Public Ledger and Daily Advertiser 18 Dec 1817: Badcock (miller) acquitted of sharp practice
COURT OF KING’S BENCH, DECEMBER 17.AKERS V. BADCOCK
Mr. Scarlett states that this was an action on a breach of contract. The plaintiff was a baker, residing in Gray’s Inn-lane; the defendant a miller, at Trumpington; and one who had by no means fallen short of his famous predecessor of the same place, for sharpness, and whose name had been handed down to posterity by the immortal pen of our celebrated poet Chaucer. The contract in question had been for 40 sacks of flour, which was to be furnished by the defendant at £5 5s. per sack. The contract was entered into in May last. The flour was to be delivered in the course of a month, and to be paid for on delivery. No part of the flour had, however, been properly tendered, although 20 sacks of it was sent to the One Bell Inn in Kingsland-road. On the arrival of the flour in Kingsland-road, a person was dispatched to the plaintiffs house, about five o’clock in the morning, to say the flour was ready for delivery on payment being made for it. The plaintiff said, he had not then the money in the house, but if the flour was delivered at nine o’clock, after the Bank was open, he would pay for it in Bank-notes. With this message the man went back to the One Bell, but the flour was never tendered afterwards; and he understood it was now to be contended by the defendant that this was such a tender by him and refusal by the plaintiff, as put an end to the contract. He should, however, prove that this was a planned scheme on the part of the defendant to get rid, if possible, of his contract; because, between the time of entering into the contract and the time of delivery, flour had risen in price from £5 5s. to £5 10s. or £5 15s. per sack.
Mr Scarlett then called witnesses to prove the message sent to the plaintiff, between five and six in the morning, and that the plaintiff was at that time in bed. The plaintiff desired the flour might be delivered any time after nine o’clock, at which time the Bank would open, and he would get Bank-notes to pay for it; and further, that the plaintiff at nine o’clock went out, as witness supposed, to the Bank. He returned after a short time, and witness saw him counting over a number of Bank-notes, which he kept in the house all day, but the flour was never sent to the plaintiff’s shop at any time, either on that day or any other.
Mr. Holt, for the defendant, called witnesses to prove the abandonment of the contract by the plaintiff. The carrier who brought the flour to town deposed that he was desired by the defendant not to deliver the flour unless he had ready money for it. If the money was not ready the flour was to be pitched at the One Bell. Witness sent a messenger to the plaintiff, and stated these circumstances to him, when the plaintiff said, he expected to have had one month’s credit, and was not prepared to pay for it, and therefore the sent must be pitched at the One Bell, according to the defendant’s direction. The flour was accordingly pitched at the One Bell, and sold some days afterwards, the plaintiff never having applied for it.
Lord Ellenborough said, this was a question entirely depending on the credit which the Jury should give to the witnesses on each side. If they believed the plaintiff’s witnesses, then there had been no tender, and the plaintiff was entitled to a verdict. If, on the contrary, they believed the defendant’s witness, then there was a complete abandonment of the contract by the plaintiff, and their verdict would be for the defendant. The Jury, after a short consideration, found a verdict for the defendant.