Hide Articles List

18 articles on this Page



[No title]


[No title]



uoest Of LORD^r.,. sl,v !…




[No title]



To the Editor of the Monmouthshire…



SHERIFFS' COURT, MONMOUTH. the monthly sitting of this court took place bdore Mr. Undei â ¡i Sheriff, Powles, on Wednesday se'nnight, at the Comity Ha! The enly case tried was that of ROlJEnr JOY v, THOMAS JAMLS, A very respectable jury having been sworn, the L ndcr-sh- l'iff stated that this was an action for debt, to recovcr the sum of I £ 2. 18s, 6' brought by the plaintiff against defendant, and the particulars ot which would be gnen by 'lie gentlemen cn- i,,cd. Mr, OwEs, for the plaintiff, having read the declarati.i, stated that this notion was brought to recover th5 sum of V-2. 18s. 6d., for goods sold Ptid dei'vereii to the defendant. The defendant plep.d- that he owes the plaintiff but 15s, which sum he had paid into Court. Of course, theiefore, if he Mr O. failed in proving that he owed more than lhrtl sum, the ver- dict of the jury would be against him. He beggedto observe that he had no personci interest in the case, as he was not the attorney employed, hut was retained by Mr. Jackson, and lie should, therefore, !ay the pirticularg before them fairly and if he proved that the plaintiff supplied goods to the amount he claimed, he should be entitled to their verdict,â Mr. Joy is a respectable engraver, residing in Bristol, he employed a person of the name cf Mc Donald, as a traveller, to procure orders through the country. In the month of July last, Me Donald called upon the defendant, and procured an order for 5"0 labels, 7s. 6J.; 50 enamel enrds, 2i. 6,1. 400 invoices, 12s.; 200 ditto, ruled, 7s.; 100 half-aheets, 4s. 6d. label plate, lis. invoice |>)ale, 14s., making a total of £ 2. 18s. 61. From the nature of these paiticulars, it was evid^ni that Mc Donald could not have invented the order; but lie was sotry he could not produce that person, whom they had subpeened, but had not appeared tor (vhsit cause, he, Mr. O. kDew not. He should produce Shell a r d, who was, at the tirre of the transaction, a j carrier, and who would p'ove the delivery of the goods from Mr. Joy to James. He would also put in a correspondence wh;.h hud tnken place between the psiiies, and in which the defend- ant admitted the ddivery of the goods. An attempt would, probably, to be made to prove that more goods had been sent to the defendant than were ordered ? but the law says, that under such circumstances, the goods must be returned, or the rnust pay for them. If the defendaut did net perform that duty, then the plaintiff was entitled to a veidiet. The reason he con- tidently appealed foi their verdict was, that Mr. James had kept the goods, and, therefore, lie did not care what the onler ] was; and so the learned Under-sheriff would tell them. It may be said that Mr. Me Donald had done more than he ow;ht io have done if so, the defendant had much helped him in keeping the goods. Mr. Owen was prccfeediiig to read a lettei trom the defendant to the plaintiff, when the Couit asked if he meant to prove it ia evidence. Mr. Owen said that the docu- ment was one ordered to be produced by the Judge, and Le, therefore, considered he had a right to read it. They weic pro- ducing what they had been called upon to Jo. Mr. J. G. George, for the defendant, objected to the use of ⢠the letter, by the plaintiff; iia production had been ordered for the purpose of the defence, and, therefore, the plaintiff could not use it.âI he Under-sheriff was of the same opinion. Mr. Owen continued that it was a hard case upon Mr. Joy, who as a respee:able I;¡an, and who would not claim Iron. | Mr, James, what was not due from him. It was nOi Ills faull, however, that proper materials were not provided for him. He He would call Nathan Shellard, on being sworn, stated that lie was a earrier between Bristol and Monmouth, in February and July of 1840, He knew the plaintiff, who lived in All Saints-street, Bristol, and is a copper plate engraver; he also kne v the dc, I fetidant, Mr. Thomas James, who is a shoe-maker, living in Monnow-street, in Monmouth. In June 1840, he received a parcel from Mr. Joy, and delivered it to the defendant. A ko >k was produced to the wituess, who stated that the signature shown him was his. The bonk was Mr. Joy's delivery bonk, and he delivered the parcel to Mr. James, on the following day. He saw the parcel opened in Ali. James's shop it contained papers, which he thought were bill-heads other parcels t'h!f in it one was directed for Mr. Taylor, which was small he did not not notice the othe's it was a large parcel.-Cross ex- amined by Mr. George: Theie were papers in the parcel, but he did not know exactly what they were.âRe-examined lie thought they were bill, heads from their coming from Mr, Jos there were different sorts of things iu it. Mr. Gcorge said that he submitted he was entitled to a ver- I ic dict for the defendant, as not a particle of evidence had been given, proving either that the order had been given, that it had been packed, or tiiat it had been delivered. The parcel which Shellard proved the delivery of, may have been blank paper for all they had been informed in evidence, and, therefore, unless such proofs were substantiated, the plaintiff could not recover rhe amount claimed from his client. The Under-sherif fsubmittted that no case had been made out by the plaintiff. The declaration stated that a sum wa« due from 'he defendant, for goods sold, work and labour di :,e, and also on account, but neither of these allegations \\U'e proved. The defendant admitted that goods to the amount oi I 15s. had been received by him which sum he had paid into Court, and, therefoie, the plaiutiff having proved nothing as lo an order being given, or the amount of it, the only question was whether any thing beyond the 15s. was owing by ihe defendant, âThe jury immediately returned a verdict for the defendatr. At the conclusion of the case the Under Sheriff said, that without any allusion to the question which had been decided, he could no! help advising those who heard him, whenever th-y gave an order to retain a copy, and get ir countersigned by the cas- n person to whom they gave it. It was a very common case in tiis own experience for clients to consult him upon cases in which orders had been sent them by wholesale houses of double the amount which ha j been given, and the payment of which was sought to be E:nforct'1. If they were signed, however, as he recommended, this would be proved.

--....I A FRACiMKNT. I

■ ■— - ■- ' ji 1'i…