[list-cumbria] Carlisle Patriot, 04 Sep 1824 - Westmorland Assizes (8)

Sat Mar 22 17:56:43 UTC 2025

Saturday 04 Sep 1824   (p. 4, col. 1-6)

(WESTMORLAND ASSIZES: CONTINUED.) 

LOUGH v. WARREN. 

[continued] 

Geo. LYON.—I am a shoemaker residing at Kendal. I knew Mr. SHRIEVE; he was a
traveller for Mr. WARREN: I have dealt with him as such in the blacking
trade, and paid him money on WARREN's account. He travelled for WARREN in
1821. I was present at Mr. LOUGH's on the 29th of July in that year, when
SHRIEVE gave orders for the insertion of advertisements. 

Mr. SCARLETT objected. He did not deny that an order had been given; but he
denied the competency of that person to do so, he not having the authority
of his principal. Unless they could show that Mr. WARREN recognized his
traveller for the sale of blacking, as an orderer of advertisements, they
could do nothing: it was a distinct branch of business. 

Mr. Justice BAYLEY thought it a part of the business, as the defendant
constantly advertised. 

Mr. SCARLETT thought not. This is business that Mr. WARREN could have done
in London, and did in fact do in London. The agent was restrained by the
scope of his authority. 

Mr. BROUGHAM said it was not possible to send from London such orders on all
occasions. Orders varied. Agents were changed while the Traveller was on the
spoy—the traveller must in the nature of the thing have such authority. 

Mr. SCARLETT again dissented. He did not dispute the order; but he denied
that it made his client liable. 

Mr. Justice BAYLEY.—I think it comes within the general scope of the
Traveller's authority. 

Mr. SCARLETT.—Your Lordship will please to take a note of my objection. 

Mr. Justice BAYLEY.—Certainly. 

LYON's examination continued.—I was present on the 29th of June, 1821, at
LOUGH's house, and Mr. SHRIEVE ordered Mr. WARREN's former advertisements to
be continued till further orders. 

Cross-examined by Mr. SCARLETT.—All I knew was, that SHRIEVE called upon me
for orders; I gave them, and I paid him. Mr. WARREN sometimes comes himself.
I have once seen SHRIEVE since—at the close of the same year—he came to me
for an order. I don't know that he might have been easily made drunk: he was
sober when he went with me to LOUGH's, and only drank two gills of porter. I
have not seen him since. 

By the Court.—I gave him orders, and I know that the blacking came from
WARREN, for another of his agents, named HARE, called upon me for the money.

Mr. BROUGHAM now put in the order, before alluded to, obtained from the Lord
Chief Justice, ordering all proceedings in the case of LOUGH v. WARREN to be
stayed, on the payment of costs amounting to £8 6s. 

This was the plaintiff's case. 

Mr. SCARLETT, in addressing the Jury, said he was sorry to give evidence in
such a case as this; but it was necessary, for notwithstanding Mr. WARREN
was a man of all the eminence that his learned friend had set forth, he did
not choose to be plundered by every one who might pretend to have claims
against him. The insertion of the advertisements in the plaintiff's paper
was no proof of obligation whatever. It was well known that some of Mr.
WARREN's announcements were poetical compositions of great merit; and a
country printer might think his paper highly honoured by the appearance of
such poetry in his columns, especially when it was well known that a knot of
poets had conspired—aye and orators, too, and perhaps Mr. BROUGHAM among the
number—to give celebrity to the numberless virtues of Mr. WARREN's
invaluable composition.* If poets and orators, then, had so done, why should
not LOUGH think his paper honoured and his interest promoted by snatching at
a production calculated to produce upon his readers such brilliant effects?
And so far the obligation was all on one side. But however this might be,
Mr. WARREN never permitted any one to give advertisement orders for him;
that was a part of his business which he had invariably chosen to do for
himself. The first order put in he gave himself on the 15th of May, and at
the same time paid £3 17s. in advance. After this, he was very much
surprised to receive an application to pay £11: he thought it not a little
strange as he had only ordered the twenty insertions. He wrote to express
that surprise, and was answered by COULTHARD, who sends an account
commencing, "1822, to bill delivered, £8 5s. 0d." but no particulars. If
such a bill had ever been delivered it must have been to SHRIEVE, for Mr.
WARREN himself never saw it. Other charges make it £11, from which he
deducts £3 17s. leaving £7 3s.; and he goes on to say that unless this
latter sum is paid, law proceedings would be commenced, as the disputed sum
was the result of orders given by his Traveller. Mr. WARREN was not then
aware that he was liable for debts contracted by his Traveller, as his
Lordship had since laid down— 

Mr. Justice BAYLEY.—I have not laid it down, Mr. SCARLETT, nor ever will lay
down any such thing. 

Mr. SCARLETT.—He was not then aware that his Traveller had the power of
contracting debts for him; but rather than have any litigation in so remote
a quarter as the county of Westmorland, he afterwards consented to pay £7
3s., and an application was made to the Lord Chief Justice to stay
proceedings in the action raised; but this order being obtained without the
sum being named, they afterwards come in, and upon its authority, claimed
£15 9s. This was set aside by Mr. Justice BEST, who ordered that the cause
should come here, with liberty for the defendant to pay £7 3s. into Court.
Mr. SCARLETT admitted that a verdict must be given for the plaintiff—for the
balance between £3 17s. and £5 10s. the real transaction betwixt plaintiff
and defendant. Mr. WARREN, however, had consented to pay £7 3s. in
conformity with COULTHARD's demand, rather than encounter an action, and it
would be for the Jury to say whether they chose to give the Plaintiff any
more. 

Mr. SCARLETT.—I'll put in COULTHARD's letter to be read throughout, if the
other side will produce Mr. WARREN's reply. 

Mr. BROUGHAM.—We have produced all the letters we have. I shall object to
the reading of this letter. It is from the Editor, who has nothing to do
with the money transactions of the concern: his duty is to superintend the
literary department of the paper. 

Mr. Justice BAYLEY allowed the letter to be read. 

It bore date Jan. 1, 1823. The amount demanded was £11; he deducts £3 17s.,
and claims as the balance £7 3s., &c. 

Mr. SCARLETT also put in a summons signed by Chief Justice ABBOTT, Nov. 8,
1823, to attend and tax costs, and shew cause why action should not be
stopped. 

Also Sir W. D. BEST's decision, dated Dec. 18, 1823, setting the first order
of Court, without costs, giving the defendant liberty to plead, and pay the
£7 3s. into Court. 

This was decisive of the case. 

Mr. BROUGHAM.—We were quite ignorant of COULTHARD's letter. The defendant
has got a great deal more than value for his £7 3s. This trial will answer
the purpose better than a hundred advertisements at 5s. 6d. 

Under the direction of the learned Judge, the Jury gave a verdict for the
Plaintiff, £7 3s., the money paid into Court, consequently the plaintiff
gains nothing but loss (as the Irishman says) by his action. 

----------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------
* Mr. SCARLETT alludes to a recent publication, entitled "Warreniana," a
collection of Verse and Prose, burlesque praise of WARREN and his Blacking,
in imitation of the style of the chief writers of the day. 
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------

[to be continued] 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://list.cumbriafhs.com/pipermail/list-cumbria/attachments/20250322/a683c634/attachment-0001.htm>