Star.
London, England, 1804-12-28 00:00:00

grottud every day, withnut even a formife that there
VIAI any thing unlawful in fuch al purchale ; and he
could not figure that hops Rood in any different fitu-

ation.
Lord Estmotoun it laid that it flood in the de•
elaration that the contract was for the purebafe of
the crop on the ground ; it was, therefore, unnecelTary
to argue the legality of fuch a purchaCe. Had the
legality of the aa been difputed, and the Court been
of opinion that it was unlawful, fuch an allegation
would not have been allowed to nand on the face of

the declaration.
Mr. EasalNa thanked his Lordfhip for the obfer-
vation he had made. if then there was nothing it•
legal in the purchafe of a tingle inclofure of hops,
`did it become illegal when fuch purchafe was exten-
ded to two, three, joir or lye different inclofores ?-7
Puffrifing a large capital, and in the way of a fair
and honelt trade, his client might have occafion for
a large fupply. If there was nothing unlawful in
purchafing twenty or thirty acres, was there any
law which raid that when extended to 100 acres,fuch
purchafe became illegal ? He apprehended there was
not. It could only be on the ground of a general
and ertentive fyftetn of foretelling having been fuc-
cefsfully adopted and carried into praftice, chat any
condua of the kind could be impunged.
lent bargain mutt Rand on its own half, It 4r* n
contra& for the produce of tivesty-three acres In*
county of Kent. The *hotter mat 'thc • bartaht
made by the plaintiff, in theeslittetbtriAt,fion
of 'that county, at the cpntral, !fa! en-
tered into, was for ninety Tale irsiks'a Fa&
well known, that in the county of Kent the n'utedifer if
acres of hops amounted to ahontlinreadiarfassitt Cid
in the Canterbury divlfion alone about to inlet or
ask tiorfiaul. To argue, therefore, that the; platedff
in poirchafing ninety acres of this immenfe quantity,
either had foreftalled, or could have had in yew to
forettal the market, was the height of folly. -
The execution of the contra& was proved by the
attefling witnefs ; and the produce .of the twenty-
three acres and the price obtained for the hops were
iinftrufted to have been as Mr. Plkitie reprefented.
, Mr. Daet.as, for the defendant, maintained, that
!the prefent cafe was one of the greatat !public im-
portance ; as every cafe mnft be where 'the qneftion
was, whether the produce of the foil Of this cenistry '
was to be allowed to find its way fairly into the mar-
ket,
and there bring a reafonabla and equitable
price ; or if, even before it had beets-planted. or be-
fore the feed had been thrown into the round, it
might be purchafed up by mnaolsolizers and fore-j
Rafters, who would thereby have it in their posse
to fit on it any price however exttavagant, and to
get the markets entirely under their contrail!? He
was aware, in confequence of whit had fallen from
the Learned Lord, that he was dotat prefent esti-•
tied to argue that the contrail on which this aaion
was brought was in itfelf illegal. He mould, how-
ever, be able to thew that it was part of a deliberate
and premeditated fyltem of monopolizing which the
plaintiff in this aaion had adopted. by which he had
got into his poffeffion a great portion of the hops
growing in this country ; and. in confequence of
which be had been indifted before this Court, and
had been convined. The grounds of aecufation then
urged againft him were, having confpired to mono-
polize into his own hands, the hops rowing in this
country ; for the purpofe of enhancing the price of
that commodity ; having mauled into' the minds of
the growers of hops, that they were too low in price
and that by keeping them back from the market,
they would quickly life ; and, as an inducement,
having informed them that a great proportion of
the crop was in his hands, and that he would contri-
bute to effeft this `end. The plaintiff had the very
bell affillance on that trial, and every endeavour was
ufed to make him refort to any legal plea in arrelt of
judgment which he might have been able to adduce.
No flep, however, to this effeft was taken by him,
and he fubmitted to the judgment of the Court.—
He afterwards brought two feveral anions on the
contracs for growing crops, whir he had then en-
tered into. One was tried before Mr. Juilice
Rook, and the other before Lurd Alvanley, and
the decifsons were alike in both. The plaintiff was
found to have no right to recover. The Learned
Counfel faid lie Ihould he able to thew that the
prefent cafe flood exaftly in the fame fituation.—
The contra& now foligl-t to be enforced. had been en-
tered into in the end of December. The hop grow
ers of Kent were then affernhled to pay their compo.
fition for tythes, and the Plaintiff, availing himfclf
of the eircumitance, got himfelf introduced after din
ner, and had not been long in the company, when
he role and made a fpeech to the meeting, informing
them how much they were impofed upon by the hop
dealers—that he was come there more for their ad-
vantage than his own; that the price of hops was
greatly too low ; and, in conclution, purchafed from
fevetal of them their et rrps then on the iron-d. A
conduit, every part of which, the Learned Counfel
contended, WAS inconfillent with the chara.Fter of a
real and taco fide hop purchafcr. and could only he.
long to a monopolizer and foreflaller. In profecu-
tion of the fame fcheme, the Plaintiff was afterwards'
found at Worceller, in June, 18w, where his conduit
was equally indicative of his intentions. There he
gave inttruflions to the landlord to call together, to
A dinner to he given by the Plaintiff, all the perfoni•
concerned in the growing of hops in that part of the
country. Not wetly comprehending the Plaintiff's
wills, the landlord invited not the grt veers only. but
the dealers in hops. This was the farthell bug from
the PlaintifPs meaning, which he foot, made known
to the landlord, who, in confequence of the more ex-
plicit inftruAions which he had received, ciicitlated
a hand hill intimating that none hut 7,mwt:•l of hops
were to he admitted to the d.ru.t.r. tf:is mt:.tinz
the Plaintiff put in prial.ce cc tie I Me lire of
proceeding he had adopted at Canterbury, rur.l ma
ny c.,ntraets for the th..n trr.ovr:g cr,r. wCie con-
cluded. Fm this fvflent .1 mon.prdiviuct I .tc.
balling the PlainutT, as h, e mentioned. Lad been
in.:heed : and the contra.:,, fl far .1; then endea-
voured to he reirdemd effe,toal, h.,d biro lc! .11'21%
A great deal of addu, cd t.• Liam-
tiate their tans. and :he 1.4 the &feud:nuts
were proceeding wail other evidence o 1 the lonic
kind, when
1.,.rd ELI iNllo,,st:,l:l f.. 1 it was nr.-:er. fr.ry

re t 11.tt c

1 tnigL p

t!..c r..co

L. ac,•al(! t.tl it h
Ju:y.