Star.
London, England, 1827-04-21 00:00:00

Lew INTELLIGENcE.

•
cower Ott 'ant% BIINtH, Araks. to.
THOMPSON AND POWI3 V. FARMER.
This Was an action of trove', to recover froth the
defendant the value of 78 bags of IA ewer, a material
used for the purpose of di ing. The plaintiffs are mer-
chants residing in Great St. Helens, and the defendant
is a manufacturer of glue.
It appeared from the evidence of the plaintiffs, that
they purchased the safflower at one of the East India
Company's sales in October, 1826. The weight of the
78 bags collectively was 210 cwt. 2 qrs. 121 b. They
paid at the rate of 121. per cwt. In January, 1826, the
plaintiffs employed Messrs. Humpleby and Tarte,
brokers, to sell the safflower. For which purpose they
delivered to the brokers the -transfer warrants, and re-
ceived from them their acceptances for the several sums
of 8001. 7001. and 750/. which sums it was arranged the
brokers should retain in their baud: out of the proceeds
of the sale. In October, 1826, Mt. Humpleby wrote
to the defendant a letter, stating that he could purchase
for him 78 bags of, sajiwer at 71. per cwt. and sell
them again to a Manchester house at 71. 10s. per cwt.
15 pet cent. to be paid on the day of sale, and the re-
mainder in April, 1827. The letter further contained
an a,knowledgment of a debt of 6001. due from Mr.
Humpleby to the defendant, and stated, that deducting
•hat suns, together with the 15 per cent. to be paid by
the Manchester house, the whale of the purchase-
money which the defendant would be requited to ad-
vance would not be more than 6001. The defendant
agreed to the proposal made by Mr. Humpleby,
and on the.3oth of October the goods were sold to the
delenda It, and on the following day ra.old to the Man-
chester house, both sales being executed upon the terms
stated in the letter. One of the acceptances before-
mentioned was taken up by Messrs. Humpleby and
Tarte, but they l ecame insolvent before the others were
due. Under these circumstances the plaintiffs brought
the present action, and the grounds on which they pro-
ceded wet e, that the sa.e to the defendant was not bona
fide, hut merely colourable, and intended to protect the
d. fendant against the loss which he must have suffered
from Use insolvency of the brokers.
Mr. SCA nLETT m sintained there was no ground for
supposing that the sale was not a bonajde transaction;
but even if his Lordship should be of opinion that it was
not, he contended that the brokers, having a lien on
the goods to the amount of 7001. had a right, under the
Act 6th Geo. IV. to transfer them to the defendant.
The LORD CHISNJOSTICZ said, that a person having
a lien upon goods in his possession, was entitled to sell
his interest in them; but then it must be distinctly
stated that he was selling only his interest, and not the,
whole of the pledge. in the case before the Court that
course had not been observed, and therefore it did not
, come under the protection of the Act of Parliament.—
The only question of fact for the consideration of the
Jury was, whether the defendant purchased the goods
under circumstances which ought to have excited sus-
p'cion in the mind or a reasonable MAD that the sale
was not a fair bona fide mercantile transaction? He
thought it was impossible, after lo..king at Mr. Hum-
pleby s letter, to hesitate to decide in the affirmative.
The Jury immediately found a verd ct for the plain-
tiffs—llasnages, 14001.

• COURT OF COMMON' PLF.AS. Aran.2o.
BRODERICK V. SWEETMA N.
In this case the plaintiff was a Gentleman well known
at the Bar, who sought to recover the value of a bill of
exchange for 823/. of which he was the holder, and the
defendant the acceptor. The plaintiff had deposited
large sum of money in tire hands of Messrs. Sikes and
Co: bankers, for the security of a part of which he had
received the bill in question. Since the action hid
been commenced, however, his claim had been satisfied,
and it was now continued by the assignees of the estate
of Sikes and Co. who had become bankrupts. It ap-
peared that the defendant, who was an Irish Gentleman
of good property, had been in the habit of depositing
his own bills in the hands of Messrs. Sikes and Co.
some of which he had discounted, and others placed
to his account. Before these bills became due, he
usually sent others in order to take them up, at
the same time sending orders as to how they
should be disposed of. The bill in question was
sent by him in the usual way, with two others, accom-
panied by a note, which appeared to differ from his
general style. It was as follows:—" B. Sweetman, of
Blenheim Lodge, will trouble Messrs. Sikes and Co. to
place the three enclosed bills to the credit of hs ac-
count." This was Supposed by Sikes and Co. to be an
order to discount, and accordingly Mr. Wilkinson, one
of the partners in the house, immediately took the bill
/Into another counting-house, and placed it among
others that were left for discount ; it was discounted,
entered as such in the books, and the discount charged
on it. The defendant, however, had never received any
thing for it, and let he had not overdrawn his account.
Taking these circumstances into consideration, the Lord
Chief Antic" left it for the Jury to say, whether they
considered the letter, which had been sent by the de-
fendant. amounted to an order to discount the bills, or
whether he did not merely mean that they should be
placed to the credit of his account? If they believed he
meant only the latter inference to be drawn, their ver-
dict would be for nominal damaged only.
The Jury retired, and remained in deliberation for
some time, whet► they returned a verdict for the plaintiff
—Damages, Is. giving it as their opinion that the letter
did not authorise the discount of the hill.
LIBICL—BERKFLEY V. FAIRMAN.
This action was brought by Colonel Berkeley, of
Berkeley Castle, against Colonel Fairman, Proprietor
of the Palladium Newspaper, to recover a compensa-
tion in damages for a libel published in that Paper.
Mr. Sergeant WILDS stated the case. The plaintiff
did not seek to recover heavy damages from the de-
fendant, who was a prisoner in the Fleet, but his object
was to rescue his character from slander. Dole's the
attack made by the defendant in his Paper was repel-
led, the Colonel could not expect to be received into
any decent society. If the defendant w ould declare
that the libel was without foundation the plaintiff would
be satisfied.
Mr. Sergeant TADDY said, his client was ready to
express his sorrow for having inserted the libel.
Mr. Sergeant WILDE said that would not be satis-
factory.
Mr. Sergeant TADDY said, Mr. Fairman was not in
Court, and he had not beet► instructed to go further than
the expression of his sorrow for the insertion of the al-
leged libel.
Mr. Sergeant WILDE then continued his statement to
the Jury. The Colonel had been charged in the de-
! tendant's Paper with being a writer in the Age News-
paper—with traducing female character, and with

16,1 fig h fated to light *theft eallcd but by fi Mh
Claggett.—=The Learned Sergeant read the libel,Whiell
was in doggrel 'tuts:
The evidence necessary td Otbire the defendant paw
prietor of the Peif/adiute was received, also the libel.
Mr. Sergeailt.T.sunv, for the defendant, tontendetl
that Colonel Berkeley had sustained no injury by the
publication.
The Jury under all the IvircumstanCes, found a Vert
diet for the plaintiff—Dateages, 501.