The Express.
London, England, 1847-11-10 00:00:00

THE EXPRESS, WEDNESDAY EVENING, NOVEMBER 10, 1847.

plained, had been very badly kept. —Mr. Lawrence, in Nap.
port, said the ba..krupt had become a partner with Mr.
lintboven and other parties, and had become liable to a large
amount. He had dune all in his power to benefit the estate.
There had been several adjournments, and he had been a
long time out of trade. The bankrupt did not look into the
bills before signing them, having very properly trusted, and
placed confidence in, the firm in which he was a partner.—
His Honour said : 'this is a case in which I mast go through
the proceedings before giving my final decision; but I will
now state what strikes me very forcibly against the bank-
rupt is the circumstance of putting his name to the accom-
modation paper, and he says be had great confidence in his
house ; but he ought to have looked into his affairs, in order
to ascertain whether he had or bad not means of paying
before putting his name to the accommodation paper.—
Judgment deferred.

WESTMINSTER COUNTY COURT.
Before D. C. Moylse, Fag.. Judge.
GASS T. MASOR—SPLITTINO A DEBT.—In these eases
the plaintiff summoned the defendant on two bills of ex-
change of 271. each, abandoning the excess. One of the bills
was made payable in four and the other in six months.—Mr.
Thomas. on the part of the defendant, contended that plain-
tiff could not sue separately on each bill, as they were given
at one time, and consequently but on* cause of action could
arise upon them. It was a splitting of a debt. In the
' superior courts, a plaintiff suing was compelled to enter the
cause of action fully in the declaration ; and if a man owed
201. on a butcher's bill, and 201. on another account, 20!. for
' money lent, and 201. on an I. 0. U., they all being simple
contracts, were made into one debt, and the plaintiff would
not be allowed to sue separately for them, if they were
all owing at one time.—The learned judge said there
were two bills of exchange, and he was of opinion
that suing on each could not be called splitting a
cause of action. There appeared to him two distinct causes
of action, and he had no doubt upon the subject. In a ease
of the " King v. The Sheriff of Hertfordshire," Lord Ten..
terden held that the sheriff had a right to try the cause, which
was for the recovery of the value of two parcels lost by a car-
rier, of the value of 30s. each, as separate causes, although
they were lost at the same time. Again, • landlord could
sue for one quarter's rent, although another might be due at
the same time —Mr. Thomas said he must differ with the
learned judge as to the latter point, for he thought the judg-
ment obtained against the defendant for the recovery. of the
first quarter would be a bar to the plaintiff recovering the
second.—After hearing the merits of the ease, the plaintiff,
on the suggestion of the learned Judge, agreed to take a ver-
dict for only one of the bills, with double costa.
EVANS V. DREW AND ANOTHER—LIABILITY OP ONE
PARTNER POR THE DEBTS Or ANOTHER.—The plaintiff, '
a law-stationer in Portugal-street, sued the defendants,
carrying on business also as law-stationers, under the firm of
Drew and Wooderspoon, in the same street, on a dis-
honoured cheque given by Mrs. Drew to the plaintiff—Mr.
Dod, on behalt of Mr. Wooderspoon, denied thatgentleman's
liability, on the ground that the cheque was given on the
private account of Mrs. Drew, and not on account of the
partnership, or in the ordinary course of business.—The
plaintiff proved that he had been in the habit of cashing
cheques for Mrs. Drew, and cashed the one in dispute, which
on being presented at Messrs. Twininp' was dishonoured.
He admitted that he did not speak to Mr. Wooderspoon
upon the subject.—The learned judge said that unless Mr.
Evans could show that the cheque was given in the ordinary
coarse of business be could not recover. He could recover
against Mrs. Drew, but not against the partnership.—Case
dismissed, but without costs.
A NEW WAY TO COSIPEL ADVERTISERS TO PAT.—
LLOYD O. NEWTON.—This was an action to recover It for
ten insertions of an advertisement in Lloyd's Weekly News-
paper.—The defendant denied his liability.—Mr. Robins,
clerk to the plaintiff, produced a note in the haadwriting of
the defendant, to the effect that D r. Macdonald's advertise-
ment should be iaserted 13 times in Lloyd's Weekly News-
paper, at 10s. each insertion.—The defendant said he was
not liable ; he merely gave the order for the advertise-
ment to a man who called, as clerk to Dr. Macdonald.
He had not been called upon to pay it before the
summons was sent. Mr. Harris, who was the manacer
at Lloyd's, had written frequently to Dr. Macdonald
for the money, and had threatened that, if he did not
pay, "he would show him up in the next week's paper."
At the time the order for the advertisement was gives, he
had recently been a bankrupt, and the man who took the
order knew that fact, and also that Dr. Macdonald, who
lived in Northumberland-street, Strand, was the gentleman
who was liable. . . . .

T. K. Brown, an advertisement collector, said he got
the order produced from Mr. Newton, who he knew acted
ea clerk to Dr. Macdonald. lie saw Dr. Macdonald at the
house; his name was on the door, but he thought Mr. New-
ton responsible for the advertisements.—The defendant put
in two letters, one addressed to Dr. Macdonald, and
threatening to "publish the whole transaction in Lloyd's."
In answer to questions from the judge, the witness Brown
said that it was at Dr. Macdonald's where be first saw the
defendant, and that he knew he was a bankrupt at the time,
The learned Judge said that the witness clearly removed
the liability from Newton, and therefore the case must be
dismissed.