Star.
London, England, 1804-12-22 00:00:00

draft. He immediately eownsanicated the circuits-
fiance of his lots to the Plaintiff, who gave bins a
letter to the Defendants, Rating the loft of die drafts
fpecifying its number, and deliring it to be flopped,
if offered for payment. This letter he delivered to
the Defendants' Clerk, who proinifed that every
precaution in his power (hould he exerted, and im-
mediately culled a notice to be polled up in the
Banking-houfe for flopping the payment.
The Defendants' Colloid admitted that the draft
was neverthelefs paid on the 7th of March following.
Mr. Serjeant Ben, on the part of the defendants,
addreffed the Jury at great length, but did not call
any witneffes. • •
Sir ALLAN C 11•14111 thought it could not terse
his cafe to prove that bankers in general did not en-
gage to be anfwerablo.
The Jury, without hefiration, found a Verdi& for
the Plaintiff—Darnages 451. with colts.
rartoa AND OTNSIS V. HODGSON.
This was one of a long firing of 'aims amount-
ing
in the whole to between *a ands moot. brought 1
againfl the Defendant, all nfting upon the fame 1
queltion, whether he had purchafed goods in his
own name, or had only *fled as agent to the houfe
of Smiths Lindley, and Co. which has fines: failed.—
The Plaintiff had been formerly a clerk to that firm
he afterwards commenced bufinefs on his own as
in the export trade, but !continued to have his
bufinefs tranfaded at their bode, and in their name.
The prefent anion was brought to recover the turn
of 9831. 71. for Manchefter goods alledged to be fold
and delivered to the Defendant. In May, tBos, the
Defendant firll purchafed goods from the Plaihtiffs,
and a bill of parcels was made out in his nanie. He,
however, told them that the bill mull be made out
for• Smith, Lindfey, and Co. as they did his baling&
Scl'his was accordingly done and Smith and Co.'s
name was entered in the books of the Plaintiff. This
' fort of dealing was continued till the latter epd of
'the year 5803, Hodgfon militantly buying the goods
and Smith and Co. uniformly difcharging to g
When the .failure of Smith and Co. was known to
the Plaintiffs, they exercifed that right which a rea-
der is known to poffefs, that of (lopping goods in
trafihs. They apOied to the Defendant and he
wrote a letter to Mars. Johnfon and Coln to rotors
'the goods required to the Plaintiffs, at the fame Brie
1 being the property to be his.
It was argued on the one hand, that from Smith
and Co. having Coffered the bills of parcels to be
made opt in their name, and having afterwads paid
reveral fonts of money qn this account, they was lia-
bles and that Hodgfon aged only as their agent.
On the other hand, it was contended that they
were only the brokers for Hodgfon, who were both
primarily and eventually the real parader. He
looked out the goods, he baegased for the pricesiTd
the goods were afterwards flopped in his name Ins
words at Ira dealing were particularly retied on—
" they do.my bufinefs," and alfo his letter to the
glaserevhieffis. Johnfon and Collo, defiring them to
return " goods belonging to their hnmble &event."
The Learned Judge was of opinion that Smith
and Co. whatever they might be in other Tepees,
Were in this inftance nothing elfe than brokers to
Hodgfon.
The Jury gave a verditi for the. Phintiffs.--Da-
mages 9821, 76. with colts.
AND OTaete IN HODGSON.
This was an it&ion to recover the &DI of 30001.
for goods fold and delivered under preclfely the fame
circumftances..
The delivery of the goods was proved, and it was
lints by one of the clerks belonging to Sir Robert
Peek and Co. that they conlidered Hodgfon always
!as the real purchafer, though Smith and Co.'s name
was made ore of as an additional recur ty. It was
dual in their hnufe to book goods to a refpe&able
perfon who fuffered his name to be made ufe of, not-
' siithllanding they conficiered a Ids refponfible per-
lon to be the aBual purchafer.
Verdiel for the Flaintiffs.—Damages 30001.

INVRAMCF.
Score v. Ttiosison—This was an alion on a Po-
licy of Infnrance. Both parties were agreed on the
fags, but it involved a point of law that had never
been decided. The Plaintiff therefore agreed to
take 'a yerdiA fuhjet to the opinion of the Court on
the point. Verdidt bar the Plaintiff—Damages tool
COURT OP XING% BENCH, DECEMBER so.
IMISTAIII V. 01 IL
Mr. Easatat Rated, that this was an Ate fent froth
the Court of Chancery for the Jot y to try, Whether
Wm. and James Beatfon and Thomas Mufgrave had
Wilfully and fraudulently prevented the plaintiff in
this cafe from getting an indorfentent on the regifier
of the (Lip Atlas executed at the Cuflont-houfe, with.
in the time preferibed by the Aet of Parliament t In
the month of June, 1803, the plaintiffranted bills to
the amount of 7ctocl. to William and James Beatfon,
in confederation of their granting him an affignment
to one half of the Juliana and Ocean, two fbips then
raid to be their property. At this time the Beatfons
were indebted to the plaintiff in a farther fum of
40001. and it war fhortly afterwards difcovered that
they could not grant him the (hare they had promifed
of the Juliana and the Ocean, having formerly made
away certain (bares of thole yeffels to other prooe. '
tows, which it was their with' to endeavour to redeem
with the money which they had thus received from
the plaintiff, but which they could not necomplifh.
.--In this fituation. the beatfons executed a bill ,
of file, in favour of the plaintiff, of the (hip Atlas,
which was duly exccuto.i en the 9th July, IF_ 03.
and the indorfement, on the oath, and other 1
neceffary formalities, fo far as required by law, ard i
within the power of the plaintiff to perform, wi•hin
ten days thereafter. The vele', however, was then
abroad ; and it being requited by the Eatl of Liver-
pool's AA, that when the (ales of veffeh are executed
when abroad, an indorfement fhoolti he entered on 1
the back of their regifter at the Cullom-Houfe within
ten days after its arrival in a Blitilil pert, the plain-
tiff ufeJ every exertion to prevail on the Beatfons, and
Thomas blufgrave, their Captain, to bring the replier
to the Cullom Hotife, to have the indorfement put on
it but in vain. The veffel at rived on the 17th of
Decenther, and it was the loth of that month, alter
yielding to numbeileit. ex:talons of William Beat-
fon, before the plaintiff could prevail on him and his
Captaiw, Thomas Moist...ye, to emote the indorfe-
ment on the regifter. The Bertfon% afterwards be-
came bankrup, and their affigneet, availing them-
haves of the delay of two days beTood the period

•
peekribed by the AR, witliin which doe Work-
ment on the reg;fier had beeq executed, btailli:Af
an action of trover, which had been tried hefty*
his Lorclthip. the at ferried to his Lordfhip, to
admit of no Ambiguity. It wa6 fhewn that tyro Sun-
days and a holiday bad intervened, but his Loral /fit)
had not obferved that either 3on days or holidays were
excepted in the aft. A verdict had therefore been
found for the Affignees, by which upwards of z Good.
kaeftefe advanced by the plaintiff, on account of tits
conveyance of the fhip in queflion, ma taken from
him without any confederation whatever. It was,
however, recommended to the plaintiff, er Gentlemen
well (killed in the equitable coerce of proceedings its
this country, that the Court of Chancery would *Word
redrefe againfi fo manifelt and palpable a wrong: Ry
courfe had accordingly been had to that court, and
the opinion of the Lord Chancellor was, that *kb.'
he, like the Judges of this Court, was bound by the
law, which was undoubted. Rill if a oak is point of
fad could be made out, that a manifea fraud and wile
ful wrong had been committed. it was within the Pr
rifdißims of this Court to grunt takes. He had,
therefore, lent it to the Jury in this Court to find the
matter of fad. os Had Wm. and John Beatfon and
Thos. Mufgrave wilfully and fraudulently prevented
the plaintiff from getting the indorfemest on the rs-
gifter completed within the time prefcribed by the Art
of Parliament P' In wlnt refpeß the plaintiff had
been prevented, was of little confequence. The ma-
fideration which he had granted satecedent to the ea-
coition of the articles of the Pale was a valuable sae.
The fele was gemmed unconditionally, and fo far as
within the compak of the pleintiff's power to give it
ate, had been rendered complete in due time. If.
therefore, the Scarfing, or either of them, or their
Captain, 'rhos. Mal-grave, had been guilty of any ad
to prevent or impede the complete execution of the
Cale, fuel) fell within the iffue fubmitted by the Lord
Chancellor to their contideration, and Cods they mull
accordingly return whim as their finding on the mat-
ter Qf haft,
Wm. Beacon was examined, who (aide tha‘tho
'Orel arrived in port on the 17th of December. He
immediately afterwards called on the plaintiff, in.
forming him of Tome of the bills having been dif-
honoured ; and requefted him to put matters itt traits
for having them paid, that chit Mdorfetnest on the
regifler might be executed at the Caftan Hoed"
The winters was particularly anxious on the tobjetlk,
as his commercial esinence depended on the Has
of conduit purfued by the plaintig He was
theemened, not only to be melted, but to have ex-
ectitions in hie boufe no account of thee dilho-
nomad bills. He did make thif plaintiff's compli-
ance with his terms a pan of hie agreement to me-
cute the indorfement at the Cullom Houfe ; and be
thought hisafelf, as an honed broker, warranted is
doing fo. as be did not conceive that be was bound foe
bad papa. to execute a grind conveyance of his (hips
to the prejudice of his other' creditors. He, bowevees
admitted. that previous to the execution of the arti-
cles of fate, which were unconditional, the Plaintiff
was creditor to the Beatfons in 40001. and that, of
the other 70001. upotards of sooeL had then been
paid. On the asd of December, the wieners Paid (MIT
thing was agreed between him and the Plaintiff. The
wittier's. however, was not able that day to meet with
Mufgrave who trod the regitler in his poilidies. He
informed 'the Plaintiff of this cirenuallance, who Paid
he would no longer troll to the whack, but would
look after the bufinefs himfelf., The winters,
ever,bow-
remained at home all the day of the a4th def.
ing Ctiffom Houfe hours, ego/Ring the Plaintiff to
call, but he did not, and no interruption or imps&
ment was afterwards put by him to the indorfemena
of the re.iner.
Mr. d'AILILOW, for the Defendant, maintained that
there was here no evidence which could warrant the
Jury in returning an anfwet in the affirmative to the
iffue fubmitted to them by the Lord. Chancellor. The
Noble Lord who prefided in that Court was well
known to be poffelted of language capable of convey,
ing his full and entire rne.tiong to any capacity. But
could it be Paid that the evidence this day laid before
the Jury would warrant them to find in terms of the
iffue fubmitted to them Had the Lord Chancellor
liked the queßion—did a coifimuning for fe I data
rake place between the parties? The evidence adduced
would have warranted the Jury in finding fuck a fad.
But what mutt they have declared in addition i That,
the% matters were completely accommodated: That
IBeatfon was thus ready, end eager to have indoefed
the regifier ; that he waited all day at home for the
Plaintiff, expelling that he would have called for that
purpofe ; and that the Plaintiff never had called till
the days preferibed by Ad of Parliament were este
pired. This. rarely, could nos be defcribed, u per.
venting the Plaintiff from getting the indoefemeelt
executed. After every mifooderttanding had beat
adjnfted, the day of the 23d. or the Lath. and other
two days, during which, itearfon was always so be
found, had elapfed, when the Plaintiff had never put
himfeif to any trouble to get the indorfement exe-
cuted, and during which it could not be infinsated be
had in the moll remote degree been prevented by the
Beatfons or Mufgrave.
Lord E LLLLL itouG H raid, the articles of Pale VIM
unconditional. If, thereon, VC. Beaks bad aides-
enured, however fair and reafonable the terms might
be, to impore on the Plaintiff any conditions which
went to impede or interrupt him in bringing the buti-
net: to the molt fpeedy v.rmination, he was, it the
terms of the iffne now before them, guilty of wilfully
and unlawtully preventing the Plaintiff from laving
the irsdorfemeta execoteu on the regifin at the Cni-
torn Houk, within the time fixed by Ad of Parlia-
ment. The evidence. however, went only to affeet
W. Beatfon and Thomas Nlnfgiare.
The Jury accordingly found, that Wm. Beatfon
and Thomas Mufgrave had wilfully and nnlawtully
prevented the Meiotic iir•m getting the indokenent
on the regifter ertentedet the Callon+ Houk, within
the time prtferlind by the Ad of Perliamene.

Tice has *to be-n k man se thin the memory of
Iran. fn srem a flight of ita_b;ra, t,. our •!mitt a, is
the perisnt feafoi.. The won*, of duck, teal. wid-
geon, and °the' bit& of the issue kind, canht this
year, is out of all orecetient, sod accordo,le.y. they
are extlemely ch:ar. The ruvoralitt acentutta fat
this tupesahundance be the idea that lie bitch has*
flown to our toothy'', tory fom he feecrity witib
which the %inter ti. in the ronre nnnhern
itudes, acrd Wi.st it .1 the fun pftvolhe of •thug/
*dun.