Court Of King's Bench, Gu...
air. t,OYarYN st-teo, tnat this action was brought to recover money paId by the plaintiff for the defendant, and also certain commission 1which the defendntr contracted to pay. The plea was the general .Mr. 31AItnTAT stated the case on behalf of the plaintiff, a broker, whao wught to recover the sum of 651. the deposit and pre- mnium on ten Ph.res in the Equitable Ln Inttarartce Company which he had bouglht end paid for at the defendant's requ"t, and 2,. lIQ. as his cournmision n the sale. The Company in question proposed to lernd money to the poor rt 7 or 8 per cent., being consi- demtbly lower than the charges made by pawnbrokers, and fixed their capital at two millions, which wAs to be raised in sbares of 501. each. On these rhares a deposit of 11. was to be made ; but the sahesne bcamne so popular, that the shares bore a premium of 51. IN. cach. The plaintiff, at the defendant's request, bought and taid f'r ten sharest; and now tought to recover the money so paid, and his owvn corm,ission for his labour. What defence could be sel up tt his claim FWas the defendant prepared to say that this Conm- pany wa a pubic nuisanc-, and caine within the provision of an oct madoto cV:w?. y fromn the arta of designing projecors, and crnsqisently that all transactions relating to it were void ? He could assume no such position-he certainly could not prove any such position; for the institution was sanctioned by most re- spectable names: its object was praiseworthy; and a bill fo, it4 icrospoation had passed the lower house with a large mrajornty, though it was thrown out in the upper house on the third reading. There was then no objection in point of law, and certainly there was none in point of honesty, to the right of the plaintiffto recover. To show thst the plaintiff purchased and paid for the shares, Al r. Sampson Goldsmith was called, wvho proved, that on the 7th ol April, he greed toss]] to him ten shares of the SEquitable Loan In- surance Company, at the then current price of 51. )Os. premium, with adeposit oflL Onthe 21st of April, r. Josepht received thte twv certifcates, for five shares esch, and afterwards, having borrowed part of the money, paid for them 651. On cross-examina. ton,X thc witness swvore that he had the shares to sell at tlhe timc when he sold theni, but could not recollect frorn whom he ptrchased tF.emn, or from whom he purcha.sed others which he had also sold. It wa proved that a note of the sale had been delivered to the defendant, and Mr. IU ARnYAT called on his counsel to produce it. =Mr. GuOaNs produced the note, dated the 7th of April,-and which was to this efR-tt_." Bought for your account, 10 shares ot the E quitable LCD- Insurance Company, at 51. 10s. pet share: com- minison 2L ls. for the corniig out;" a%d it contained a niemoran. um,tht if there were any errorathey should ba corrected. The learned counsel, howe%er, contended that the note could not be read. as it was " eyidence of a contrtct," and therefore required a -tanip. It was clearly not within the exception of the statute, as a contract for the sale ot goods, for these imaginiary stocks could not be regarde-d as ' goods, wares. or merchandise." bir. Justice LIYTLEDAL.E, who sat for thie Lord Chiief Justice, held that tbis note was not ta be considered as a contract, or as evidence of a contract. like the bought and sold note, but was a mrem menorandum of the agent, whereby he acquaitited sis prin- cipal with the bargain he had made for his benefit. He would, however, take a not: that the objecuioit had beau made. The memo-andum wes accordingly read. It wax further prored, that on the 23d of APril the certificates were tendered to the defendant. He did not loo1- at them, bat said he ex=ced the shaLres would have been bought at a premium of 41. 1Os. sany. A person named Phillips, who was present, and who wi:shed to purchase xh_ares, offered to take the b.trgain olf i\r. Pebrer's hands, at 51. lOX; but he refused, saving, that in that case he shomul bave r.oprofit. The dcfendant afterwards refused to receive ot to pay fT the certtiicates, on the ground that they ought to have been delivered to him on the 21st of April, whereas they were not tendered tiU the 23d. In answer to this, the plaintifr said he wav unable to find himr earlier, though it appeared that oni the 21st, he wa-s on the Roral Exchange for half an hour. The plaintit's case being closed, .ih. OtsnvEy submitted that the plaintiff ought to show what this company was, and that there really was something to sell, which could be the subject of a legal bargain. The certificates mnerely pur- ported to give the purchaseran interest in the benefits of some ex- peted act of Parliatnent wh-ch had never passed, and in the exer- tions of ihe cltinnittee: and suxely these were not matters which could be ree'arded as the objects of sale in a court of law. nlr. Justice LITTLEDSALE thought that the defendant had pre- cluded hisnwslf front taking this objectinn, by treating these shares as objcts of sle, and giving the plaintiff a commixsion to purchase them. Mr. Ourntry and iMr. CEsrTTY then contended, that sufficienit h2d alread,y sppeared to show that this society was within the statuite 6 Geo. Itl. n- I, passed to destroy those schemes by which the un. tay were deluded, undcr presence of advancing the public good, and in the hotre of gaining lar;e profits to themselves, and sronse- e- ustly that the whole tranasacton was illegal. On MSr. hlarr-at's it app, ared that the object wvas so lend money at a h gher tq$? or i.tcrest than was, allowed bylaw, to the extinction of the body of pawnmbrokers, whDO wrere airowcd to do so by particular sta- Mr. !tIARnVA-T replied, that this did not appear in evidence ; and that at all events the object was not to lend money in the first tnrtan'ce, but to apply to Patliament for a bill to enable the society t.u, to apply their capital. I1r. G sUD. Er recalled the brokers, and questioned them as tothe objects of the sodety, but they all professed that they knew nothing respecting thern. ir. Justice LITTLEDALE intimated that he should not nonsuit, cut reserve the point on the evidence now given; or which ir. Gurney might tiUnk fit to add, as to the objects of the institution. Air. fsZsZT-rs- submnitted, that the action was wrong in point of form; as n broker could not, by pavieg for stock which hni principal refLutd to accet, convert himselt Into a creditor, and declare for nlonev pMid. le Ougist to have declared specially for consequential d_naTges. Mr. JustiCe LITTTLEDALE overruled this objection * but reserv. ed it with the others for the opinion of the Court. MIr.GGutusYztbhen addressedtbejuryfor the defendant. After observing that such societies as that in question, though sanctioned by the most respectable names, often led to misthi'voDUs results, and expressing his confidence in the principal objection which he had mixed in point of law, rested lisa defence on two grounds: first, that tdere vwa no proof that the shares boughlt of Mlr. Goldsmith were the z me csffred to the defendant; and second, that the plaintiff' had not ;sed due siligence in obtaining the shares, whicb he was to pur- chrsc 6for ite coming out" on the 7th of April, and which he did not deliver until the23d. In tie mean time, the price of tu e shares fell, and the defendant raust have taken them at a loss if he had then katn to recive them. In support of this new vround of defesce the learned counsel ctIlled a clerk of Fry and Co., arid a clerk of ipooner and Cou bl whom the certificates were imsued, and who proved that the inStal nitot was5 piud e the 1.5th, and that the certificttes might have been Obisiasl at least as easly as the 17th, by any of the subscribers wiho c2os to a.sk for them. Hte alan c alled a broker, pito faid the shares declined afler the 17thl, but he could not tell hour much in valne. Mlr. !J,azrxr, in reply, urged that tie defendant hituseLe did not cornplain that die shares were not puptehasea on the I th, but that he refused to sell them, without a profit on the bargain. MIr. Justice LITTLEDALE, reserving the points of law, left two questtons for the jury: flrst, wvhether the certificates tendered to the efendant were the same with those bought of Goldsmith; and, se- coidly, whether the plaintiff had used due diligence in obtaining them, and in seeking out the defendlant to deliver tliem. The Jury found a verdict for the'plaintiff-Dam2ges, 671. 10s. ALDEUrSON V. DAUTIIOLO0SEW. This was an action for words affecting the plaintiff in the way of his trade. The Co-iMoN SERGEAVT o elled the case for the plainitiff, whio was a carpet-manutaicturer, in Oxford-street. Thc defendant had assailed him in the open street with vf v opprobrious language, and lie now came before the jury to vindicate hie chlaracter. John Pal:ner, shopman to the plaintiff, proved, that his master succeeded Ambrose and Lay, to whom he had been foreman. Alr. Bartholomew came and asked questions wihich he thought oughit not to be an3wered, anct then called out that " Ambrose, Lay, and Al- derson were thieves and swindlers; that tbeir shepmuts was as great a thief as any of thenm, and had obtained goods under false pretences ;" and turning to the mob who had assembled, desired them to take notice that the house was a nest of swindlers. On she cross-examination of this witness, it appeared that Am- brose and Lay were in bushiess only four months; that they had a wareheuse i11 Aldermanbury, as well as a shop in Oxford-street; and that tliev had left the house indebted to Mr. Baartholomew in.81. for gootds. The question which he asked, and which l!d to the expressions complained of by the plaintiff, respected the place vhere iie former partners were to be found. The witness himself intended to bring an action for his share in the slander. . Mr.l GURNEY addressed the jury for the defendant, and called on them to discourage isuch actions. The Jury found a verdict for the plaintiff-Datnagos, one far- thin- , e.K, ni- fr.-hin- COURI OF KIRMWl' RPFN'.H - 1;O a JOSEPHS V. PEBRER.