Star.
London, England, 1820-01-10 00:00:00

CORN MARKET, MARK-LANE, JANUARY 10.

The severity of the frost, and the consequent stop-
page of the navigation, have occasioned a suliensiori
of business in our market, and although the arrivals
during last week were considerable, yet as none of it
could be worked from on ship-board, scarce ant
sales have been effected since this day se'nnight, and
the prices of all Grain may be quoted nominally al
on last Monday,
SMITHFIELD MARKET, JANUARY 10.

Beet 3, 6,1 to 5s ocl I Veal.• • ...... 53 Od to '6ll 6d
Mutton
Beasts 2800—Sheep :aid Lambs 15,000—Calves 170-L-Pigs 310.

HAY .iND STRAW PF.R LOAD.
Hay A 3 04 to ag4 66 I Straw ...aet $s to 41 16
Clover 6 Oa to 6 6s Rowen LU Os to ,t'et d

I

r.*l

. ''y

e
.it •
. *Mr

ARK

LAW INTELLIGEWCI.

but not finding Mr.tevy -or Mr. Kinnear there, hei
went away. Before the goods had been delivered,
- - Mr. Dixon himself had gone to the house of
,Messrs.
COURT OF KING'S BENCH, JANUARY 11. Coles and Galpin, to inquire further about tne bills,
DIXON V. COLES AND ANOTHER. land he was then told b; a clerk, that the bills were
This was aro action upon three hills of exchange, ! accepted by Mr. Galpin, but not for any partnership
dated iii Decenher, 1:-,17, drawn by J. Taylor, upon, purposes. Soon after these transactions, the intended
and accepted by. the defendant Galpin, for himself fraud upon Mr. Coles the el‘fer was discovered, and
and partner, and indorsed to the plaintiff a very large quantity of the bills having got into dif-
The case proved on the part of the plaintiff was feient hands, a bankruptcy was the consequence, and
this :—ln January, 1818, a person named Eastman !he case coming before the Lord Chancelor, the
called at the It +use of the plaintiff, who is a respect A- proof of debts founded upon these bills was ordered by,
ble warehouseman and wool-merchant, awl repre his Lordship to be struck out of the Commissioners'
seated -himself to be the broker of a Dutch merchant, Minute!. In the mean time, Mr. Galpin and Mr.
named Philip
_Joseph De Brune, who wanted to Coles, jan. absconded to America, where the latter,
ship woollen and other goods for Holland, tendering being reduced to the gratest distress, was obliged to
in payment the bills in question. The plaintiff, who return to England, and having arrived since this
had had some knowledge of Eastman, as a broker, cause was put down for trial, he would be produced
agreed to supply him with goods upon being satisfied as a witness to prove the circumstances in which he
of the goodness ('f the bills. For this purpose, East-
.had a part, as above stated. The Lem nod Solicitor
In to agreed to leave them with him, alai accordingly 'contended, on these grounds, that the plaintiff could
th- plaintiff sent ore of his clerks, with the bills, to not recover : first, on account of the usury between
Messrs. Coles and Galpin's hour, stationers, in Fleet- Mr. Kinnear and the other parries to the transaction;
street. The clerk saw only Mr, Galpin, who told and secondly, because the plaintiff had not taken the
him that the bills were regularly drawn and ac- necessary steps to satisfy himself of the honesty of the
cepted. Upon which the clerk went away, but was transaction before he negociated the acceptance.—
desi. ed ag-tin by the plaintiff to make further in- For this Litter purpose, he relied upon the facts
quiries, not being quite satisfied that the bills were stated, and vartictnarly urged the circumstances of
regularly drawn. When he saw Mr. Galpin again, Mr. Dixon taking a bill indorsed by Eastman, merely
the latter affected considerable astonishment at his an Agent of the Dutch merchant, which was quite
second visit, told him that it was time enough to in- contrary to the usual course of business; of his never
quire whether the bills were regularly drawn when inquiring who the Dutch merchant was; and of his
pesented for payment, and the clerk went away, not ascertaining wheher the bills had been accepted
perfectly satisfied of the goodness of the paper. In with the knowledge of Mr. Coles the elder.
consequence of these inquiries, two separate invest- Charles Barker Coles, the son of the defendant,
ments to Mr. Eastman s order were made out, of proved the transactions between him and Kinnear, as
woollen and drapery goods, to the amount in ute above stated.
whole of £2447 Is. which, together with about £l2O James Taylor, the drawer of the bills, proved that
in cash, paid to Mr. Eastman,' covered the three he had drawn them at different times, as stated, at
bills. Samples of the goods had been sent at first to the request of Mr. Galpin, who, on the first inter-
Mr. Langworthy, the packer, for the inspection of view, had plied him plentifully with wine. He -had
Mr. Eastman and Mr. De Brune, the latter of whom no other connexion with the defendant's house. He
never made his appearance during the whole transac- was an attorney, now living in Elizabeth place,
tion ; awl, in the result, the goods to the amount Lambeth.
aboveme'ttioned, were delivered to Mr. Eastman's To prove the other parts of the case, were called,,
order, in pursuance-of authority sent by the plaintiff W. Poutt, shopman, in the defendant's employment;
for that purpose. When the bills became due, they Mr. H. G. Key, a wholesale paper-merchant ; Mr.
were not paid, for reasons which afterwards appeared Langworthy, the packer ; Mr. Langworthy, Jun.
in defence. Jacob Jones, a Jew, who admitted that his real name
The Sotactiant-GENERAL offered two grounds of was Jonas, that he was a broker, and did business
defence to the action.-Ist, That the bills were con- for Moseley Woolfe and Lewis Levy, and that, at
totted in usury between the acceptor and the inter- the period in question, he was in the employment of
mediate indorsees ; and 2dly, that the plaintiff bad Mr. Kinnear; John Page, an accountant, at the
knowledge of the vice in the transaction before he time in question in the employment of Kinnear;
parted with his goods, and, consequently, by his Wm. Beadle, the carter, who carted the goods from
own laches, had destroyed his right of recovery.— the packer's to Kinnear's house, and Mr. Adlington,
The case was this :—The defendant, Mr. Coles, was the solicitor. Before the evidence for the defendant
a respectable tradesman of considerable wealth, who, had concluded,
after a long life of industry, retired, at the age of The CHIEF JUSTICE said, that the difficulty on his
eighty-five, from the cares of business, to reside at mind as to the plaintiff's right to recover on these bills
his country-house, %mar Southampton, leaving his was, that before the plaintiff had taken them, he
partner, Mr. Galpiw, to conduct the active part of ought to haVe ascertained whether they were the
his concerns, in Fleet-street. Mr. Galpin had origi- acknowledged acceptances of Mr. Coles. When a
nally been a servant in the house, andhad been taken man takes a partnership bill, either knowing that
into partnership without any capital. At the close the acceptance is not for a partnership purpose, or
of the year 1817, the latter, in conjunction with under circumstances that ought' to awaken his
Charles Barber Coles, the son of the other defendant, suspicion, and chuses to remain in wilful and volun-
meditated a most extensive fraud upon his partner. tai y ignorance upon the subject of his own interest,
About that time, an advertisement appeared in the he could not recover upon it.
Papers in the following words:--" Bills discounted Mr. GURNEY, in his reply, denied that there was
on moderate terms without delay ; apply to A. B. any thing adduced on the part of the defendants
No. 9, East-lane, Walworth." Young Coles an- which went in the slightest degree to vitiate this
swered this advertisement, and desired an interview case, as far, at least, as the plaintiff had been con-
with the advertiser, who accordingly made an ap- cer tied.
pointment, by letter, to meet the applicant at the Tice CHIEF JUSTICE proceeded to sum up the case
Percy Coffee-house, Rathbone-place. A meeting for the Jury. He commenced with adverting to that
accordingly took place, and it turned out that the as to the question of usury, and read the evidence of
money-broker was the notorious Mr. Kinnear, who, Charles Coles. It had been truly remarked, he said,
with Moseley Woolfe, and Lewis Levy, was lately that the conduct of this young man had been most
convicted of a fraudulent mercantile conspiracy. A disgraceful, and the Jury would view his testimony
negotiation was then entered into, and, after two or with great jealousy ; but still, if they considered him
three meetings at the same place with Mr. Coles, jun. entitled to belief, and that the circumstances which
it was agreed that bills to the amount of 875,000 he detailed were founded in truth, then the charge of
should be drawn in sets, by one James Taylor, an attor- usury was complete.
ney, upon Messrs. Coles and Gal pin, the latter of whom , The Jury,- after a short deliberation, found a Ter•
was to accept in the names of the firm, without the dict for the defendants.
knowledge of his partner; and that Kinnear was to Mr. Kinnear was in attendance to be examined.—
discount, and give the proceeds to Galpin and He was in the custody of an Officer, having been',,
young Cwles, deducting a large bonus for his own trots- brought from Coldbath-fields. The SOLICITOR-GE.
ble. For bills to the amount of £75,000, young Coles ?MEAL declined examining him, first, on the ground
was to receive £.55,000 in goods and cash, the re- that he did not wish to raise the question as to the ad-
mainder to go into the pocket of Kinnear. In pur- missibility of his evidence; and, secondly, because he
suance of this agreement, bills to the amount of thought his case was sufficiently strong without him.
1:56,200 were put into the hands of Kinnear, for SEWELL 17. LAWRIE•
which young Coles received £2,500 in cash, and a This was an action in trover to' recover the amount
nominal value in goods to the amount of £20,000. of a quantity of clover seeds,, sent by a Leith smack
Bills, in the whole, to the amount of £90,000, had from London to that place. The amount was proved
been drawn and accepted in this manner, but to be upwards of £l6O.
only the amount above stated had reached the hands It appeared the defendant was apart-owner of the
of Mr. Kinnear. Of those, the three bills in question Leith and Glasgaw attacks, trading from London.
formed a part; and in order to avoid the suspicion Some time in April, 1819, the plaintiff, a corn-dealer,
arising from so large an amount of bills accepted by agreed with him to wave,- this seed to Scotland,
the same parties appearing in the market, it was upon no other conditions, as he alleged, bit to ware-
stipulated by Mr. Kinnear that they should be drawn house it there until a market would offer. Notwith-
in sets of four, five, and six, for the same amounts standing this, however, the goods were given in
and dates respectively. In order to negotiate the charge to a person of the name of Arnot, who sold
three bills in question, a Jew old clothesman, named them again to the British Linen Company, upon ap-
Philip Joseph, was designated as a Dutch merchant, proved bills. Arnot subsequently became insolvent,
by the name of Mr. Philip Joseph de Brune; and and it was now contended, that as the property passed
one of the other dramatis persons of the piece, Mr. without the plaintiff's order, there was no legal con-
Eastman, went to the plaintiff, as already mention- version of it, and the defendant, as the carrier, was
ed, and represented himself as the Broker or Agent therefore responsible for it.
of this respectable merchant, who turned out to be a It was admitted, on the part of the defendant, that
pauper, lodging in a back garret, at the rate of 3s. the goods were put on board his smack; but his Coun-
per week. This respectable personage, however, sel (Mr. Gurney) successfully shewed that the plain-
never made his appearance on the boards. During tiff himself had desired that they should be put
az time the goods were at the packer's, he never under Arnot's care, and he put in letters from hien,
came to see the nierchandize he was supposed to requesting remittances from Arnot when they should
have purchased. The only person who did come be disposed of.
was Mr. Lewis Levy, of notorious fame, and who at The Court held this to be sufficient to acquit the
first announced himself as the Agent of Mr. de Brune, defendant of disposing of the goods without the
and being pressed for his name, he threw down, with plaintiff'sknowledge, and no answer having been given
great reluctance, a card on which his name was to it, he was desired to be called. Verdict, Nonsuit,
written. These circumstances exciting suspicion in
tits! packer's mind, he called upon Mr. Dixon, the
__l COURT OF EXCISE, JANUARY 7.
plaintiff, and told him he feared all was not right, The Court was occupied the whole of this day in
aad desired to know to whom he was to look for Appeals for exemption from Fines, surcharge of Du-
-., N Di
x+ . Mr. Dixon, however, was not at all alarm- ties and Penalties.
ed at what he had been told ; but he desired one of J. Barfield of Ratcliffe-hig way, paper-stainer,
h
his clerks to watch to what place the goods were applied to the Court for a remission of duty, which
carried when removed from the packer's warehouse. he had paid upon 1,444 squares of stained
paper.—
They were accordingly watched, and instead of going The article, he said, had been destroyed by fire, and
to the Custom-house, as was expected, they were he had been charged duty as if the absence of it was
traced to Mr. Kinnear's warehouse, in Green-Let- unaccounted for.
tuce-lane, which warehouse had a back communica- Mr. Mayow, the Solicitor to the Excise, desired
tioa with Suffolk-lane. On this occasion Mr. Dixon the appellant tp call his witnesses.
himself was pre.ient, and went into the warehouse, Mr. Burfield said, he had no better evidence to

produce than the Officer who had charged him with.
the duty.
The Officer, being pnt Into thetox, stated, that
he had seen the paper the day before, -as well as the
day on which it was burned. The duty was not paid
upon it until after the fire. There remained a bulk'
sufficient to prove to him that the paper had not been
disposed of in any other way than by the accident in
question.
The Court expressed their satisfaction, and was
about to relieve the appellant, but
Mr. Mayow obiected. The '26th Geo. 111. cap.
25, i equired, that, in order to the prevention of frauds,
the servants of those who applied to the Court should
prove that no use had been made of the article upon
which the drawback was required. It was evident
that the Officer had not been satisfied in this case, for
he had charged the duty.
The Court thought, that in all probability the Of-
ficer had an objection to the responsibility.
Mr. Burfield immediately sent for one of his ser-
vants, who having by his evidence satisfied Mr.
Mayow in the provisions of the Act, the Court or-
dered the duty to be restored.