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/ssactsengr0571 and id is 1 raw text is: 614 GILMAN V. COUSINS 2 STARK. 182.
The counsel for the plaintiff was examining as to a conversation which took
place upon that occasion, when the book-keeper made an offer to pay £5 for the
parcel.
This was objected to on the part of the defendant.
[182] Lord Ellenborough.-The book-keeper is employed by his principal merely
as an historian, and what he says is not evidence for the purpose of binding his
principal, unless you prove that he is employed as a general agent, and that the
principal ratifies the promises which he makes.
The plaintiff afterwards obtained a verdict.
Scarlett and -- for the plaintiff.
Gurney and Chitty for the defendant.
GILMAN V. COUSINS AND THREE OTHERS.
(In an action against the assignees of a bankrupt and their servants, the proceedings
may be read in evidence, where no notice has been given under the statute, of
the plaintiff's intention to dispute the bankruptcy, although there are other
defendants on the record besides the assignees.)
This was an action of trespass, for breaking and entering the plaintiff's house, and
taking his goods, &c.
The defence was, that two of the defendants were assignees under a commission
of bankrupt against Gilman, and that the others had acted as their servants in taking
possession of the house which had been in possession of the plaintiff as agent of the
assignees.
No notice having been given according to Sir Samuel Romilly's Act, of the
plaintiff's intention to dispute the bankruptcy, &c. the defendants proposed to read
the proceedings under the commission.
[183] It was objected, that the case was not within the statute as to notice, since
there were other defendants besides the assignees upon the record ; but-
Bayley, J., was of opinion, that since the other defendants justified as the servants
of the assignees, the case was within the statute, and the proceedings were read.
COOKE V. MAXWELL.
(A record of a conviction of felony, without a caption, is not admissible in evidence
to incapacitate a witness. When the directions which have been given by a
defendant to his agent cannot be read on the ground of public policy, the agent
may be asked whether he did not act under the direction of the defendant.)
This was an action of trespass and false imprisonment.
The plaintiff, who was an American subject, in the year 1813, being employed in
the Atrican trade, purchased a factory on the Rio Pongus, in Africa. The defendant
was the governor of the British colony, Sierra Leone, and the action was brought
against him for having unlawfully arrested the plaintiff at his factory on the Rio
Pongus, which was about ninety miles distant from Sierra Leone, within the district of
Mungo Cattie, and beyond the limits of the colony, and for having carried away stores
from the factory to a very large amount, and destroyed the remainder.
The defence which was attempted was, that the plaintiff had been concerned in
carrying on an illegal traffic in slaves ; for which offence, he had been tried and con-
victed in the Court at Sierra Leone, and sentenced to transportation.
[184] A witness of the name of Brodie having been called on the part of the
plaintiff,--
The Attorney-General for the defendant, objected to his competency, on the
ground that he had been convicted of trading in slaves before the Court of Sierra
Leone, and an instrument was produced which purported to be an indictment against
Brodie for that offence, on which he had been convicted, and that this indictment
had been found by B. Macdonald, and his fellows upon oath.
It was objected on the part of the plaintiff, that this was not sufficient to in-
capacitate the iyitness, since there was no caption of the indictment ; consequently,
it did not appear that it had been found by any persons, or in any Court of sufficient
authority, neither did it appear that the party was a British subject, or that the
offence was committed within the territories of Great Britain.
The Attorney-General in answer, contended, that so long as the conviction stood
unreversed, it was to be considered as sufficient, although there might be defects in](ViewImageLocal?handle=hein.slavery/ssactsengr0571&div=1&collection=&method=preview&ext=.png&size=3)