HeinOnline is a subscription-based resource containing thousands of academic and legal journals from inception; complete coverage of government documents such as U.S. Statutes at Large, U.S. Code, Federal Register, Code of Federal Regulations, U.S. Reports, and much more. Documents are image-based, fully searchable PDFs with the authority of print combined with the accessibility of a user-friendly and powerful database. For more information, request a quote or trial for your organization below.
![handle is hein.slavery/ssactsengr0547 and id is 1 raw text is: 202 ALLINSON V. DAVIES PEAKE ADD. CAS. 82.
the plaintiffs, but that the defendants clearly might bespeak the paper, [82] though
commerce with France was then prohibited, for the purpose of being used when the
ports should be open. Speculative men often get ready their commodities against
the time when market commences. An intention to commit a forgery in another
country his Lordship thought was not cognisable in this.
Verdict for the plaintiffs.
Marryat for the plaintiffs.
ALLINSON v. DAVIES.
(If A. agrees to do work for a certain sum of money and afterwards B. purchases
some of the materials, which are worked up by A., the money expended on that
account must be set-off and cannot be given in evidence on the general issue.)
Assumpsit for work and labour.
The plaintiff in this case endeavoured to go on a quawcom ieruit, but the defendant
clearly proved a contract on the part of the plaintiff to do ill the work for £57. He
had paid several sums to the plaintiff during the time the work was doing, for which
he claimed an allowance, and also claimed a deduction of£7,5s. 2d1. for money expended
by him in purchasing some materials for the work, which the plaiintiff had agreed
to find.
Erskine and Park, for the plaintiff, objected to any evidence being given of this
sum of £7, 5s. 2d., contending that it was the subject of a cross demand, and that to
entitle himself to it, the defendant should have pleaded or given notice of set-off.
Garrow, for the defendant, answered that this was not a cross demand, but a
deduction from the plaintiff's demand, and therefore need not be set-off; [83] that
the defendant could not have maintained an action for goods sold and delivered, or
money paid to the plaintiff's use ; and that it was like the case of a mnian having
employed a taylor to make a suit of clothes for five guineas, and then purchasing the
materials, for which he would surely be entitled to an allowance.
Lord Kenyon was of opinion that this was a cross demand, and ought to have
been set-off under the statute, in order to give the plaintiff notice of the dema nd.
It afterwards appeared that the plaintiff had seen the hills paid by the defendait
on this account, and signified his approbation of them, on wh ichi Lord Ke nyon held
that it might be considered as so much paid in part of the plaintiff's deland, and
directed the jury to allow it.
Verdict for the defendant.
[84] AFTER EASTER TERM, 36 GEORCE 111. 1796.
Friday, May 20. At Guildhall.
THi., KiNG V. JOHN REEV\iES. EsQ.
(In anl information for a libel the jury are to consider whether the defendant pilished
it with a criminal intent or not. Robison' v. Mey, 2 Smith, 3. See Rx v.
Holt, 5 T. R. 436 Rex v. Burdell, 4 B. & A. 95.)
This was an information filed by the Attorney-General ex officio, against the
defendant, for a libel on the Constitution.
The Attorney-General, in his opening, stated1 that this infornmationi had been
filed by him by the direction of his Majesty, in consequence of an address of the
House of Commons to hini for that purpose. The House had resolved it to be a
malicious, scandalous and seditious libel, tending to create jealotsies and diviszionq
amongst his Majesty's liege subjects, anl to alienate the alections of the people of
this country from the (Constitution. The information ptirstiing this resolutioii,
charged the defendant with an intention to cause it to be believed that the regal
power and government of this realm might. eonr-[85]-sistentlv with he freedon of
this realm as by law established, 1e carried on in all its fo ctions, though no
Parliaments were holden ; and the fourth count stated that it was done with intent to
bring the power of the two Houses of Parliament into contemnit. The question for
the opinion of the jury, he said, was whether the defemlant had ptiblished this book
with the criminal intention charged in the information. If, on reading the whole
of the pamphlet, the jury should be of that opinion, it was their duty to find the
defendant guilty ; but if, on the other hamld, they should think that this was a
mistaken execution of a good purpose, the defendant was entitled to an acquittal.
He did not call for a verdict upon an inaccurate ex pression or ill-considered argument,
if used with a good purpose.](ViewImageLocal?handle=hein.slavery/ssactsengr0547&div=1&collection=&method=preview&ext=.png&size=3)