
such a mixture as he could not describe, though he
was quite certain there was no port wine in it.
Mr. Reynolds, a wine broker, examined the wine in
question at the request of Mr. Harbuine, and found it
to be wine of a very inferior quality, and wine to
which he could not give a name ; it was of a non-de-
script specieft though he admitted it had all sot ts of
names, some calling it Guernsey red wine.
Lord ELLENBOROUGH —" If you were asked what
sort of wine you called that sold to the plaintiff, what
would you say ?" Mr. R. " Guernsey red wine."—
Lord E. 4lt your were asked whether it was port
wine, what would you say ?" Mr. R. " No."
Mr. Bradley proved that the wine in question was
part of some wine imported as Guernsey red wine,
and sold to Mr. Day as such.
Lord Etumaoltoutint observed, that the defendant
described the wine to be delivered to the plaintiff as
port wine ; therefore he had a right to assume it as
such when he tasted it ; and if the wine delivered were
not port wine, the defendant had not fulfilled his
contract ; therefore the plaintiff was entitled to a vet--
dict.—The Jury returned a verdict for the plaintiff
for £ll7, being the difference between the prices of
port wine and that delivered.
Lord ELLENBOROUGH, on learning that the plaintiff
intended to keep the Guernsey red wine, observed to
ithe plaintiff's Counsel, " Oh, then you know what to
do with it."

in this case was, whether Andrews was a dealer, in
that sense of the word which would bring him within
the meaning of the Bankrupt Laws ? A publican
merely selling beer to be drank within his own house,
certainly did not come within the meaning of the Act;
how tar sending it out in pots would render him a
dealer, had never yet been determined ; and if the
Jury should determine that question in the affirmative,
they would distinctly state that opinion. With respect
to the wine, and brandy sent to Mrs. Fitzherbert, if
it should appear to them that they were solitary in-
stances, and not forming part of a general practice,
neither would that bring him within the Act. Whe-
ther the assignment in question was executed with a
fraudulent intention wis another circumstance for
their consideration ; it did not appear that there was
any secrecy in the transaction —on the contrary, it
appeared to have been publicly known to several per-
sons, and that all the money owed by Andrews at
' Brighton was paid, and he had a considerable sum of
money to spare ; and therefore it was fair to presume
that it was not made with a fraudulent intention.
The Jury found a verdict for the defendant : and
at the same time declared their opinion, that a publi-
can sending out porter in pots to his customers, diu
NOT constitute him a dealer, within the meaning of
the Bankrupt Laws.

HARDY In PANTIIER AND SOX.
This was an action to recover £llOB 17s. Id. the
amount of coffee sold and delivered to the defendants.