Court Of King's Bench, We...
rpjorc mc L.ora L/tzefJJst,Ce AB3B0TT, ancr a Common,yJiru. ionts was an action brought by the plaintiff; who is an auCtioneer aLnd arpraiser in the city, against the defendant, who is a fatmer at Godmanchester, to recover the sum of 211. l0s., partly for work and labour done, and partly for money ex,pended by the plaindfFfor the benefit of the defendant. The defendant pleaded that' he was not liable, and upon that point issue was joined. MIr. BrIOUGtArf, who Was counsel for the plaintif', stated that the defendant, in the early part of the year 1822, being in want of a considerable sum of money, applied to the plaintiffto procure him it upon mortgage of a leasehold estate which he had in Husstingdon. shire, and also upon sale of a reversionary interest which he bad in 4,0O01. long annuities. In the courseof ihe negotiations which were entered into by the plaintiff to efrect that object, he incurred consi- derable trouble and expense; and itwasto obtainaremunerationforit that he now broaght the present action. Though the defendant had been in the habit of calling daily for almost four months upon the plaintiff', and had been taken by him rePeatetly to Mr. Gelli- rand, of Au.tinfriars, Ir. Archd. ll, of the Lord-Alavor's Court; Messrs. Daniels, of Essex-street ; Messrs. Stable and Gr'imaldi, of Cepthall-court; and various other parties, who were thou ht likely ,o advance the money, he now refused to pay the plaintithe mo- lerate chases of 10 guineas for his trouble;* anld what wags still worse, :hesum of 1Q1. which hehadpaaidto r. ellr ibrand, Austinfriars, in ,rder to ineluce him to give up certain papers of the defendant, on which he had a lien. Ile trusted,l1o wever that after he should have proved the trouble which Mlr. Rist bad incurred on behalf of Mr. Maxon, and alss the payment of 101. which he had made on sis behalf, the verdict of the jury would compel the defendant to make that compensation to the plaintiff which he ought never for a mnoment to have voluntarily refused. A clerk of MIr. Rist stated, that in his opinion 201. would be a very moderate campensation for the trouble which Nr. Rist incurred in endeavosring to obtain the monev for Mr. Alaxon. He likewise proved the payment of l01. to lr. Gellibrand bv Mr. Rist, in order to get the abstract to Mr. Mfaxon's estates out 2f his hands. In cross-examination, he admitted that Mtr. Rist ne- eer did procure any money for DIr. ataxon, who had been intro: luced to his master by an auctioneer of the namne of Reiington. Mir. SCARYETT, for the defencei told the jury that his elithad andoubtedly employed the olaintiff to procure 4,0001. for him on cer- tain estates which le had in Huntingdonshire; but that in conse- quence of a contract made between them, that the plaintiff should not charge the defendant any thing for his trouble, unless he pro. cured him the money, the plaintiff wvas not entitled to recover in the present action. Ile would call witnesses before them to prove that his clienthad promised to divide 1001.between Mr. Rist, bMr. Gotobed, a clerk of Mr. Rist, and Mlr.Remrngton,an auctionceratSt. Ives, who by the bv. introduced him to itr. Rist, in case they obtained for hini 4,0001.; but that he had expressly told them, that he had so often hadl to pay biUs to money-lenders for their trouble in not pro- curing him money, that he was determined not to pav a farthing more to any of their tribe, unless they did procure it for him. He would likewise prove, that Nr.Rist did Not obtain any money for his client, and that his client afterwards succeeded in obtaining it at a very moderate interest from another quarter. If be made thesepoints out in evidence, lie contended that their verdict must be for the de- fendant. Air. Remington and Mr. Gotebed proved the contract as detailed by AIr. Scarlett. .ir. BnotusVrAM, in reply, contended that though this contract prevented him from recovering any thing for the trouble which his client had incurred on M1r. illaxon's behalf, he was still enititled to recover the 101. which he had paid forlhim to Mtr. Gellibrand out of his own pocket. The LORD CHitEF JUSTICE left it to the jury to decide whe- ther the 101.. which the counsel for the plaintiff maintained that he had a righlt to recover as money expended for the use of the defend- ant, was or was not included in the original bargain. If they thought that it was not, they would find a verdict for the plaintiff; if they thought it was, they seould find a verdict for the defendant. The Jury, after a short deliberation, returned a verdict for the defendant. COURT OF COMMON PLEAS, WEDNESDAY, MARCH 3. PEYTON AND OT51ERS V'. IVIL.LIAIS AND OT5eEaS. This was an action to recover a sum of 19,0001. be-ng the value of some gcods which had comle into the possession of the defendants, under the circumstances hereafter mentioned. The plainti-fs were the assignees of a bankrupt named Wi'illiam (;renville Ileyton, and the defendants were bankers at Chester. Some rimie previous to the 2rth of J une, AIr. Peyton borrowedl a loan from the defendants, and deposited with them,'by way of security, some Dock orders, which authorized the delivery to them of goods lying in the Londoni Docks, to the anbount of 19,0001. On the 28th of June M1r. Peyton stoppe(d panment, and on tlhe 4th of July a commission of bankruptcy was issued against him. After he stopped pavyment, and before he became a bankrupt,he wrote to the defendants, direct- lDg themn tO take the goodls out of the docks,which the defendants ac- cordingly did. The question to be decided was, whether the pro- perty whichl thedefendants thus possessed themselves of was not the property of the assigynees. The Jury' four.d a verdict for the defendants. Th1e LORtD CHIEF' JtUSTtCE intimated, that as the question was one of great importance to mercantile men,he would take theopinion of the Judees unnn it _ COURT OF KliNG'S BENCH, WEDIVESDAr. MARCH 3. RIST V. MAXON.