Court Of King's Bench, We...
The Times, 1824-01-23T00:00:00

flnel, O1n) U;ERIEwJUSTICE did not sit at MNisi Prius, buttjoin- ed the other Judges in the Grand Jnrv Room to hear arguments on motions. PHIILLIPS V. BISTOLLt. T"his wvas an action by aMr. Phillips, the auctioneer, to recover 10 fuiueas, the price of a pail of brilliant ear-ringt, which had been doNvn to the defendant at one of the plaintiff"s sales At the trial before the Lord Chief Justice, at Westminster, it appear- ed that by the conditions of sale a deposit was to be paid, if requir- ed, before passing to the next lot an te whole price given before the article. were tak-en awav. The *lefendant bade for the ear- rings: they w ere knockced down to him at 88 guinleas, ana given into his hands; but he slhortly returued theml, objecting that he in- tended to bid for theam only 48 guineas, as the central stories were not rubies, but only Assyrian garnets. lir. Scarlett, for the defendant, contended that the plaintiff'nmust be nonsuited, on the ground tlllt Where was nosdelivery antl acceptance to satisfy the provisions of the stattute ot' frauids, as.1Mr. Phillips mtight have stopped the goods un- til payment of the price. The Lord Chief Justice, however, declined to nonsuit, and left the case to the jury on the question, whether the defendanit bade 88 guineas under a mistake as to Price, or whether his objection was an rifter-thuught; on which they found for the plaintiff'. On the part of the defendant a rule wvas obtained for a new trial, which now came on for argument. Al r.GUR2SEY and Mr. Comyv showed cause against tle rule, and contended that the verdict was decisive* as the case had been'left to the jury, not merely on the ground of mistake, but also on lhe question, whether one party intended to deliver, and the other to accept. The LORD CHIEF JUsSTICE, however, tlought that he did not Icave the case so broadly to the jury, as hc- would have constituted them judges of the law. The COURT made the mile absolute for a new trial, withoutcosts, anid with a strong intimation that there was no evidence to take the case out of the Statute of Frauds. tALY V. BROWN'. This was one of several actions brought b3 Mr. M1 ay, the lte vestry.clerk oftthe parish of Bethn.-d-green, for the vindication of his character frm aslersions contiined'in several alleged libelC. After azvery long trial, he obtained a verdict, wvith IOOL damages ; but two questions were raised, one ot variance, and the other arising from the rejection of evidencc ofl'ered on the part of the defendant, upon which a new trial was granted. iMr. SCARLETT waLs about to sbow cause, wlien The COURT suggested the cxpediency of some arrangement be- tween the narties, as .3r. May had succeeded'in clearing his reputa- tion from the'susificonsbast on it in tue coarse of the unfortunate disputes of this parish. 'The ATTORNEy-GENERAL, for the defendant, expressed his willingness to pay the costs of the other actions on having a stel pro- CeSalu. in the present suit. Mlr. SCAILLETT said, lie could not accede to this proposal in the absence of the plaintiff, but he wouldl communicate it to him, if the crse stood over. The Coiu!T ordered tlte case to stand over, in order to give op1- portunity to the plaini6t=i, cnsidering if lie will accept the uroposal. COURT O1;KINW'S BENCL, XirFT-MINSTEn. JAM. 22.