Star.
London, England, 1826-10-31 00:00:00

[PRICE SEVENPIntfte

LAW REPORT.

COURT OF KING'S BENCH, Oar. ft.

I. •

'Mb day the Loan Caner JOSIICR sat pursnaut tcrndjeurtimetit i•
Westminster Hall, and tried Common Jury tames.
Since the last Sitenp,,the Court has undergone sense impeofm.'
meat with respect to the admission of more light Bun the root.—
We described some time since the alteratioes.
lii the Bail Court the other Judges sat in Banco, and dispMed
matters, as of Hilary Term.

Immix, f. voaturesoo AIM ovum. . .
The plaintiff; an attorney, residing in Dublin,brooshL bis'aetlon
to recover a compensatioa for services performed as agent to a Crow
paoy lately established under the name of the Society foe 'the Cal.
tivatloo of Flax in Ireland.
After the ease bad been opened, the parties consented to refer A.
matter to the arbitradob of a Gentleman at the Bar.

IRINNINO AND EGERTON V. VTIVRNS.
This was an action of deceit, brought by the plaintiffs,
to recover a compensation in damages for the injuries
they had sustained in consequence of a fraudulent con-
tract made with them for the taking of a publie-house,
' called the Kiragomiviinssis, situated at the corner of
Duke-street, Nlanchester-sqnare. It appeared that Mr.
Stevens having this house to let, the plaintiffs called en
him and inquired what was the sum required for the
good-will and what business the defendant was doing ?
He stated that he was doing a business in spirits of tkvo
hundred pounds a Month, that altogether his receipts
amounted to SOW. He wanted 2,5001. for the good-
will. The plaintiffs thought the sum was too much,
but promised to call again, and sometime after they
again called upon the defendant, and offered him 2,3001.
which however he refused. They then advanced 501.
and the defendant said he Would let there. have it for

23501. provided they would pay the expenses of the
conveyance. To this they agreed, and the stock df a!e,
porter, and spirits, was to be taken by them at a value-
lion. They subsequently paid the sum of 5.0141. for
the good-will, stock, furniture, &c and took possesion of
the house, but soon afterwards that the defendant

had misrepresented the state of his trade, and that in-
stead of his receipts being 8001. a month. they were in
reality on an average no more than 1501. and had not
been any more since the defendant first took the house.
Two persona of the name -of Crowning, who accompanied the
plaintiffs to the defendant's house, proved that the defendant bad
stated his receipts to be 1100 G a month.
On the agreement made between the parties being
produced, it appeared the stamp was only 11. and Mr.
J. WILLIAMS, for the defendant, objected to it on the
ground, that including the receipt on the back of the
agreement, there were more than 1080 words, which
required a larger stamp.
Mr. Guayas said, his Learned Friend had mistaken Ms counting.
The Loan Cams Junin said, the words of the agreement ought
to have been counted before it was brought into Court. He could
not allow the time of the Court to be wasted.

Mr. Wmucass said all had been counted but the receipt.
Thema Burgoyne, en being called to prove the number of words
in the agreement, said there was no receipt on the back of the
agreement—The objection was therefore over-ruled.
Mr. WILLLUU now submitted that the whole of the treaty having
preceded the dowsers of the agreement, the plaintiff could not give
'Mame of the eeeddendee paidaltee the alining of it.
ate Loa* Cam James aithidersd the plaintiffs were entitled
to slew they had bun Impend at by a fraudulent contract.
Several witnesses were then called, Nebo proved the amount of
the stock in the potesedon of the defendant at the time be let the
house to the plaintiffs.
Mr. J. War.Lt.tus then addressed the Jury for the de-
fendant, and contended that his client had not misre-
presented the receipts. The plaintiffs might have called
for the publican's pass-book and other documents, which
would have prevented all misrepresentation. They
bad, however, thought proper to dispense with the vety
evidence they most wanted.
The Loan Cuter Justice left the Jury to say whether the de-
fendant bad been guilty of fraud and misrepresentation, which is.
titled the plaintiffs to their verdict?
The Jury retired from the hos one hour, and on their return
found a verdict for the plaintiffs—Damage. £2OO.

COURT OF COMMON PLEAS, OCT. 30.
TAMPLIK V. •rrm.

This was an acdoa of troves to moves the valve of 580 sacks;
Mr. Sergeant VAUGHAN stated the plaintiff's ease.—
The plaintiff was a hemp and cloth factor at Queen-
hithe ; the defendant was, in 1824, the Sheriff or Wor-
cester, and merely a nominal defendant in this action.--
In April, 1821, a person named Stanton was introduced
by a Mr. Burridge to the plaintiff's warehouse as a large
corn factor and miller in Worcester, and consequently
in the habit of using a great number of sacks. He
wished to know it the plaintiff could supply him
at a more reasonable rate than what he could pur-
chase them for in the country ; the plaintiff and Stanton
agreedto the purchase of five hundred and eighty sacks,
,and also to pay money for them. Stanton gave the
name of Mather and Co. of the East India Chambers,
as a reference; the plaintiff sent his son to Mather and
Co. who gave Stanton a most excellent character, and
stated that they had dealt most extensively with him for
many years; the next day, Stanton came to settle for
the sacks, and said that he bad unfortunately been
paying away all his ready cash for custom duties, and
had nothing but bills drawn on persons in Worcester-
shire. As the plaintiff bad received such a character
from Mather and Co. he did not hesitate to take the
bill, which was for 84i. drawn ota. Packwood, in Wor-
cester ; unfortunately for the plaintiff, Stanton on pass-
ing the stable door saw a pony, which Stanton's son
'took a fancy to; Stanton at first seemed angry with his
son foe thinking about keeping, as he said, in these
hard times, more " cats than caught mice;" but on
being again solicited by the son, asked the plaintiff if he
chose to dispose of it ? the plaintiff not having any par-
ticular use for the pony, said, that he should nut object
plaintiff Stanton
to sell it at a fair price; then invited
into the house to take a glass of wine, and talk aboutthe
pony, which he agreed to purchase at the price asked by
the plaintiff; Stanton next admired the wine, and ex-
pressed as intention that he had of setting hi, eldest son
op in business as a wine merchant, and how glad he
should be to purchase some wine of the quality he had
I been regaled with by plaitgiff, who, having several pipes
lying in the dock, agreed to sell Stanton one of them
for 1201. Stanton, says the Learned Sergeant, had not
only purchased a quantity of sacks, a pony, and a pipe
of wine, but he had not yet finished his purchases, for on
passing throtigh the shop, he cast his eyd on a piece of
'canvass, and said it Would do to coder some ot_ his craft,
-and had no objection to purchale that also; this WAS
agreed upon, and Stanton gave another bill tor 291. ac-
cepted by a J. Bedford, on payment for the pony and
the canvass. The willingness 01 &anion to purclia.,e

Pr

all 'things that came in his way, took the attention_ofl
Ilse plaintiff, and he thought it necessary to make in,,
quint.: as to the respectability of Mather and Co. to whom
Stanton had referred, and from what he heard, although
the pony and sacks had been sent off, h• went im-
mediately tettop the delivery of them, and succeeded
in prevailing on the carrier to restore the pony ; but
with respect to the sacks he was not so fortunate, for
they were taken tinder an execution, by a creditor of
Stanton's. The Sheriff was indemnified, and the
action was brought against him for the value.
Evidence was produced in support of the Learned Sergeant's ease.
Mr. Fsergeant Caoss appeared on behalf of the de
Pendant, and contended that there was no evident e to

`criminate the Sheriff. He contended that though the
goods might have been obtained fraudulently from the
plaintiff, yet the plaintiff might not have a just cause of,
action against the High Sheriff of the county of War-
wick. The Sheriff bad a proviso put into his bands to
seize on the property of John Stanton; those goods had
'been Stanton's property; the goods were not on their
transit from the buyer to the seller, they were actually
delivered at Birmingham; the plaintiff had suffered this
• man, who was not to be trusted, to have goods to the
amount of 1001. no notice had been given to the She! iff's
officers of the goods being the plaintiff's property, the
person who sued out the warrant was a bona, fide credi-
tor. Under these circumstances they had no right to
set up a fraudulent sale. the goods were in the plaintiff's
possession; nether were they his property, and in point
of 'law the officer was bound to sell.
'The Loan CHIEF JUSTICE said, that the question was whether or
not the goods were the property of Stanton ? It was certain that no
property could pus by fraud, and the most gross fraud had been
• 'committed in this case, and which subjected some of the parties to
transportation.
The Jury found a 'verdict fat the plaintiff—Damiges 94.