Page images




Brett urged that there could not be any estoppel against creditors; but,

Bramwell, B., asked whether, supposing G. had expressly stated that the goods were hers, any creditor of his could afterwards set up his title; and

Brett admitted that he could not; but urged that it was for G. to show that she was not his wife; and if so, then the goods were his; and if the plaintiff knew they lived together as man and wife, he could not set up the estoppel.

Collier offered evidence that, as long ago as 1859, H. had dealt with the goods, to Go's knowledge, as hers, and had assigned it to a loan society as security for a loan to her, G. himself becoming surety. And he urged that, if G. had no title, the defendant, his creditor, could have none.

Bramwell, B., ultimately left the case to the jury, as above, and they found a

Verdict for the plaintiff (a).

(a) Vide Richards v. Johnstone, Vol. I., p. 447.


London Sittings.

Trinity Term. ACTION on a warranty on a sale of sugar bags, that On sale of

goods, a sale they were sugar bags.

note having Plea, denying the warranty.

been given,

with a certain Aspland and Philbrick for the plaintiff.

description, relied on as

a warranty, Parry, Serjt., and Smith for the defendant.

evidence not To prove the plaintiff's case the sold note was put in: admissible to

show that they “Sold 4 lots of sugar bags."

were to be

bought as they Parry, Serjt., proposed to ask whether the sale was not were. of the lots as the defendant had bought them, and as they stood.




Aspland objected, that the sale note must be taken as showing the contract between the parties, and that, therefore, the question was inadmissible.

Martin, B., was of that opinion, and said that, as the result of the bargain was put into a sale note, the parties could not travel out of it.

Verdict for the plaintiff.


Court of Queen's Bench, Guildhall, coram Mellor, J. London Sittings.

WOOD AND ANOTHER v. WOODS.. Trinity Term. Persons form- DECLARATION, in substance, that in consideration into a society

that the plaintiffs would become subscribers to a society of for the pro

the defendants, entitled the Trade Protection Society, the tection of trade, and defendants promised the plaintiffs to use due and reasonissuing prospectuses in able care and diligence, making and to make all proper which they represented inquiries respecting persons whom the plaintiffs were that they insti- about to trust with goods on credit, and as to whose credit tuted inquiries for subscribers and circumstances the plaintiffs might require information. with reference to the respecta- Averment: that the plaintiffs did become subscribers to

of pro- the society, and whilst they were so, required from defendposed customers :-Held ants information of one Hughes, whom the plaintiffs were liable to subscribers for about to trust; and neglect to take p

Breach : that the defendants did not use due care in

ah. that the def
to making proper inquiries, &c., whereby, &c.
make such in

Plea: not guilty.
O'Malley and Philbrick for the plaintiffs.
D. Seymour and Pearce for the defendants.

sonable care to

The plaintiffs were ironmongers at Chelmsford, and the defendants constituted a company, called “The Trade Protection Company,” carrying on business in London. The company had put forward a prospectus, in which, among a variety of other things, there was the following 1862. statement :

WOOD “Subscribers are entitled to obtain private and confi- and Another dential information with reference to the respectability and we standing of parties before they supply them with goods. Inquiries are maile through private and legal correspondence, and most efficient means are used, and information may be relied upon with great certainty."

The plaintiffs became subscribers on the 23rd of April, 1861.

Shortly after this the plaintiffs received a letter signed “S. Hughes, builder, Edmonton," ordering goods; the plaintiffs then sent that letter, and wrote to the defendant, but received no answer. They wrote again, and then received a letter to this effect:

“On the 3rd inst, we wrote to you that S. Hughes is considered a respectable man, and, we should think, worthy of reasonable business credit.— Yours truly, R. Loder, Secretary.”

The plaintiffs upon that representation sent goods to S. Hughes. Time went on; they wrote to Hughes; but obtaining no answer, one of the plaintiffs went to Edmonton, and then found that a house had been taken in the name of Hughes, but it had always been kept closed, and the postman had been ordered to put all letters under the door. The plaintiffs found they had been swindled, and they went to the defendants, who said there must be some mistake, and they would pay a small amount rather than be exposed, and they asked for time.

The case for the plaintiffs in substance was, that the defendants had not made any efforts to obtain any information.

One of the plaintiffs gave evidence of the above facts.

In cross-examination the plaintiff stated that the terms of dealing with Hughes were cash. When he applied to the defendants, they stated that their plan of business was


1862. to write to two persons in the town. They read something

out of a book which he could not understand. The plaintiff Wood and Another denied that the defendant said he had made the usual

search for judgments, &c.

Letters had been sent, addressed to S. Hughes, china merchant, wine merchant, builder, hop merchant, &c. A house had been taken by S. Hughes. No name was up, but the shutters always were. All sorts of things,-wine, beer, crates, grates—were received at the station for S. Hughes. Letters were put under the door, as no one answered the bell or knocker. It was a common talk in the neighbourhood, and so must have been known on inquiry.

It was objected for the defendants that there was no evidence of negligence; but,

The learned Judge said the question of negligence was for the jury, and that there was sufficient evidence.

Pearce then addressed the jury, and said that the defendants undertook to give information of all persons who had given bills of sales, &c., from the public records, and to give that information once a fortnight to the subscribers, as well as any information that might come to their knowledge. The question was, whether the defendants had made proper inquiries. Where were the duties of the defendants to cease? No guarantee was given.

The learned Judge said, the defendants did not guarantee, but they undertook to make reasonable inquiries.

Pearce said, the society did not hold themselves responsible for any use the subscribers might make of the information. The defendants had fairly complied with the obligation into which they had entered.

The society consisted of three brothers named Woods.

From the evidence of the secretary it appeared that they kept copies of the registers of all judgments, bilis of sale, &c. He looked over all these to see if he could find the name of S. Hughes, and a person in the employ of Woods


was sent to Edmonton to make inquiries, and his report 1862. was entered in a book ; no record was kept of verbal in

Wood quiries. A Mr. Cates, of Quality Court, kept a similar and Another establishment, and they obliged each other. The character w of Hughes was not described as the plaintiff had stated. Had the plaintiff applied for the money, he would probably have given it to the society to collect, and probably they might have got the money. Their legal correspondent at Edmonton was Mr. Rignold, but they did not ask him to inquire. The man who was stated to have made the inquiry for the defendants was not called, as it was stated he could not be found.

Philbrick, in reply, insisted that the defendants bad failed to show any compliance with their promise, on the faith of which they received the subscription.

The learned Judge said, the question was, whether the defendants had done what they had undertaken to do, i.e., whether they had used reasonable care and diligence in making the inquiries in question.

The jury found for the plaintiff for 311.

Central Criminal Court, coram Wightman, J.

July Sessions. THE prisoner, Anne Cornish Vyse, was indicted for the where a marwilful murder of her two children, by poisoning them.

en by poisoning thon ried woman,

fondly attached

to her children, M. Chambers, Sleigh and Edward Besley were for the

and apparently prosecution.

most happy in

her family, had Ballantine, Serjt., and Metcalfe were for the defence.

poisoned two of them with some

evidence of deliberation and design ; but it appeared that there was insanity in her family; and, from her demeanour before and after the act, which, although not wholly irrational, yet was strangely erratic and excited ; and from recent antecedents and the presence of certain exciting causes of insanity, and her own account of her sensations, the medical men were of opinion that she was labouring under actual cerebral disease, and that she was in a paroxysm of insanity at the time of the act; this was left to the jury as evidence on which they might rightly find her not guilty on the ground of insanity.

« PreviousContinue »