Star.
London, England, 1810-07-26 00:00:00

BRADBURY V. TROMP:SON.

This was an action for a breach of contract.
appeared that on the Idth of January, 1809, the plain
tiff purchased of the defendant 45 hays of cottal, at
h. 100. per lb. which were to be delivered in on
month ; the cotton was at the time lying in the Eas
India Company's warehouses, and i❑ the course o:
the month 37 bags were delivered. The presen.
action was brought to iecovcr £49, being the value of
the eight bags remaining.
On the part of the defendant it was proved, that in
the course of the month cotton had fallen in price to
lid. per lb. ; that the defendant was not at all anxi-
ous for the delivery of the remaining eight bass, and
in fact that they remained in the Company's ware-
houses by concurrence.—Plaintiff nonsuited.

COURT OF COMMON PLEAS, JULY 2s.

RRAOG V. THORNTON.

This was an action brought to recover the sum of
450 16s. 6d. alledged to have been paid by plaintiff
to defendant, in consideration of the latter pet-rmm-
ing a certain contract, which he had not done.
The plaintiff is a ship-owner, and the defendant*
who is a procurer of seamen, had engaged in May
last to supply five sailors to go on board a vessel call—
ed the John Dent, belonging to plaintiff, and bound
on a voyage to Martinique. The defendant procu-
red the men accordingly, but declined taking them
himself down to Gravesend, where the ship was sup-
posed to lie, and delivered them up to the care of
the plaintiff. Defendant received ten guineas for
procuring the men, and three of the latter were each
paid five pounds (a month's wages) in advance; one
not being an able-bodied seaman, received but £4.,
and the fifth, having no account to settle with the
defendant, chose to receive his money on boar.l the
ship; at Gravesend. These different yin:s were paid
into the hands of defendant by plaintiff, with two
drafts—Plaintiff also discharged sime contin;v'nt
expences, amounting to XL es: 61 making, with the
former sums, the wank amount mentioned in the de-
claration, and row sought to be recc,verel At the
time the plainiiff delivered the first draft, he inquired
what security defendant would give for the perfor
mance of the agreement ? To this the latter answer-
ed, there could be no doubt of the men performing
the voyage ; if they did not, Ile would return the
money. Mr. Bragg* then took the men down to

Both the parties in the business lived at Woolwich, I Gravesend, but s-lie. n they arrived there, the John
and the plaintiff had been advised to bring two sere- Dent had soiled. He then accompanied them to town
red actions, the first for the recovery of a certain ar- in the Gravesend-hmt, and they tvent about their
tide of mighty value—a chaise in which children are business. Ina few days, the plaintiff callt;d on the
wheeled about, forcibly taken from his premises hr defendant, and demanded the men ; the latter infor-
the defendant, who claimed it as his ; and the second reed him, that he knew nothing about them ; how.
action was for an assault, said to be committed on the ;.ever, he accompanied pleint. ff to several houses in
plaintiff's wifi: by the defendant, in the act of taking : search of them, hut ineffectually. Plaintiff stated,
possession of the above chaise. 1-that he heel another ship ready for th. in to go en
The fact of the chaise being thus taken by the de- ; board ; or if they would rather go the origin el voyage,
feud.int, was supported by the testimon-; of four or - he would pay their expences to Portsmouth, where the
five witnesses ; ss hen ship then was. As the men, how( ver, were not to be
Mr. PARK, for the defendant, said he would not found, he demanded his money back, which being re-
trouble the Court by entering into the circumstances fused, he brought the present action.
which induced the defendant to claim the chaise as his c Mr. Serkant BEST contended, that Defendant had
;forfeited the money which he had agreed to return if
own, ale! to take possession of it in the way described.
The Je the men did not go the voyage.ry found the value of the said chaise to he •
tweety !lillings, and gave a verdict for the plaintiff Mr. Seijeant VAUOUAN maintained, that Defers-
to e, :t are.Nant. ; dant, having given up the men to Mr. Bragg, and
in !!he 2,1 tet:on, which was for the assault, it was; having previously informed him that he could not
eni'eavree •,' to be proved, that in the scuffle about t.:ke them to Gravesend, was no farther respoesihle.
the elet;se, the plaintiff's wife bad sustained so much . It the principle contended for wi re admitted, viz. that
iiiilry t•.at a eirgeon was called in, and she was con- . the Defendant had entered into an agreement that
floc d to her bed for two weeks. : the men should go Mr voyage, or else the money be
Letem c.w‘s-examination it appeared that there was ;returned, it must be evident, that if they ran from the
vessel at Gibraltar, or any other port, before the voy-
ne mirk of external injury, and that her confinement ,
to bed did not take place till a week after the scuffle.
' age was complete, he might be sued, as well as in the
The surgeoa who attended her was not subpcenaed :. present instance.
to state either the cause or the nature of his patient's ; Chief-Justice MANSFIELD—" The contract was, that
it ness. . ' the men should sail from Gravesend. It was the lurk

I. rd ELLENIInttOrGH, in his charge to the Jury, , of the Plaintiff if he permitted the vessel to sail helot e
reprobated the conduct of the plaintiff's attorney for . the business was finished. No blame could be impu-
advising two actions, when he must have known that table to the crimp, who had nothing more to do when
one would have sufficed, and that both actions might the men were delivered up, and the Plaintiff was sa-
have been couilliiied in one—thus attempting to load tisfied to take them down the River."
the defendant with an expence that was altogether : t laintiff non-suited, with leave to enter a verdict
unnecessary. When all the circumstances of the two for the two drafts, or either of them.
cases were considered, the Jury would do no more than sIIITH G. ABELL
pronounce it a simple assault. They would probably This was an action brought to recover the price of
he alsoof opinion that very moderate damages would a horse, which was aliedged to h ive been given in
satisfy the justice of this case.—The Jury returned a exchange by defendant to plaintiff, at ith a wairanfy, I
verdict for the plaintiff, damages one farthing. i but which was sub3ecocntly discovered to be diseased.
GRIFFIN it. WALLIZR AND WHITEALL. 1 It was stated that the plaintitY, a rope-maker, desi-
This was an action brought to recover £37, money ring to be well mounted, had gone to the yard of the
paid for the use of the defendants, under the follow- defendant, a horse•cle.:ier in the Borough, in January
ing circumstances :—The son of the plaintiff, having last, and pufcliaEed a horse far J) guineas : he sent
become a bankrupt, his father, the plaintiff, purchased him to Mr. Palmer, who keeps a repository in the 130-
I the assignees, for his son's use, a part of the furni- rough, who immediately perceived that the horse was'
ture upon the premises, and the son continued to re- . unsound. The plaintiff, however, liking the appear-
side upon the premises. Soon afterwards, the Collet- ' ante of the animal, sent him to the c ..entry, conceiving 1
for of the King's taxes put an execution into the house that tender treatment might'ining him round, and for
for taxes due previous to the bankruptcy, to the his immediate use, he purchased from defendant a
amount of £37, and on application being made to the second horse, which was subsequently discovered to
assignees by the plaintiff, they refused to redeem the I be troubled with a variety of complaints : he was re-
goods,
oa pretence that they were sold to the plain- turned to defendant, and in lieu of him he received a
tiff liable to the demand which might be made upon ' serviceable animal. The sixty guinea horse still con-
them for taxes, and the plaintiff was therefore obliged , tinued on the hands of the plaintiff ; andit was attemp-
to pay the demand made by the Collectors ; and to ! ted to be proved' by Mr. Palmer, who was examined,
recover the amount of that payment the plaintiff now' that he had been exchanged for a black horse, which
brought his action. 1 had a defect in one of his legs ;,. the price of which
Lord ELLENDORODGII said, the sale of the goods to ' was the subject cf the present action.
the plaintiff by the assignees, must be considered as a Plaintiff, however, having failed tr. proving the ex-
sale free from any charges to be made on them at any change, Chief Justice Magssumn observed, that the
future time ; they were, however, it was afterwards ' comas in the declaration wen not proved; and the
discovered, subject to alias for taxes, which the plain- :_plaintiff was nonsuited. .