Star.
London, England, 1803-01-04 00:00:00

!'.

El. F:4Y,

THE PASIOF..II. POET, IN AUGUST LAST.

Br MR. CARET.

Sweet Bard, while here, with fund ref;eet,
I kn,:cl befide thy lonely crave ;
Liar cictinr of the %%writ's ncgledt.
A wand'rinz flnung,:t% tea: reLel•!e.
Hcw aft, in eh Whoecl,Fave I fotig!..2
The *at .ci own'd the wild-word (ha
Where, ftretch'd alone is render thmlgllt,
Thy verfe my truant hours d‘Lsy'd.
Thy artlefc and melod:ous ( rain
Enarnour'd fympatl7 awoke;
In numbers taught me to complain,
And baae me hrlt the Mule awoke.

Far from the city's /nide rt
Unhccdful of deluilve
Tby gentle toford neer a:pir'd
Beyond a Syle All rod', name.
In villagt bose'rs, abodes of peace,
Amid a mute, admiring throng,
Fads native eh rm, each limple grace,
Thy fancy wove into her fling.
The hours that gild the orient Morn,
And kindle Noon's *ppm-Rive rays.
And Evening's lhad'vry brow adorn,
With Infp;ratims erown'd thy by..

The Queen of Night, by twilight pale,
On mountain, heath, and publeft wild,
By !taunted dream, an d lopely vale,
On thee, in radiant visoas,
Apart, from vulgar eye conceall,
in annual glory dcck'J anew,
The rival deafen, all reveal'd
Their faireft beauties to thy view.
The wanton boy, that rules the plains,
His tuneful reed to thee reign%
To ling the loves of rural twain,
Of hearts by moon-light vows tutorial.
Content, that brightens very kene,
Wow wont her fairite to beguile,
TillDiruppointasent Anode between,
AM rubbl thee of her (wcetelt (mite
Unto thy daft, fwert Bard. adieu!
Thy balloted &Mae I !lowly leave,
Yet oft, at eve, Clan Mastery view
The Ban-beam ling'ring an thy grate
York, Dee. ans.

LAW INTELLIGENCE.

CODIT OF ZING'S BENCH, DEC. is.
!RENCK V. GRANGIR.

Co:TrOSIZI ON VISTTIN '7; THE TOMS 01'CW/it:INGHAM,

Mr. Elise re [fated this to be as anion for the
fans of 91. 3s. sd. nominally, but the real film in
difpute between the parties, was a very (mall one,
no more than is. 9d. but the quellion was never-
thele's important, feirit applied to the whole Trade
of the Plaintiff: beeaufe, if the Plaintiff could not
recover this funs, he could not recover any thing of,
ant other individual, under fimilar cirenmftances,
and then there would be an end of his trade,and of
the trade of every tidier perfon in his fituation.—
The plaintiff was a (worn broker, that is, a perfon
evlso difpofes of goods for others, by public tale.
The defendant was a Lighterman. On the 18th of
June lel, the plaintiff, as broker, put up a number
of articles for Pale at Lloyd's, and the defendant
became the purchafer of a lot of hams: the Este
was ueord;ng to the form of a printed particular
of the conditions, which fpecified that a certain
funs fhould be depofited by the purchafer, in pro.
portion to the value of the lot purchafed, and all
s to be paid, without any deduaion, before
tlsu:riletlivery of the goods : the purchafer to have
until the 24th of the month to take away the
goods, but if he did not then take them away, the de•
pofit to be forfeited, and the goods to be re.fold.—
In this caufe the whole charge made upon the de-
fendant, was 91. 35. sd.• including is. for the lot.
money, and 9d. for the delivery, being at the rate
of one halfpenny per ham, there being 18 hams in
the lot, and alfo one halfpenny per ham for re-
warehoufini ; and the further firm of one farthing
per ham, for a week's ware houfe rent, the hams
not being taken away in due time. All this arofe
from the obftinacy of the defendant, who after he
had purchafed tl;e hams, law them wcighed at the
broker's warehoufe, and went with the broker's
clerk to fettle at the counting houfe, but refilled
the demand made for the lot money, raying it
only 6d. and as to the money for the deiivery, he
would not pay any thing for it. He was told that
this was the conflant charge in the conrfc of trade,
and he was telerred to the conditions of tale,
which fpecifleal that he was to pay the uftial
char i„,” ; but he would not do it, on which the
further chat ge of one halfpenny per ham was made
for re.warchouting, and the farthing per ham for
the week's rent, that b:ing the cuftom of the trade;
etut the defendant di 1 not chat to comply with
their well known curium. The Pale of the hams
to the defendant he the plaintifF as bro!:er, was
--).•-J es Co- ''.iris being weighed, and the
cha7g:s t: if made, which charges were
the cona.ant of the trade, and the &fen
da:.t's renal:A ti ; there charges, and alfo their
bjng aid put up, were all proved.
1;:n it appeared th.t.: the l'!aia...iff had feed out .t
writ agai:t•t ti,. det.n.lart .is ti.c IStlt of June, on
which n.:;r01:•:, it %1';1' nd,d by the defen-
dant's tiff ought to he non.
fuited on th:.:.:niand: t'. ,t the defendant 1: 4,1, I,s•
the eons!tlo: , 1;:pe from the ~r
yule to 11.- ::•!1 1-.1.4..11, •::
1-:r:ll.te ; that tie :elnre the pha::::,tf 1,13,110 t 11,i,
3 tc.c fin 1, rating cl.l :;.c writ on the as+.
In anfwea t this it was al.!t d, that there 're
c 47, which (I. ibing out ci' J
teat is Lit to h' cr. ltd-red as 0:- c,ll-471::i,‘!rrynt
fan ,n, onlet • tue F 1.,;
feat tialt ;no: e,.n•; el
vat an. e. That tit carnrn::tr:7l,:at rf
is he fi tog -I a !,-al. shhveling a der larat;-,n.
it: the cafe Fett::

and Bonner, in t Wilfon. There was another
I cats in the Term Reports, by whichit was tieeid-
ed, that a demand which accrued between the time
of fuing the writ and the filing of the declaration,
is recoverable in fuel; action ; and here the declara-
tion did not airtime any thing to be due before the
,th, when it was the defendant's duty to com-
plete the contract.
Lord EL LENPO.:OI'r: II laid, there cafes would
have been decilive of the point, Lad it been need-
fary to retort to the;;; ; but he held it, that the
time allowed, mail the 24th, was to be confidered
as a condition for the benefit of the purchafer, but
if he chute to take• any day previous to that for•
the conch-ion of the bulinefs, and to demand the
delivery of the goods to him, he was bound to do
on that day every thing which by his contract he
erga,ited to do on the 24th; and that, therefote,
there was nothing in the objeClion. As to the
7wionts which had been proved, his Lordfhip held
It important to trade that they thould he abided by.
Vetdia for the plaintiff for the whole of his de-
mand, 91. 35. sd.
taccEmatts 27.--rossrot V. HAYNES.
This was an action againfl the Defendant, who
is a fnoernaker at Lath, (but who is Come way con-
nected with Brillol Weltrlndia Merchants,) for a
fum of 881. as the value of a quantity of umbrellas
furnifhed to him by the Plaintiff, who refides in
London.
The agreement for the payment was, that at
the end of fix months, after the Defendant fhould
receive the goods, he fhould fend up a good bill,
which had but two months to run; inficad of that
the Defendant fent up his own Promifory Note.
The Plaintiff immediately fiat it back to him, and
demanded a bill, which the Defendant refuting to
give, the Plaintiff brought this action.
Mr. Gaatow, on the part of the Plaintiff, Elated
the cafe very fhortly ; he fail he was very fure
the verdict of the Jury would henceforward teach
, the Defendant the difference between a good bill
and his promiffory note. A good bill is a thing
which can be taken immediately to the money
market, and pallid at a very fsnall lots; whereas
the promiffory note of a lrarger, who, after hav•
ing had fix.manths credit, will not pay by a Bill
of Exchange, mutt be considered as a very differ-
ent thing.
The Plaintiff's Traveller, who took the order,
proved tbat the agreement as to payment, was by
a bill at the end of the fix months.
The Defendant's letter was alfo produced, which
Rated the agreement to be payment by a Bill ; but
in the fame letter the Defendant, fpeaking of his
Promitfory Note, which he fent inclofed, called
it a draft.
The Plaintiff's Traveller, on his crofs-exasnina-
tion, admitted, that the Defendant is in good cir
cumffances and credit.
Mr. GIBBS, on the part of -the Defendant, ar-
gued with much ingenuity, that, from theft cir-
cumfiances, it might well be fuppofed that there
was Come mjfiake about the terms of the agree.
ment. The Plaintiff's Traveller had fworn the
agreement was for a Bill; be fruited his Witneffes
would prove the contrary.
One Morris, a mate of a (hip, who was referit
at the tranfaftion, laid, that the agreement was
for a note, and not a bill; his teflimony, however,
was much fhaken on the clot's-examination.
Two other Witneffes to the tranfaltion were pro-
duced: but it appearing on the examination that
one of them was bail for the Defendant, and the
other intereftedlit the tranfittlion,
Mr. Getaow wifhea them good morning, and told
them they might return to BrOol asrfoon as ever
they pleated.
Lord Ettawaoitovcii told the Jury that there
was no balance of evidence in this cafe, and that
for the future, when the Defendant bargains about
Bills, he ought to mean the fame thing by a Bill
that the reit of the Commercial World mean.—
Verdi& for the Plaintiff.—Damages 881.