Star.
London, England, 1828-01-08 00:00:00

totifif kiNbs , •.•
T
Tie Adjounted Sittings WA* mimed icklqi byte" lard 's
Tee'tal ..IM Wino:* j snit k

LOilbo# 100C1C: opsatiAalr.
is was ail .ii tion °Oro* keought by the blishee
of V tlet, Ilud,on; fabd do; Merchant! add dryly tern;
iesident in the rity;,itt retook., 1454, the agitind *Wise of
hree rates of saffrorn lorigett in the London
Dock. in, the Milne cf a peranii riiiased Phillips; but sub-
sequently tranteried
.in the pastes of the binkruptas• --. • ,
Vitler, Hudson, and CO.
Mr. CAMPBELLipith vilmiltilvai Conw000) cdd-
ckicted the plaint' :case; andihe Arßodatir Glatakkat
.iul Mr. F. Pol.Locit appeared for tkle defendants.
The following witnesses were examined in support-or
the actions •
. Thomas Price said—i grit broker, and effected the
aisle of 29 cases ,of lac dye to Mr. Phillips, oa the
24t1a.-of February,. 1825, for 14601. 2s. 6-J. There
were three months' credit to be given ; and on the
.24th of May Mr. Phillips called on me and stated;
has lie was not prepared to pay 'the amount. for that by
mistake he had put down the day of payment ti Meath
rate than he ought. I referred him to Messrs Vitler
and Hudson, whom the lac dye belonged to, and ac-
e moanied him to their office. A conversation took
place between Mr. Hudson and Mr. Phillips, and the
latter agreed to deliver up to Messrs. Vitler and Hud-
son, three. casts of saffron, lodged in his name in the
London Docks There was no agreement about an
extension of time at this conversation.
Mr. John Hudson st ited, that he met Mr. Phillips on
the Exchange the Friday before the amount of the pur-
chase of the lot dye was due, and asked Mr. Phillips
whether he could then accommodate hint with the
aim Oils as the next day was Saturday ; and Mr. Phillips,
who is of the Jewish persuasion,said he was not prepared
to pay the money, as he had marked the daypl payinent
a month later in his diary by mistake. Witness said he
could not give a month's indulgence for the money,
and Phillips agreed to give three cases of saffron, as a
collateral security, in case be was not abler to redeem
the dye, which remained in the bankrupt's cossession.
Phillips did not redeem it, and it war subsequently re-
sold, but at a loss of 4001. as the article continued to
fall in price, after it was purchased by Phillips. There
was no contract to give Phillips three months.
Edgar Bowyer (a cleik in the house of Viler, Hudson,
and Co.) proved that he accompanied Phillips to the
London Docks, and paid the charges on three cases of
'affirm, transferred by order from the name of Phillips
to that of Viler, Hudson, and Co.
The Arrow:ay GENERAL, for she defendants, con-
tended that this question had been tried before in
an action, in which Vitler and Hudson were the plain-
tiffs, and Mr. Phillips the defendant. Vitler and Hudson
brought their action to recover the amount of the loss
sustained on the resale of the lac, and Phillips defended
the action on the ground that lie agreed to give them
the saffron as collateral security, on the condition that
they should give him three months to complete the
purchase of thelac: but as the latter was resold before
the expiration of the three months, Philips was not liable
for the loss. On this case a verdict was found for the
defendant; and he (the Attorney epoirat, insisted, that
if the bankrupts had no legal clai&i.in Phillips for the
amount of the loss sustained by the re-sale of the dye.
their assignees could have no right to the three cases of
saffron, which were only given as a collateral security.
The record in the action between Vitler, Hudson, vnd
Cc'. and Phillips, was given in evidence, and witnesses
were examined to prove the identity of the question at
issue in that case and in the present. • • •
Lord TINTIRDitti left it to the Jury, that if they were
of opinion that the bankrupts had not agreed to give
Phillips an extension of the credit for three months, and
had only agreed to give him such indulgence as they had
given him, they were bound to find for the plaintiff.
The Jury accordingly returned a verdict for the
plaintiff—Damages, 1551. •
INSOLVENT DEBTOES` COURT, Jas. 7.

Several insolvents were discharged this maraink so
oprositjon being offered.

In the course- of the proceedings the Cruel Coat-,
'mimosa observed, that much embarrassment was
occasiored by the uncertainty as to ohether a woman,
whose husband was out of the country in consequence
of a criminal sentence, ought or ought not to be con-
sidered in that Court a married woman ? The question
bad, however, been raised in a bankrupt petition-now
pending before the Lord Chancellor, and it was to be
hoped that his Lordship's decision would set the matter