Star.
London, England, 1828-10-21 00:00:00

LAW INTELLIGENCE.

COURT OF KING'S BENCH, GUILDNALL, OCT . 21.

Adjourned Sittings in London, after Trinity Term, before Lord
TIUMRDMIN and Common Juries.
PROCTOR V. EINGLIIi.

The parties in this case were wine and spirit mer-
chants. The action was brought to recover 1051.65. 10d.
under the following circumstances—ln December last,
the plaintiff was applied to by a publican of the name
of Joseph abden, residing in Camden-town, to supply
him with a quantity of spirits on credit ; and having
given a reference to the defendant for inquiries as to his
circumstances, the plaintiff applied to the defendant on
the subject. In answer to the plaintiff's inquiries, the
defendant stated, that he had known Dibden a long
time, and considered him a very honest and safe
man ; and that he was as good as a Bank note.—
The plaintiff, upon this representation, supplied
Dibden with a quantity of rum, and aftet wards (in the
following month) with a cask of brandy. The total
charge for these goods was 1051.65. 10d. Shortly after
they had been furnished, the plaintiff discovered that
Dibden was in insolvent circumstances, and that the
defendant was fully aware that he was so at the time he
(the defendant) made the representation to the plaintiff.
It appeared that in June or July preceding, the defea-
dar.t had advanced Dibden 3001. upon a warrant of
attorney; and afttrwards, in November or December,
he had advanced some small sums of money to him on
several pawnbrokers' duplicates. In February last (after
the defendant had issued an execution against his goods
for 6671.115.) a commission of bankrupt issued against
Dibden, whose estate, it was said, would not pay a far-
thing in the pound.
Mr. Guano!, for the defendant, made no defence
upon the facts ; but submitted, that the verdict, if the
Jury found fir the plaintiff, should be for the amount
only of the rum furnished in December, immediately
after the representation was made, and not for the
brandy, which was supplied subsequently.
Lord TENTERDIN left it to the Jury to say whether
the amount ought to be reduced.
AlThey immediately found for the plaintiff for the
bole aunt claimed.
ARCHARD V. HOISNER.•
This was an action against Mr. Horner, the proprietor
of the Colloseum, in the Regent's Park, at the suit of his
late groom, to recover a sum for wages. The facts
proved were, that the defendant, in December last, en-
gaged the plaintiff and his wife, the former in the cepa.
city of groom, and the latter as cook, at 40 guineas a
year. The 9th of February following be discharged
them, tendering in payment of their wages, 161.45. 10d.
which sum included a month's wages inlieu of a month's
warning. The plaintiff refused to accept it, and claimed
a quarter's extra wages, insisting that the hiring wasfor
a year. The defendant denied the plaintiff's tight to
a quarter's wages, and told him that a month's wages
was more than he was entitled to; but be was willing
to give it rather than have any dispute. The present
action was brought to recover the amount of &quintet's
wages beyond the sum (111. 175.) which the defendant
now admitted the plaintiff to be entitled to, and which
sum he had paid into Court. The declaration was one
contract for a year absolutely, but the evidence did not
.sustain it. .

Lord TENTERDEN observed, that the utmost that was
proved was a contract for a year, determinable on a
swath's notice.--The plaintiff was nonsuited.
NEWBERRY V. MARRISON AND WIVE.
This was an action by an attorney residing at Read.
ing, in Berkshire, to recover the amount ofshis bill for
preparing a deed of settlement, intended to have been
made on the marriage of the defendants. It appeared
by the evidence. that Mrs. Hart ison, who, prior to her
marriage, was a Miss Pocock, gave the plaintiff instruc-
tions to prepare the deed of settlement, and 111.4 the
plaintiff, in consequence, took a jnnrney to London to
procure certain title deeds which were necessary for his
perusal: that he afterwards corresponded With Miss'
Pocock, and on one occasion told her that Mr. Harrison
had refused to wait for the settlement unless it was pre-
pared and executed before the time he had fixed for the
marriage to take place. Some delay afterwards took
place, and the parties were married before the sr tile-
silent was completed. The defendants had since refu.rd
to pay more than 124 in discharge of the plaint,ff's
bull of 491.85. SJ. and they had paid the 121. into'Conrt.
The deed was never executed, and the stamps had been
allowed.

There was no defence, but
Lord TENTENDEN looked minutely over the items of
the plaintiff's bill, and left it to the Jury to say whether
the plaintiff might to have taken the journey to Loudon
without Miss Pocoek's authority, be having an agent in
Loudon who could have procured the title deeds; and
also whether he ought to have incurred certain other
charges comprised in the bill, after having ascertained
that Mr. Harrison had refused to wait for the comple-
tion of the deed ? His Lordship observed, that he thought
the defendants had not paid enough money into Court.
...but it was for the Jury to say what more the plaintiff
wart entitled to.
The Jury found a verdict for 161. beyond the sum
paid into Court.
CAPEL AND ANOTHER IL THOANTON.
. .
This was an action against a Lady residing in the
neighbourhood of the Regent'sliark, to _recover the
amount of the plaintiffs' bill, for a quantity of coals
supplied to.ber. it•
The delivery of the coals at the ••• is house
. was proved ; and the usual tickets to. ' bowing
•the names of the plaintiffs as the venders,,, iciaschow-
ever, proved for the defence that-the &foam'', son had
recommended a person of the name of Elswortb to sup-

ply the coals to his mother, and that eta they had been
del vexed, Elsworth made out a bill in his own name,
and received the amount from the defendant, who knew
nithing of the plaintiffs as the venders; but shortly after
the hill paid, the defendant received a letter from
the plaintiffi, apprizing her that they were the venders,
and Vat Elsworth was metely an agent of theirs, le-
ceirhi4 a commi4sion for procuring orders; and re-
questin(4 her not to pay him tor the coals delivered.—
The defendant's son then called on the plaintiff-, and
told them that his mother had already paid the bill, but
the plaintiffs stating that Elsworth had no anthority
Nom them to receive the money, required payment
from the defendant, and now brought their action to re-
cover the amount.

Lord Troararraw said, it was quite clear that if a
er son Authorized an agent to procure orders, he was
to be consi.leie.l as authorizing him also to receive the
money in payment. The system adopted in the coal
trade WAS, towever, a most improper one.
The plaintiffs were then nonsuited.