Phenix gazette. [volume] (Alexandria [D.C.]) 1825-1833, 1825-11-22

favor OF his brother, at so. and go days.
II appeared in evidence that defendant
enquired, why this letter had been so
long in coming, and the answer as CIV
en- by the bearer Of it was, that he had
received ii in the preceding summer;
that he had called on the defendant
who was out Of town; that he had put
the letter into the pocket Of one of his
coats, which was sent 10 a tailor to be
repaired, and that he had thus forgot
ten it. The defendant refused accept
ance of the bills and payment of the a
boye balance, and to recover ii this suit
was brought. No other letters were
written by plain. Tiff to defendant than
those above mentioned.
On the part Of the plaintiff evidence
obtained on a commission to Bordeaux
was given, TO show the correctness Of
The charges in plaintiffs account and
the state ofcommerce at Bordeaux and
Bayonne in the years 1918 and 1914,
and that sales could not be effected at
Bayonne after the commotion occasion
ed by the approach Of the Allied forces
on the South; and by the testimony Of
plaintiffs clerk, that defendants coffee
was sold in reb. 1915, at Bordeaux;
that the coffee remained at Bayomne in
entrepot until the midsummer of 1918
when it was transported to Bordeaux,
and that plaintiff af'er it had arrived at
Bordeaux, made efforts to sell it but
could not. One Of the witnesses Of the
plaintiff stated, that coffee was sold in
the commencement of 1918, and ano-
Their that it could have been sold at that
time, and by the testimony Of Captain
Hawley, who was produced by plaintiff
it appeared, that he sold his coffee in
March 1918 at Bayonne, through a
broker, amounting TO 5000 lbs part for
franks 4 As and part for a ~, ALTHOUGH
at the same time his chief officers 20 Id
not sell their adventure Of coffee, bu;
left it behind. On the part Of the de-
PENDANT the evidence Of two French
merchants was produced on a commits
sion to Bayonne, stating that sales were
made of coffee in quantities, at private
and public sale in the months OF Janua-
ry, February, March, April and May
1918, for francs a 90 to 4 6o-and in
June from 4 10 to 4 Is, and that trans
portation from Bayonne to Bordeaux
vas easy and daily.
On the part of the plaintiff it was
contended that it was impossible for
the plaintiff TO have complied with
the orders CO the defendant, which they
admitted were positive without a great
sacriice-that a state ofthings had oc-
Cured in France in consequence of:he
defeat of %Bonaparte in Russia in 1872,
no, contemplated or expected by deIen-
dant when he shipped the coffee. where
by the markets were.greatly reduced,
and further, that the defendant by &C
cepting the merchandise shipped by
the Atlas, as an advance, and not re-
plying to the Letter Of April 2sth 1918,
had ratified the conduct Of plaintiff in
not selling the coffee on arrival, and
gave him discretion to wait a favorable
change in the market.
On the part Of the defendant it was
contended that the order TO sell was po-
sitive and plaintiff by accepting it WAS
bound to comply with unless IL wasia-
possible I sell at any price; that by
disobeying this order, he had made
himself chargeable with the highest
price at which coffee was sold at Bay
onne in March, April and May 1915,
and that the situation Of France was moi
such in those months as TO prevent
sales Of Colonial produce, and in rep
to the suggestion Of the plaintiffs coan
self, in regard to a ratification Of the
plaintiffs conduct by defendant, it was
u ged that the Plaintiff had in no in
stance stated that ne could not sell the
coffee, and hat defendant vas mot bound
to rely TO the letter O Arril 28th, 1873,
seeing that plaintiff had not asked Tor
anv instructions of discretion in that
or any OF his letters, and that PLAINTIFF
long sile CT furnished a strong pre-
sumption that he had sold The coffee
Judge Washington, in his charge TO
the Jury, stated that the law affecting
this case was plain and clear. The
welfare Of the mercantile community
required it should be so. Here is a po-
si,ive and direct order to plaintiff to
sell the coffee ON arrival and ship the
returns. Two things distinct and In
dependent. The plaintiff might have
refused the consignment, but having
accepted il, and that at a place distant
from his residence he was bound TO
comply with it strictly and at all ha-
yards. Nothing but an impossibill,y
to sell, a, any price, would excase plain
tiff. On the point Of impossibility the
Jury are to decide. 1t did not appear
that plaintiff had made any effort to
sell at Bayonne, he was therefore liable
to defendant for the price al which he
might have sold the coffee, if the jury
believed he could have sold-and did
4. mt IcIAN-