Star.
London, England, 1821-06-20 00:00:00

LAW INTELLIGENCE.

COURT OF CHANCERY, JUNE 19.
GORDON V. GORDON.
Mr. HEALD stated, that the plaintiff, Mr. Harry
Gordon, was perfectly satisfied with the minutes in
this cause, as delivered out by his Lordship. The
only point, then, chat now remained to be settled,
was the costs.
Mr. Gordon, the defendant, said, there was a great
deal more to be done, as his Lordship had been im-
posed on; and he was convinced he had never read
the evidence before he had delivered the minutes. He
was sorry to be obliged to say so much.
The LORD CHANCELLOR—"You ought to be sorry;
for I am not to act according to your notions of the
practice of the Court, but trom my own judicial
knowledge. There never has been more ignorance
displayed of the rules of the Court than in this case.
• I will in a few days deliver out my minutes, as they
respect the costs."--Further consideration postponed.
IN THE MATTER OF JOHN WRIGHT, A BANKRUPT.
Mr. Bi. KERSTETH applied to the Court to order
Mr. John Wright to be discharged from the custody
of the Sheriff, he having been captured while under
the protection of the Commissioners of Bankrupts.
Mr. WAKEFIELD denied the allegations of the Pe-
titioner, that he had been, taken into custody after
shewing the protection of the Commissioners, but ad-
mimed that he had said he had a " stinger" for the
officers in his pocket.
The LORD CHANCELLOR ordered him to be dis-
charged by the Sheriff, observing, that he would give
him the benefit of his " stinger," but without costs.
ROWE V. ALDERMAN WOOD.
Mr. SIDEBOTTOM said that the plaintiff had issued
an attachment, for want of an answer; and he had
to beg his Lordship would order that it should not
be enforced until he should have an opportunity of
being heard against it.
On the part of the plaintiff, it was answered, that
it was not their intention to proceed until the de-
fendant's motion had been disposed of.
APPEALS.
An application was made by Mr. HART to have
a cause put in the paper for immediate rehearing, the
party chiefly interested being upwards of 86 years of
age, and the cause having been/Kir/4 decided during
the Chancellorship of the late Lord Thurlow!
The LORD CHANCELLOR—It is my determination.
during the remainder of the Sitting, not to hear any
thing but A: peals, as, since the 29th of October last,
I have been. engaged entirely on Motions. I mean
to except those on the regular Motion-days, relating
to Appeals, and similar causes; but I cannot any
longer hear the reproaches that are made in Appeal
Causes, and suffer them to be superseded by new
Motions. I will speak to the Master of the Rolls and
the Vice-Chancellor to hear them, and I will then
confine myself entirely to Appeals.
COURT OF KING'S BENCH, JUNE 18.
WITHERNEY AND OTHERS, V. TRIMNIER AND OTHERS.
This was an action for breach of contract. The
defendants, Messrs. Trimmer and Sharpe, of London,
employed the plaintiffs, who are merchants at Ali-
kant, to purchase a' cargo of dried fruits for their
account. The conduct of the fruit trade in Spain has
one peculiarity : it is usual to contract with the
grower, beforehand, for his crop ; but the price is not
fixed until after the gathering, when it is regulated
by the scarcity or abundance of the harvest. It was
early in the year 1819 that the correspondence com-
menced between the plaintiffs and defendants. At
that time the grapes were young, but the season pro-
mised a plentiful crop; and Messrs. Trimmer and
Sharpe requested Messrs. Witherney and Co. to pur-
chase a given quantity of baskets, intimating that
they should charter a vessel forthwith, and strongly
recommending such early shipment as should place
their goods first in the London market. Owing to
some unexpected delay, the John and Elizabeth (the
ship chartered by the plaintiffs) did not arrive at
Alicant until the sth of September: at that time
there had been a long course of wet weather ; and
Messrs. Witherney and Co. knew that prices would
be high. On the 12th of September they wrote the
defendants to that effect. The John and Elizabeth
completed her loading, and sailed from Alicant on
the 24th of September; she put into Gibraltar, how-
ever, where she was placed tinder quarantine, and
did not arrive in England until the end of December.
—At that time the fruit had suffered considerable
damage from long keeping and stress of weather;
and the defendants refused either to accept the cargo,
or the bills (for account of it) drawn upon them by
the plaintiffs: it was agreed, therefore, on all hand,
to sell the property, without prejudice; and for a
loss of £9OO sustained upon such sale, Messrs.Wither-
ney and Co. now brought their action.
The SOLICITOR-GENERAL, on the part of the de-
fendants, stated that the whole speculation had ori-
ginated in the advice of the plaintiffs, and that the
instructions sent by Messrs. Trimmer and Sharpe
were precise as to the quality and market price of
the commodity. The letter of the 12th September
bad not been answered, certainly not; the defendants
knew that, under the circumstances stated in that
letter, the terms of their order could not possibly be
complied with ; and they relied, therefore, as of
course, that no shipment would be attempted.—
Besides, reply would have been useless ; because, from
the length of post between ,Alicant and England, the
course of the plaintiffs, whatever that might be,
would be taken long before any letter could reach
them. Messrs. Witherney and Co. were bound, as
the agents of Messrs. Trimmer and Sharpe, to exer-
cise a sound discretion on their behalf; and it would
have been obviously better to have sent back the John
and Elizabeth, eren in ballast, than to have loaded her
with goods upon which loss was more than probable,
and upon which (according to the plaintiffs' own con-
fession) no profit could be expected.
,Witnesses were called on both sides. On the one
band it was attempted to shew that the cargo had
been put on board in bad condition; on the other
hand it was maintained that the damage had arisen
from the leaky state of the vessel. Depositions were
put in as to the good quality of the fruit from the
persons who had assisted in shipping it; and the
Captain of the John and Elizabeth admitted that his
vessel made great water between Alicant and Gibral-
much, indeed, that the pumps were kept con-
going. Upon the nature and value of the

cargo, as seen upon its arrival in England, the wit-
nesses differed in opinion.
Mr. Clark, a fruit broker, who sold the whole after
it had been rejected by the defendants, said that it was
not a cargo of best quality ; but, allowing for length
of keepilig and for sea damage, it was a good ave-
rage cargo for the season.
Mr. Fleet, a fruit dealer, examined part of the John
and Elizabeth's cargo, and thought that, independent
of incidental damage, it could never have been of
even average good quality.
Mr. Woods, a wholesale grocer, said that he had
seen better cargoes of the same season.
Mr. SCARLRTT, in reply, contended that the in-
structions of Messrs. Trimmer and Sharpe were to
be taken as referable to circumstances. The words
" Send fruit of the best quality, and at low price,"
must be understood to mean, " Send fruit of the best
quality that the season affords,'and at as low a price
as you can possibly obtain it." Upon that interpre-
tation of the defendants' order (and surely such was
the only reasonable interpretation which could be put
upon it) the plaintiffs had proceeded.
The LORD Cures JUSTICE left two questions to the
Jury. First, did the instructions of the defendants,
speaking of the best quality and low price, apply to
best quality and low price abstractedly, or to best
quality and low price of the particular season? Second,
did the plaintiffs, or did they not, ship a good cargo,
allowing for the particular season ?
The Jury, after a moment's deliberation, found a
verdict for the plaintiffs—Damages £9OO. -

tar ; so
sdptly