Summer Assizes.
The Times, 1824-08-31T00:00:00

-,... ,.e uo action to recover tVie aimouint of a 51. forged nlote, alleged to. have been given to the plaintiff by the defendant. Mlr. TEivPLF. stated the ease. 'r'he plaintiff was a drover in tht Inabit of going about the country, buying anid selling catt'le. In M1arch, 182-2, the defendanit, a farmer, bnughit some sheep of the 4plaintiff, the price of which wus 331. ; and some time in the Aoigus, foliowing, he paLid himn the amount, in which, as it afterwards ap. perd,leavth forged 51. note which was now the subjrct of diautm Theevience which lie would produce wvould leave no doub of he fct.In the latter endR of thte foll owving monith of Sep.. temer th painif',discovering that he had received a forged 51. notefromthe efenanit, told him of it, but the def'endant then re- plid, hathe id ot Itnowv whether he gave it to hiim or tint, anti refsedtakng t bck. flowever, on sending to himi afteriardls by oilir prson, h aditted to thlem that he had received it from a butcer f th nae of' Willizzms,k Wlith this admission, and the CH)o ofteietitv of the note, which lie woaIld clearly establish, li'e conild have nio dloubt of a verclict fof hIA client. 'rie -sale of the sheep waxaddinitird, and the paynient of 28I.; ane the whiole question) wat,, whbether the 51. forged note was one paid by the defenitant to the plaintiff or not' Samuel Ediwardis examinedl.-1 know the platintiff and defendlant. Have got it 51. note, wvhich I picked itip in thieir presence about a1 year en-d tlirceeqniarters ago;, it is a. Bank of Englandi note. The sale took placee inJilareb. 18-22, and the payment in the A!ugust following.t. Th'lere was a dispuite about the note, and I held ii as stake-holder. It has been inimy possession eversir-ce. Cros.tiexatm; n.d '-The defendant deniedi having paid that note to the plain.tiff. This was in 1823, soine tiine after the payntiezit for the sheep. B~t'til CO iiA..4keep the Greyhound, at W-vrexhiam, and thitl happeed a my huse,It was on a market.tlav, and thie parties, I be!ive, et mrelyby accidlent. Edmud Pgh,exanincd.-I remiember the dlispute aboiut the no:ea,t in eprinbr, 11222, 1 was sent by the plaintiff' with a tiver- poud tOtetO hr efendant. The note prodluced by thie last tit- nes isth noe Itok. I saw himn in the Green Draiion, in W'rex. ham,and e sad li didI not know' whiether he hail given the note to tile tilaintifo no, tookJt in his hand and examined it. I tic n left him,anmehn the Thursday Following agAin. Hec saidl he recollectefrmwo he lIad the note- hat lie hadl it fromy Wil- liamn Willianis thebuitcher, at Al'exhamn. I replied, very well, the plaintiff wilgtclear (lit of it. Cross.examined by Sir. DAVIEL.-! can readl a little English. I puit no mark on the note. 1 have nuot seen thie niote sinice September, 1822, till to.day. I know it is thie sante notei, becausle the first time I -w tile defendant I took dotenthettutnbQr. I lost thie paper uipon w!'ich I took it down, buit f recollecttlie number. Ttie witnleFs here re- peatled the numiber, 70,591i. I menitionedi the itiniiber to a person n1amdc( Jo'hn Roberts yesterdaLy, anti lie said thiat was righit. Thie no(te Weas also shown to nie this MOrning. Re-examined.-The note was in the.- Same State as it is now whlen I showed it to D)avi A. I aYm quite sitre i~ iVfhle same inote. Robert Pover.1I ani a slater. Uying at WVrexhaim. Know plain. tifl' ,,d defendant. Was vent by thie plaintiff te thledefendanit in 07 r,18-22. TIhc plaintiff, Jones. askedi ole to take a 51. note to L'&vi. I cani't swear to the n(ote, bec-ause I can't read. Davis; wouild not take thje note. I a,k edi himn to changre it, andl lie said he woiuld k:ave nothiing to (lo with it-that he vti%st take it to Williams, the buticher, for it was( romi hint that bie (Jones) ihad the note. Crovs.examined.lI onlyv kniow that it was a5ill no te by~ Jonies's teiin-,- I coulid not tell a -il. note fromn a 11. note. John IRobeits examtined.I an a titlhemat,, at WrexIhain. It was I wlho delivercd the sheep to the itefendfant. Tuie defend(ant told mie himself, soon atfter \Y'rexham-races, 1I2, that he had the ~i.note from. Wilhaii,n the butc,her. I sawx the note, antI ObservedI thte nuomber, it was 70,.5'Jl, the numtTber of the note niow handed tornte. Cr,ussexamnnedl'pThe plaintiff is a brother-in-law of mnine. I to-k dlown ithe number of' the note in a ieninorandurm book, (whiich vas, here producedt.) Mir. Charles Christiniag, alt inspector frotti thle Batik of Enlglanld, p:ovrul the note to bt, a forgery. 31r. HiILL addresseil the julry for ii the efiece, aiid maittly relied ti-on the imrprobab,ility of a diover, thrutitgli whosea hands mnoney w,as cuinstaittlypassirng, keeping this noue in his pos4session from Au- lzust to S;eptemrber antI the mosit natural covstiruction to be put oni rhe admission of thie derfendatit was, that haying received -ill tue 331. troin WVillianis, if lie hiad given a forgedi note to the plaintiff, it miust iiarve beenl fronti JWi liat:oi lie liaze recL,ived it. But this Was any thitig bult conclusive as an admisisivit that he litad absolutely paid thje plaini- tiff a forged note. Na4 wijtresses were called flor the defence. The CaiuEr JusrTi,i- summied tip, andi the jury returned a ver- dict for the plaintiffl)Damaires 51.-costs 4fJs. [This is ani instance hiow far thuespirit of litigation will carry some people. This disnuted itote will cost even the plaintiff considerably atonre than he has riteovered, and the defendlant may consider hinisl wcell off' if he gets out of it tintler 501.1 ZSATtR'Ai,A, Ai'G. 28. lYStui v. THOiMAS. This was an actioni to recover eiimpensatioii in damages fromi the delt_indlant, Wi conseiquetnce of a loss s-d-itsined by tile paiittiff, on a Inesehici of ciintract by the defendant. On the 12th of August, 1823, the tlefendant, whit is a farmevr, agreed to) sell thec plaiiitiiT 201 Itoh- bctts of barley, at Ila. lper hobbeti, whiile it wa-s yet on the ground an ultehreshed, wtiich was to be dlelivered at a certain place as soon radI. Iie mean timie the price of barley rose from teni to sxten sillngst h obbeit, and ithe defetilaiint eotuceiviPg that lie hadl aide a bad bargain, reftised to deliver the barley, andl tie plain. tiff row sought to recover the difference between thec price agreed uuotn, lOs., and that Which it afterwards rose to, 163. The breach of conitract was prov-ed by several witnesses. Me. 1I I.Lt, r theT ilie(Ifendant, toak a legal obje-ction to tlie'plain. tiff's right to ri-cover, on the novel grounil that the bargaini was ercutracteid for jn mneaure wh-ich was niot the rincheiter buslhel. Tlte learneid counasl stated, that by tie 22d Charles II. e. 8. s. 2., any, s:ale of coer,, ground or ungrouind, or of' salt, whichi was made Pt "ally otherlibuhl or meer bateWinches cc bushel, sub- jected the sell,. toa Pelt" IT 41. lue onjet)J Or EtiLVse a" tU O prervert, fraitid, by establishing a iiniiornuity 01 mieasure thirougliout the country. Th,e learnedi counsel clteit the ca'e of', Mayor v. A rnold,'" where the dleftnlant was taken before twoi magistrates, and e,nnvicted in a penialty of 40s. for having tol)d corn in a1 iiFferent miea- sure fromn the WVinchester bushel. Trisis ease stas afterWardis brought before the King's Bench), and Lord Keinyon coil tinned the con. viction. This act not having proelucedl the desired effect of cAusing one utilforin measure to be used througlhout thec realm, a subsequent tiet was passed, die 23d of Charles 11., chap. 12, subjectinig both tIme biiyer atnd seller not onl1y to a penalty of 40s. each, but also reitidering the cornl which was tematter ot satle liable to forfeiture, if sol(i in any other bushiel or mneasure titan tie Winchester buishel. The learned cournsel cited rtei case of "1 the Kinig v. Masyor," ill Which, by this act, the defendiatt, who was the ltiycr,was lined 40s., and forfeitedl 101. las.. 'the ,d-aue of thie corni bouight ; it having been bouight iii the Isle of \Vi-glt. by the customiary measure, wh ichi contained one plint inure than the W~inchester bus~hel. In this case, too, Lorid Kenyon con- firmed( the conviction, Froem thecse casLes the learnedI couinsel subi- mitteil that tile bargain in the present instance hiaving besoi conltract. el for hit) hobbetts, thse custontary-measureof the coulittry, but whichi was totally different front the Winchester mecasure, the contract, which subjected bitth the parties to a penalty, was illegal, anti tile plaintiff hiad, theretbure, no groultilI for riaintaininig an action. lilt. Ti,EIPi.F.,floC the plaitntiff, conttendedi,that the sale by custo- Mary Mnea'SnIe was not illegal. It was known, it was Lrue, to have b-!i, a faVOurTite Oobj.Ct Wvith tlhe Legislature to establish onie titti- foriti mieasure thirouglhout the realmi, but it was ne-ver intended to ito ibiis liv prejumdicing dlie validity of' a sale thiat mighit have taken lulitee. fct'ore tile ticoially ceould have breti linposedl, a buying and stiling must firsit Like place ; anid even then the timpositiont of the pe- nalty did niot invalidlate tile coiiitraci, for if it hiad this effect, half thte sales of cornt througholut the kingJani would be invalid. Tuie learn- mld counsel furtherT argtteil, thiat the Legislature iecuignized the sale, for the acts stated that it was uoIlv in tdie event -of a sale that thec F,en,ulty could be imposed. Tliey'di(i niot declare thiat Lthe sale was lhegal and void. There was iio provision to that eflbet. Th'le qutestion here wasj not as to tile penaltr', but asi to the contract, and these acts were tine, iherefoec, applicaible. This wats a qtieteion of ~reat im- port1ance to the pubtlic, for there were! sales of corn throughTout the country to ttile amo,unt of several lhundlred thousand poinds dluring the ye-ar, in dlifferent measures from the Wkinchiester bu,ihel, for lie believedl that this measure Was nO WlteTe genCrally -used, excep at .11 ark-laiie, and tlucre it contained a certain quaLntity. .Another objectionl to tile course taken by lils learnedI friend waLs, thttil obeto mgthv becem taken oti the record, foe there it was stated that thie bargain was COnCitUded in hobbetts, an(i he miighit liat e Moved inl aRrest Of' judgiinen Onl that ground, by whichl they wlould hanve bail the advantatge of thte opinion of the hilehest tribunal in troe cotuntry,on a point whichi, if' decided withi his learned friend, woulfl be prod tictive of incalculable mDischief to the Iublic. The (:nPRT wished to ascertain whethelr a hobbett was an ideal or a fixed mneasure, ai.d what was the exact quantity it contained, with the view of putting die qunestion ir, a shape to Obtaini the opi- );ilo: of the Coturts above i it'eceasary. TIwo witnecsses theni proveni that the heibbeti twimich is the mneasuire usedi throughout Wales-) varied fromn ei ghty to eighity-t'our qluarts. Mil. H1I r.L egaint argued that a contract to do an act whfichl was renal was null and voidi utider the statutte, and in stipiort, of his- opinion citedl the case tif "Druiry v. ISefontainie," hat Tauniton, 1i. 131, wvliEte thje contiract foi a sale of a hiorse oiu a Sunday was illegal, be- Cause it was, penal. The Ciietr- J USTiCE: (tle Hfot,. Mr. Warren), in delivering his Oplinions, salid tHis was a qluestion of, great importance. The acts of' Parliament clearly tretited a satticnadte in any othier bushiel or tnea.,ure than the NVinichtester bushel as an off'ence, and a COnTraCt cotuld no, be malintainedl on an act whichi was treated as such. No t'_Uorl couldi be warranted in compellinig aitother to dti tlias 4iich woul(i be an) offence in the face of the law, antd 'would Aubjeet. hin toe a penalty for comimitting it. On this point lie had tile OPinlion Of Chiief Baron Bere with hinti. An action 'was brouglht by an itImkeePtc to recover' the amoulit of meat and drink consumed at an election hj thle voters ot a candidiate, anid it wa-s there hield that the act being-illegal, the party, couild not recover. OIn these zr-minds liec hai no doubt thlat the plaintiff in this ease wa-s not entitled to recover. It wa* tlherefo're prpo9sed by the Coutrt that A verdict shoti(Il hr e,ni.,r,d tier the platittifl, with liberty for the defentdanit to m-ove to l~ace it set aside in the cotlets above. Sir. BeeTL, for the defendant, Would not consent, and thieplaintiff refusing to) be nonsuited, thie ease went to thle julry, wsllo returned a vertlict toe the plaintiff'-.Damages 40s. ; costs 40s. The plaintfiff then consenited lo be nionsuited, with liberty to move th clourt above to) have it set asd,-n if-li shoui suced tht - - - -1.1. .-- - lor film. SUMMER AssrZE.S. CIESTER CIRCuIT.-RUTHIN, FHIDAY. AUG. 27. - - - J3ONES V. DAVIS.