The enquirer. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1804-1815, 1806-11-18
sRtsreuanp.
LAW INTELLIGENCE.
COURT OF kINo's BENCH, MAY IS.
Feeer ". Rie6srdi.

The parties in this caufe both lincu-drapers in
Oxford-road.
Sir Weary Gibbs faid, that the defendant wa. cal
led upon TO anfwer for new fpecies of deceit. He
had been h,opr,an ,he plaintiff, and afterwards fet
up bulinefs for himfeif The plaintiff had been in
psrtner!hip with Mr. Brown, and the trade of his
fhop carried on under the firm Of Foiter and
Brown, until 1903. In January of that year, Mr..
Brown Quilted the concern aud received large
liberation for reGgning his nGTeit in favour Of the
plaintiff Thefe tradefmen had availed themlelvss of
popular hgn, and had put up Balloon, twelve or
fourteen feet high i'll the front of the houic, and
other dcgns Of the fame kind in the windows. When
MIR. Brown retired, the names Of Foaer and Brown
ii,l continued confpiesous part OF the premics.
Thus the houle at which this buGrefs was con-
dueed, in 70 remarkable, that it might be
expected it could be mi0aken or. in other words.
that the reputation acquired by Meilrs Foaer and
Brown, for the juitce, honour, and hberaity, with
which they treated their euomers could be tran-
ferred to any other perfon. Whatever nigh, he the
rational expectations of the plaintiff, they were in
this particular mon grievouly disappointed. The de-
PENDANT having been employed in the houfe, knew
perfectly the mode of their conducting bulines, but
did Preierve the integrity TO which his matters had
sonaan.ly adhered. His frt plan Of deception was,
to render the foue in which he had enablilied buff
nefs in the fave hree.. lrong reiembance that
Of the plaintiffs poIible. The mof obvious diff
tin&ion the Balloon. which he initiated cloely
both IN ze and appearance the front facade of
his houfe admitted. He alto introduced the fame
fign on his Windows. But this all he pllc-
ed the of Foer and Brown in large character,
over his door. MefIrs. Fo0er and Brown had door
IN :he middle of the h~ufe. and window on each
fde. The houle of the defendant unluekily, had
only one door at the extremity, and large window
ranging the reh of the front. This iiiinlilary
however, he foou removed and, with the aiifance OF
ms mechanics, the door was ioon placed in the centre
IN conformity with the building occupied by che plain
tiff He did not, like Abei Dyaeger go to eonjuror
10 ak for lucky ign, for he knew, better than the
magician could inform him. that the lucky figu was
the Balloon. When he fent for the painter to make
his gn refembc that Of the plaintiff the arit fsd
You have overlooked the circumilanee of not hav-
ing the fame fpace difpofe Of" This difficulty
however the defendant reiEoved, far the
ot MS tuation admitted. 1t wastrue, that although
FOiter and Brown was in the centre over the door,
yet that iide wss, Richards" and on the other
and Company 5" and in fmail diagonal German cha
racfers fcarcey perceptble, the word " from :"
10 that the whole food, Richards from, Fohcr and
Brown and Company (; yet, from the artifce emf loy-
cd, Fo0er and Brown the only oienfble names
The Learned Council isd, that he fhould not only
prove, that, by the Of this papable fraud, feve-
raj individuals carried the houfe of the de-
PENDANT, who intended 70 be ouGomer. to the plain
tiff, but that he fhoud thew that the defendant him
felt was ntrunental in urtherng the deception, and
- ~ .c-.:c.c- az LH -H-sd ;f thor. wa. anv
other Foners in the fame Erect, to which he replied,
that there That the plaintiff had fuilaned
certain lois would be isewn in evidence; what the
extent Of the WHSLE lofs was, coad not be precfely
determined: bur the Jury would afign their DANA
ges according to the ben judnment they could form
from the circumstances which would DE diicloled De.
fore them,
Mr.. John Brown being called, fa;d that he begsn
bufineis with Mr.. Foner in 1877; thar he continued
in partnerhp with him until 1903; and thar on his
Withdrawing, for the good. Twill of the concern he
received about athoufand fifteen hundred pounds
Mrs Mary Brain laid, tina, lhe had been recon-
mended to the plaintiff ihoP, in Oxordiireet, by
friend of hers, Mrs Davis that feeing the Balloon
and the names of Foiter and Brown, fhe believed it
10 be the peron who had been named TO her. On en-
rering fhe af<ed for ione Ruia meeting, & thinking
the price demanded rather high, fbe inquired for the
matter MIR. Foiter, when ihe informed he had
jnG ePped out, thar he had gone into the city, and
that the ihopman did not all know when he would
return.
Lord Marlborough" Do you mran to contend
that the hopman had general lying cou,n,iion ; for
80 far you mu proceed before you FIX it upon the
defendant in this way"
Sir Weary Gibbs" mean to contend that, nv
Lord. When prove the intention in the defendant
20 identify hisown mop with that o. the plaintiff it
will be queion for the Jury if the representation OF
the thopman did not originate with him"
Ths wi5nsfs next inquired after fone Of Mrs. Da.
visS friends, to which the ihopman evafvely anwer
ed that Mr.. Davis had called upon MIR. Foaer.
She then ak~i after the daughters of Mrs Davis. TO
which the fhopnau replied that he hoped they were
well, She then inquired if he remembered
Tending fome fhavlsto Mrs. Davis, to which TIE
hopman anfwered, that he did not exaGly re-
cOle9 hut on the wtref, fhewing him forre
fhaos the that refemhl.d them, he repli-
ed, thar he that moment reeocasd then, they were
red ihawls price from three four guineas. After
that, the witnefs al,rd for the fhsy bill, with the
hatement Of the amount of her purthales on which
the fhopnan obferyed that there would not be reon,
to write the bill Of parcels the printed form ION
which the Of Richards appeared and that there
fore, if the lady would execute il, he would make out
the accoun, blank piece Of paper; to which il,e
anfweTed, that, having found her way, the name
and number of the ihop would he Of no conlequence
On her crofs examination, ihe f4id, that while fhs
was converting with the fhopnan, the defendant
was paing backwards and forwards among his
eufomers, but ihe would not lwear that he heard
what pafed.
Lord E!unborough.-" There may BE much here
which is not evidence Ii mu1 be all mo fafp. 1t
might have been evidence, If e could have iaid that
the eonVerlation 70 loud, that tbs matter could
not avoid hearing it,"
Ann Gtovin flid, that nbe lived in the fcrvec Of
Milf Dixon IN Portland Place that he went to Mr.,
Richards fop, initiating it for that Of Mefir, Fof-
and Brown that NE bought goods there for her
ini6refs and was rprised not 10 fee the fame fop-
rlau, to whom fhe had given 50 ]. before in her
nuarea5 drawing room. w was, in faGa. the fop-