Feb. 4th. On proving a will, the executor need not, in the amount for which probate duty is paid, include debts due to the testator, which are either des MOSES and Another v. CRAFTER. REPLEVIN. The defendant made cognizance for rent arrear, as the bailiff of the executor of a person named Curtis. There were several cognizances, but it is not necessary to state them, as the defendant stated himself to be the bailiff of the executor, in all of them. There was a plea perate or doubt of non tenuit, and several other pleas. ful; and the executor has a right to exercise his judg bond fide, whe ther a debt is doubtful or It appeared that Mr. Curtis was a lessee, under the Duke of Portland, and that the plaintiff was his underment fairly and lessee. The probate duty on the proving of Mr. Curtis's will, had been paid upon 20007.; but it appeared that the property of the testator would have exceeded 20007., if a debt due to him from Messrs. Marsh & Co. had been included, and also a debt which had been received by instalments. Messrs. Marsh & Co. had become bankrupt. bad. It was objected, that these debts ought to have been included in the amount for which the probate duty was paid. Sir J. Scarlett, and R. V. Richards, contra, argued, that in calculating the amount of probate duty, bad and doubtful debts ought not to be included. Denman, A. G., F. Pollock, and Godson, for the plaintiff, contended, that the probate duty was payable on the gross amount of the property, without making any deduction for doubtful debts, as there was a power given to the commissioners of stamps to return the duty, if too much had been paid. Lord TENTERDEN, C. J.-Are you not to deduct the desperate debts. The debt due from Marsh & Co. was clearly desperate, and the other debt might not have been received. F. Pollock.-I submit that no deduction can be made in the first instance. With the policy of the law we have nothing to do. The act of Parliament requires that the probate duty should be paid on the gross amount of the property to which the testator appears to be entitled at his death, without any deductions for his liabilities; and consequently, he is not to exclude debts which may be received. Lord TENTERDEN, C. J.-I think that desperate and doubtful debts need not be included; and that the executor has a right to exercise his judgment fairly and bond fide, whether a debt is doubtful or bad. tiff. Verdict for the defendant. Denman, A. G., F. Pollock, and Godson, for the plain Sir J. Scarlett, and R. V. Richards, for the defendant. [Attornies-Hill & R., and Sandom.] For the report of this case, we are indebted to the kindness of one of the learned counsel en- 1831. MOSES บ. CRAFTER. 1831. Feb. 12th. STORY and Another v. PERY. If a tradesman ASSUMPSIT for goods sold and delivered. The plain trusts an infant, he does it at his peril, and he cannot recover if it turns out that the tiffs were tailors, and the defendant the son of Lord Glentworth, and grandson of the Earl of Limerick. The clothes were furnished in September, 1830, at which ty has been pro- time the defendant was between 17 and 18 years of age. par perly supplied by his friends. The principal articles in the bill, were "A rifle green coat, lined with silk, charged at £6 0 0 "A pair of royal purple casimere trousers 2 14 0 1 16 0 It was proved that the charges were reasonable. On the part of the defendant, a tailor, residing in Jermyn Street, was called as a witness. He stated, that he was in the habit of supplying Lord Glentworth's family with clothes, and, during the year 1830, had supplied the defendant, on Lord G.'s credit, with four or five suits; and that some of the clothes were furnished within six weeks previous to the month of September. He added, that he was not allowed to supply any clothes to the defendant, without an order either from Lord or Lady G. It appeared that Lord Glentworth was a prisoner for debt in the King's Bench Prison. Moody, for the defendant, submitted that a tradesman was not justified in supplying even necessaries to an infant, without first inquiring whether he was or was not supplied with proper necessaries by his friends, and whether the things furnished were actually required by him; and that, in this case, the plaintiffs were not entitled to recover, because it appeared that the defendant had been sufficiently supplied with clothes on his father's credit. He also contended that the action had been brought too soon, as it was evident, from the prices charged, that the goods must have been sold on a twelvemonths' credit, and not for immediate payment (a). Henry, for the plaintiffs, contended, with respect to the alleged necessity of inquiry, that a tradesman could not be expected to ask every customer whether he was of age or not; and, with respect to the things furnished, he contended, that they were necessaries; and with respect to the action having been brought so soon after the supply, he submitted that a tradesman was justified in such a course, when he found that he had got a slippery cus tomer. Lord TENTERDEN, C. J.-The question, if there be any in this case, is, whether these things were necessaries suited to the defendant's rank and station in society. It is the duty of all to enforce that wholesome provision, which protects infants from their own improvidence; and that cannot be better done than by preventing others from encouraging them in that improvidence. If a tradesman trusts an infant, he does it at his peril, and he cannot recover if it turn out that the party has been properly supplied by his friends. Verdict for the defendant (b). Henry, for the plaintiffs. [Attornies-Dagley, and Bebb & G.] (a) A witness, who was said to have been present when the order was given, was stated to be abroad. (b) Vide the case of Cook v. Deaton, ante, Vol. 3, page 114, in which Lord Wynford, then Lord Chief Justice Best, ruled that it was to. 1831. STORY บ. PERY. 1831. Feb. 24th. If the survey or to a society which publishes an account of the different for the informa tion of merchants, underwriters &c., is requested by a ship owner to and does so in consequence, and makes a report to the society, who class the vessel report, such ship owner can action against the members of KERR and Others v. SHEDDEN and Others. THE first count of the declaration, in substance, stated, that the plaintiffs were the owners of a schooner, called the Delos, of which one Joseph Cristal was master, and classes of ships, which, at the time &c., was bound on a voyage from the port of London to Smyrna, as a general ship, and at that time was, and still continued to be, a vessel of the first class, and built with materials of the first quality; neversurvey his ship, theless, the defendants, well knowing the premises, but contriving and wrongfully and maliciously intending to injure the said plaintiffs, so being owners of the said ship or vessel, and to have it suspected or believed that the said according to his ship or vessel was built with bad or inferior materials, and was a vessel of an inferior class, and thereby to not maintain an prevent the plaintiffs from procuring freight, &c., and otherwise to injure them, as owners &c., on the 1st of January, 1829, in a Supplement to a certain book, purporting to be The Register of Shipping for the Year 1829, and purporting to contain a list, description, and classification of British and foreign merchant ships, by columns, and in manner therein mentioned, (in which said book the ships therein marked A, were explained to be ships of the first class; those therein marked E, to be ships of the second class; those therein marked I, to be ships of the third class; those therein marked O, to be ships of the fourth class; and those therein marked U, to be ships of the fifth class; and in which said book certain abbreviations therein used, and, amongst others, the letters SS. in a certain column there, were explained to mean "small scantling,") falsely and maliciously printed and published of and concerning the said ship &c., and of and concerning the materials of which she was built, her tonnage, the place at which she was built, to wit, at Shoreham, her age, her draught when loaded, her cables, her surveying port, to wit, at London, and the port to which she was bound as aforesaid, the false &c. matter against the surhe made a false veyor, unless report: and quære, whether such an action is maintainable at all without evidence of express malice? |