Law Report.
The Times, 1824-05-10T00:00:00

This wafoa acticin whereby the plaintiff sought to recover a com- esation for the lOSs he baa sustained by reason of the bad qua- May of 1,000 sheets of copper sold to him by the defendant, and empleved in copperi:ig a West India ship. Ai the trial before the Lord Chief Jastice at Guil-dhall, it appeared that there was no war- ranty, and no wilful deception; but his Lordslhip chLIsged the jury thar. person selling an article for a specifie purpose must be under- stood to warrant it as reasonably fit for that purpose. OR this direc- tion the Jury found a verdSct for the plaintiff. Mr. GURNEry now moved for a rule to show cause why the ver- dict should not be set aside and a nonsuit entered, on the ground that the direction was contrary to law, inasmuch as it had been de- cided that where there was neither fiaud nor express warranty, the seller was not responsible for any defect in the article sold. The CoURT, adverting to thc importance of the question in iLS bearing on comrmercial transactions, granted a rule to show cause. i'ARItER V. BAILEY. This was an action for the seduction of the plaintiff's daughter, tried at thc last assizes for Lincoln, when a verdict was given for the plaintiff, damages 3001, Mr.READE n, after observing that the damages were large,bu t that he did not think it worth while to apply on that ground for a new trial, moved for a rule to show cause why the judgment shoeld not be arrested. The form of the action should have been trcspass, but it was ca. e; for the memorandum contained the words "trespass oil the case," antd in the body of the declaration the words "with force and airms" were omitted. The lIoaD CHIEF JUSTICE rsaid that, if necessary, the memo- randum might be amended, and that, by one of the statutes of jeo- fzils, the omission of the words " by force and arms" was cured by -, rdtict. Ar. READER submitted that hlo was entitled to move for a non- suit,on account of the variance between thipevidence antd thepleadings. Ir. .lustice B.kYLEY said it was clearly no groun- of nonsuit. He rewceced a case tried before Lord Alvanley. w.here that learned Judge being pressed to nonsuit, and complaint being made that the error would be cured by verdict, replied " So much thebetter." (A laugh.) ilr. Justice HOI.nOYD intinated an opinion that the action might be either trespass or case at the option of the party grieved. The LoaD CHIEF JUSTICE said it was unnecessary to drcide that point, as the objections to the declaration, even as a declaration in trespass, were cured by the verdict. The Court accordingly refused the rule. TINE XING V. COOK}E. Milr. C-AB PBELL moved for a rule to show cause why the defend- anit, Richiard Staff ard Cooke, slioul not be permitted to amend his plea of peerage, which he had1 put in by wav of plea in abatement to the indictment for conspiracy preferred against him and others at the instance of Sir George Jerniogham. To this plea the prosecutor had demnurred, because it did not set out any writ or patent of crea- tion, or any summons to Parliament, but merely stated that the de- fendant was Lord Stafford, Baron of Stafford, and did of right en- joy that dignity and title. He trusted that he should be able to support the plea in its present form, because there was a statute, of which he should contend the Co-srt would take judicial notice, and which recognized the existence of the dignity which was the subiect ot claim. To obviate aU doubt, however, and to avoid a discussion which must of necessity be long and laborious, he now craved leave to amend, by setting out that pedigree from the Duke of Bucking- ham attainted in tie reign of Henry VII which he was able concl usively to establish. In the reign of Edward V[., tbis at- tainder was reverFed, and Henrv the son of the former Duke was re- stored; not,indeed, to all the liononirs which were borne by his father, but to the estate of BaTon of Stafford. From this noblenman MIr. Cooke was lineally descended, and to his thles would he succeed, but for the attainted line of whom Sir George Jerningham was the re- preSentative, and who, ss he contended, could not inherit. They de- rived their Claim through the Lord Stafford who was beheaded in the reign of Charles IT. illr. Justice BAYLEY.-And you contend, that but for the prio- rity of that line, you would succeed ? Ar. CA.1IPBELL..YCYs; and we farther contend, that the blood of that line being corrupted, thev are civilly dead, and our elaim stands as thaugh they had no actual existence. The LORD CHIEF JUSTICE.-This is a plea of misnomer mere- ly, which could prolucenothing but delay: b-cause, if it succeedled, the defendant would still be tried by ajury. Do you know of any in- stance in wh ich tl,e Court have allowed an amendmentof such a plea? 1Ilr. CAaPBEI. L. _I do not, my Lord, and the cases are certainly, as far as they apply, against the amendment; but those are all cases or civil actions: and here is this reason for the ainendaient-that the prosecutor has caused a delay bv obtaining a rule to quash the plea, which the Court refused to mnake absolute. The LORD CIrIEr JUSTICE.-Here has been a co-defendant tried in the mean time; so that by pleading this plea you have put the prosecutor to the expense of two trials. This is a plea merely for delay, and as there is no precedent for the amendmient of such a plea, I thiink we ought riot to make one on the present occasion. Mlr. Justice BAYLEY.-I think esp cially we ought not to allow the amendment of a plea, the effect of which has been to occasion the expense of two trials. Mlr. Justice I{OLROYD concurred; and accordingly the motion was refused. BYRNE V. PsAU INs. Mlr. Parkins, after the bar had moved, and when only the Lord Chief Justice and Alr. Justice Ba ley remained on the bench, rose at the back of the Court, and adverting to an in imation pre- Viously given by his Lordship that they would not hear any more motions for new trials, exnressedi his readiness to postpone his mo- tion, if such should be the pleasure of the Court. The Lo 11D CHIEF JusTrc S said, that unless the case were very urgent, they would prefer its postponement to a future day. Ir.Parkins tated that he must probably occupy a considerable 'ime, and therefore lie would postpone his motion,l He wrote the mrc of his case down in the paper, and said he would attend on IN. la;.V 1 1 LOaD CHIEF JUSTICE said, that as there were nearlv 30 motio 'for new trials, hu wouldi be in time on Tuesday or Nl,ed- nesday. L4W REPORT. COURT OF KING'S BEN 1i, WESTMtNSTER, MAY& 8 .R AV V_ fnlA