The Liverpool Standard and General Commercial Advertiser.
Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1835-02-10 00:00:00

POST OFFICE NOTICE.

The following notice was issued, on Thursday, from the Post-
office, London " General Postoffice, Feb. 4, 1835.

"SHIP LETTERS TO INDIA via ALEXANDRIA.

" Letters for India will be forwarded by the General Post-
office in sealed boxes by private ships to Alexandria, at the
same rates of postage as are taken upon such letters going by
the way of the Cape of Good flope, provided they are specially
addressed via Alexandria; or via .Egypt, Lot not otherwise.
This regulation will not in any way affect the present practice
of sending letters for India, &e. by the route of the Cape of
Good Hope.
F. FREELING."

" By conamand,

LO_VDON LAW REPORT.

COURT OF KING'S BENCH.-THURSDAT.
PT K E V. 11AR7.113R.

Sir J. Campbell (with whom was Mr. Busby) stated that this
was an action brought to decide a claim for a sum of £3OO due
to the plaintiff for having negotiated a partnership between the
defendant and three other persons. The plaintiff was a law-
agent, residing in Chancery-lane, and his business was to nego-
tiate these partnerships. and for such negotiations he was
usually paid at the rate of £5 per cent.; but in difficult cases
he received £lO per cent. The defendant was Mr. Alderman
Harmer, who, after having acquired au ample fortune, was very
deservedly elevated to the dignity of an alderman ; and who,
then' wishing to devote more tone to the discharge of the im-
portant public duties he had undertaken, and perhaps also de-
siring to enjoy some degree of rest from the labours which he
had long undergone, applied to the plaintiff to negotiate a part-
nership for him. The plaintiff did so very successfully, and in-
troduced to him Messrs. Flower, llolt, and Sandell, who now
with him formed the partnership. The premium which these
gentlemen had paid Air Harmer for their three shares in the
business amounted to £6,000, and on that the plaintiff claimed
a commission of £5 per cent. This was the case on the part of
the plaintiff. His labour; and the benefit the defendant had
derived from it, could not be denied, and he did not understand
on what ground it was that the defendant meant to deny his
liability.
Two witnesses, one who had been,a clerk in the plaintiff's
employment, and another, who was the son of the plaintiff, and
his attorney, were called to make out this statement. From
their evidence it appeared that the
.plaintiff was the only person
in Loudon who carried on this business of nevtiating partner-
ships between attorneys; that he was usually paid live per cent.
on the amount of the premium finally settled between the par-
ties. and that he usually received commission from both sides.
Defendant had previously called at plaintiff's office on this bu-
siness, and said that he should like to get £:3,000, but would
accept a premium of £2,000. After the business was over he
expressed himself extremely well satisfied with the premium,
and likewise with his new partners. In cross-examination- they
said that the plaintiff had received a commission from the other
parties for his trouble, and Mr. Harmer had paid him a sum of
£lOO. There was no agreement whatever between Mr. Harmer
and the plaintiff that the latter should receive only £3 per cent.
Mr. Thessiger (with whom was Mr. Platt) addressed the jury
for the defendant. _

Lord Denman summed up the evidonce to the jury, and left
it to them to say whether they thou;rht that in fact the plaintiff
had established any olaim against Mr. Harmer.
The jury consulted for some little time. and then retired for
about half an hoar. when they returned a verdict for the plain-
tiff—Damages £5O.