Saunders, Simpson, & Waller,—Jury.
Laxe, Onawronp & Ca. ts, Groven & Ca.
Claim for $17,686, with interest, on account stated.
Mr. Hannen and Mr. Harwood for the Mr. Rennie for defendants.
Mr. Hanwoop in opening the case for the plaintiffs, explained that on the 7th May 1868, Messrs Lane, Crawford & Cp. entered into a contract with Mr. Porter of Hakodadi, to supply 2,002 short Enfield Tifles at the price of §19.50 each, rifles laid down in Shanghai—the money to be aid before delivery in Hakodadi. The arms were to be in Japan six months after the date of the order, and bargain money was to be paid. The arms did arrive within the contract time. Messrs. Lane, Crawford & Ca, having some idea that the money might not be paid, gave notice that, if it were not forthcoming, the arms would be sent to Osaka, where there was then a market for them. Mr. Porter, however, insisted that Messrs. Glover Ca, should take delivery, and consigned a quantity of, copper to them, to put them in funds. "Messrs, Glover & Ca. communi. cated with Messrs. Lane, Crawford & Ca. Showed their authority and arranged to take over the arms and pay $20,000 bar-following letter crat gain money subsequently writing the Shanghai, 17th Dec, 1868. Messrs. Lane, Crawford & Ca., Shanghai.
Dear Sins,—As arranged, we guarantee to collect from "A. P. Porter Esq. Hakoiadi, the sum of $17,686.60, being balance due you on contract for 2,000 stand of short Enfields, account current dated 18th November, and we further agree to hold ae security for your said balance, the said rifles now in course of being shipped to Hakodadi per Sunrise, Yours very truly, P. Pro. Glover & Ca., The arms were examined and taken delivery of and re-shipped to Japan. But on their arrival at Hakodadi, the Senr. Naval Officer refused to allow them to be Janded, and they had been brought back to Shanghai. Messrs Glover & Ca., had since treated the arms as their own, hypothecated them as their own, appropriated the proceeds, and refused' either to return them or to c"llect the amount due. And Messrs. Lane, Crawford & Ca. now came to the Court, to help them to recover the proceeds.
J. Wirsox, managing partner in Messrs. Lane, Crawford & Ca. I made the contract (read) with [Geo. Porter, to supply arms which were to be in Shanghag within six months from date of contract. Shortly before arrival, I gave notice to Mr. Porter that, if the bargain money was not paid at the arrival of the arms in Shanghai, the contract would be cancelled. Mr. Porter's answer was that I was to deliver the arms to Messrs, Glover & Ca, [had previously, on the 18th, Nov, received a letter from Messrs, Glover, Dow &Co. on that subject. [Mr. Rennie objected to the letters between Mr. Porter and Messrs. L.C. & Ca. being put in as evidence. They were all very well between the two parties; but they had nothing to do as regarded Messrs. L. C. & Ca. and Glover Ca.) Shortly after receipt of Messrs. Glover Co's letter, Mr. Lindsay called on mo at my office and we went to the godowns. He examined the arms, and was satisfied that they were in order, and within the terms of the contract. Thera was an arrangement made between us in reference to the delivery of the arms.
To Mr. Reswue.—That arrangement was not reduced to writing at the time. The substance, was put into writing by me when I delivered the arms, ina letter dated fiat November (C.)
To Mr. HANNEN.—I afterwards received a letter dated 17th December, (printed above). That does not give the agreement as arranged.
A discussion here ensued as to the admis sibility of verbal evidence to support and explain the written contract contained in Messrs. Glover & Co.'s letter of the 17th December.
Mr. Haxney relied on that letter, but alleged that it did not contain the whole of the contract; the full contract was never reduced to writing; he now wanted to produce oral testimony in support of it.
The Covrr could not allow such evidence to go to the Jury.
Mr. Hanxen wished to produce evidence throwing light in the two points of ''collecting " and ' holding."
Mr. Rennte said the whole of the arrangement lay in that letter; supposing it had not been written, the Plaintiffs would be _non-suited.
Mr. Hawxex said here wore two letters, one by the Plaintiff, and one by Defendants, both were incomplete in their explanation of the agreement made, and he wanted to
the Court really thought he could not do back to oral testimony to perfect them.
he preferred not risking a verdict.
"The Couxr was decidedly of opinion that it could receive no evidence other than that contained in the letter of Dec. 17th, or in letters bearing on it, In the event of the
Text read from the printed page and cleaned; old type leaves the occasional error.