Star.
London, England, 1816-12-31 00:00:00

. -

ttlttect to this country each time, without -any deter-
don of the err* in the Wafitht. Howeirar, upod a
third attempt to export iti the, sdpposad fraud was
discovered, and Mr. Spbtgerber commenced an ac-
tion against Mrs Cohen for the ituount of the diffe-
rence between the invoice an& the actual weight.--
On that occasion the defendant was a witness for
Mi. tiplitgerber, who recovered a verdict for ‘672
with costs. It appeared that the defendant's broke-
rage was charged, not in respect of the weight a the
tobacco, but in respect of the number of cases ; and
no evidence was offered to she* that he had any
fraudulent design in framinf the invoice, for the
purpose of benefiting himse t. From the cross-

examination of the Custom House Officers by Mr.
Scarlett, for the defendant, ' it appeared that just im-
mediately before this transaction, which took place
in the year 1510, it was the practice to enter in the
Custom House books nothing more than the net
weight of the tobacco, which was ascertained by

taking the commodity ont of the hogsheads; but in
consequence of an Order in Coimcil issued about that
time, permitting the importation of tobacco from
places, and in packages, not theretofore allowed,
amongst which was Porto Rico, it became necessary

to make entries, first of the gross weight, then of the
tare, and lastly of the net weight. Therefore it was
nut unlikely that a pers'n not perfectly conversant
with the new mode of keeping accounts cf the
weights might mistake the first entry for the aet in-
stead of the gross weight. In this particular instance
it appeared that the net weight was not aseertaibiei
'until long after the importation, and it certainly was
not entered in the Custom House books at• the time
when the invoice WAS made out, and was not in fact
ascertained until the attempt was made to export the
commodity.
The next breach of duty charged against the de-
fendant was, that when employed to pay certain ship-
ping charges, he charged his employer more money
than he actually paid, but
Lord ELLENBOROUGN thought that this was ncit'
matter of inquiry under the present bond, inasmuch
as the business of a shipping agent did not fall within
the scope of duty beionginF to a broker, whose pro.
vince was merely to negotiate between the buyer and
seller of goods. His Lordship therefore excluded this
point of inquiry.
I'he Wird breach charged was, that he had made
a false entry of the invoice in his contract book, but
upon comparing the entry with the contract itself, it
appeared to be only a short entry of the names of the
purchasers, the seller, and the namber of pounds of
tobacco bought, without stating the particulats of
the tare. However it did not differ from the con-
tract note in any material point, and
Lord Euranonouou was of opinion, that however
irregular Gad improper the variance was, as it re-
spected the interests of the parties who might have
occasion to refer to the contract hook of the broker
as evidence of their respective rights, yet as there
was no fraudulent motive on the part of the defen-
dant, it could not to considered as a breach of the
spirit of his bond.
The fourth breach was, that the defendant had
refused to exhibit his contract book to his principal
when called upon, contrary to his duty as a broker.
The evidence upon this point was, that the plaintiff,
accompanied by a friend named Arnold, and his
Attorney, called in the beginning of the present year
at the defendant's house, in Mincing-lane, and de-
manded to see the contract book. The defendant
replied, that it could not be seen then, but he would
produce it at the proper time. It appeared that at
that time the Corporation of London were investi-
gating the defendant's conduct, and they had sum-
moned him to appear in the Alderman's Court the
very next day ; when he actually appeared, and pro-
duced his contract bock, in his own defence.
Lord ELLENI01101;Gli, upoe. this evidence, was of
opinion, that although the defendant had, according
to the letter of his bond, been guilty of a breach of
duty, yet the circumstances under which he refused
to shew the book, shewed that it was pot through an
improper motive, as he did in fact produce it the
next day.
I'he fifth breach alleged was, that the defeadane
had employed his brother to act under him in the
character of broker, contrary also to his duty, which
required the personal application of his skill in the
discharge of his functions for the benefit of his em-
ployer. The evidence on this point was, that the
defendant had certainly employed his brother to act
for him and assist him in his business of broker, but
all the contract notes appeared to be signed " Bran-
don and Suns." There was no instance distinctly
proved where the brother had acted solely without
the assistance or advice of the defendant; and the
utmost proved was, that he had acted more like a
partner than a servant.
Lord ELLPNooftovcu was of opinion, that although
the defendant's conduct was highly improper in this
particular, yet the express wards of than breach charg.
ed in the declaration were not male out. The thing
pointed out in the bond was, that he should not em-
ploy any body to act under him as broker, and the
evidence not meeting the charge so alleged, the case,
strictly speaking, was defective.
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL then' trued upon the
first breach, respecting the supposed fraud in deliver-
ing a false invoice.
Mr. SCAULETT for the defendant, said, he appeared
on the part of a Gentleman, who was the representa-
tive of a house which had existed for 100 years in the
City of London, as brokers, and during all that
'time bad stood high in the estimation of the commer
cial world, for honour and integrity. He gave the
plaintiff, Mr. Splitgerber, credit for great industry;
in endeavouring to find out every possible and ima-
ginable ground of complaint, which could be sug-
gested to the prejudice of Mr. Brandon. To use a
vulgar phrase, he had endeavoured to " pick as many ,
holes in his skirts" as he possibty could; but most of
his charges bad failed is &fiat. The only one remain-
ing which required an answer, was that which res.
petted the false invoice; but it would be impossible
for the Jury, upon the evidence they had heard, tc
say, that there was any thing like fraud imputable to
the defendant; and the Jury must find him guilty of 4
fraud to sustain the present action. He (Mr. Scar-
let() was in a condition to prove that the error which
appeared in the invoice was a mere blunder .ot the
clerk sent to take the weights fr4•n the Customhouse
books; and that, in fact, the defendant had qo per-
sonal share in the error. It would be recollected, that
goods et the Customhouse were not like goods in the