The British Press; or, Morning Literary Advertiser.
London, England, 1824-05-07 00:00:00

LOCK r. MMUS.

This was an action on two bills of exchange tried before Mr.
Justice Best at the last Sussex .tssizes. The defence was grounded
on the statute of limitations. The question turned principally upon
a OXlTenatioll between the defendant and the plaintiff 'a agent,
which had taken the ease out of the operation of the statute of limi.
rations. On being applied to, the defendant had said, "It is more
than six years ago, and as I stn not in a condition to pay new debts,
it is of :louse fur you to ask me to Ray old ones."
A verdict was gran for the' plaintiff.
Mr. COWLEY this day moved for a rule to shew cause why the
verdict should not be set aside and a noxwit entered, or at least a
new trial granted. lie contended, that the conversation had not
deprived the defendant of the benefit of the statute.
The Court refused to disturb the verdict.

11l WILLIAM LVIRTIS THE INHABITANTS OF CIODLIIT.
This was an action under the Ilth He*. 11. to recover certain pe-
nalties against the inhabitants of the Hundred of tiodley, in which
the plaintiff had some plantations which had been set on fire, on
the fith of May, 18A The cause was tried before the Lord Chief
Baron, at the last Surrey Assises, and a verdict given for the de-
fendants. The defence was that the lire was accidental.

_ -.................
Mr. MARI VAT T this day mowed for a rule to Thew cause why
• new trial should not be granted. on the ground that the verdict
was contrary to evidence.—Rule granted.

'MOIRA* P. WILLIAMS.
This was an action tried at the last Oxford .Isslzes, before Mr.
Justice Park, to recover the amount paid on the warranty of a
horse. The defence was grounded on the warrant• having been
given on a Sunday. when, according to the 2Pth Chides 11. cap. 7,
no man was at liberty to follow his trade or ordinary calling. Under
the direction of Mr. Justice Park, a verdict was given for the
plaintiff.
Mr. Jwitvis this day moved for a rule to chew cause why the
verdict should not be set aside and a nonsuit entered. In this cue
the defer.slant was nut following his ordinary calling. He was not
horse dealer. The case of Fenton against Drury, tried before
Lord Chief Justice Manolield, on which the Learned Judge had
relied, was essentially different, as that was an action to recover
the price of a Wm.—Rule granted.

PIDCOCIC AND OTHERS V. DIMON.
This was an action on a guarantee given by the defendant to the
plaintiffs, in favour
ooffexatgienits
voenironanmwcdor'icL
kTs,ikue3ldhal'he had dealings
with Ticalinlinfore the guarantee, winch was in these words:
" I willguarantee you the value of 2001. for goods to be delivered
to Mr. In the course of six months following two deli.
reties of goods were made to Tickell by the plaintiff:. Bills were
given for each delivery. The first bill was duly paid ; the second
was dishonoured. The defence was, that the plaintiffs were not
entitled to recover, because the guarantee was accompanied with a
seem agreement between them and Tickell, by which the guarantee
was vhinted. Tickell was an uncertiticatcd bankrupt. One of the
plaintiff's had been a creditor under the commission against him,
and the secret agreement was, that Tickell should fur each delivery
of goods pay ten shillings per ton beyond the market price, in
liquidation of this old debt. The bills of parcels were made out in
conformity with this agreement. On the face of the bill of parcels
for the goods for which this action was brought there appeared a
second urns, "To part of John l'idcock's debt 101." The goods
delivered were 20 tons of iron. The total amount of the bill of
parcels was 921. 106. but the action was brought for only 82L 10s.
the 101. on account of the old debt having been deducted. A verdict
was given for the plaintiffs.
The CODMON•SEIIiZANT this day moved for a rule to chew
cause why the verdict should not be set aside, and a nonsuit entered,
on the ground that the private contract between the plaintiff's and
Tickell had been concealed from the defendant, and therefore that
a fraud had been committed upon hint—Rule granted.

COURT OF COMMON PLEAS, Wzmitxgrza,
THURSDAY, 31.a0r 6.

GROONt AND °Traits e. SIR T. CHANPNETS, BART.
SCININUIt PEts, moved, on behalf of the defendant, who he said
was then in Ilchester gaol, under very peculiar circumstances of
embarrassment, to have the rule directing the defendant to pay
upwards of 12,11001. to the plaintiffs, enlarged. He was aware that
the Court, having once already granted this indulgence to the de-
fendant, they would not be inclined to do so a second time, unless
some very strong affidavits were produced by him, to *hew that'
the defendant had done all in his power to comply with the order ;
and that the extension of the rule would not be inconsistent with
justice to the plaintiffs. These affidavits he had, one of which
was made by Mr. Tindall, Solicitor, of Lineolns' Inn-fields, who
had bees kind enough, in the earlier progress of the cause, to lend
his able assistance to the defendant ; but, in consequence of some
occurrences, which it was not necessary to state to the Court, that
gentleman no longer continued to act fur the Baronet. He had,
however, in the handsomest manner mine forward, and made an
affidavit of the circumstances situating the business, by which it
appeared that the defendant had applied to several gentlemen to
advance' him the sum necessary to pay the plaintiffs, agreeably to
the rule of Court, and that one person had agreed to lend the
n:oney ; but in consequence of an opinion of Counsel, taken on
the title, that person had since declined to make the advance. The
Learned Sergeant then said that the objections of Counsel seemed
to be grounded on the fact of certain annuity deeds being in the
baud. of the plaintiffs, which were necessary to assist the de-
fendant in making out a prior tide to the incumbrancers. All,
therefore, that he required was, that those deeds should be directed
to be given up, when he had no doubt the money would be
raised.

Sergeant VAUGIIAX said that the defendant had a copy of the
dead, and that Sir T. Chain net's had had every indulgence.
Sergeant Pau. replied, that as tar as he was instructed, such
vas not the Cane.

The COURT suggested whethar a week or ten days would not
answer the object (tithe defendant ; and it wax finally atirowl that
the rule should be extendcd 14 days, the defendant then to pay the
money peremptorily.

PERSA3I V. RAYNER AND °Turns.
SergeNntRONANQUET said this was an action tried to recover the
amount of a joint and several note of hand, to which the defend-
ants pleaded the general issue and the statute of limitations. It
appearing however in evidence that one of the parties had acknow-
ledged the debt, verdict was given for the plaintiff: He now ap-
plied for a rule to show cause why that verdict should not be set
aside; because, he contended, that the acknowledgment of one of
several parties to s joint and several note could not deprive the rest
of the benefit of the statute. The Leagued sergeant quoted Whit-
comb v.lVhiting es !is), Atkins 1% Tredgold (2 Dos.
and (ress. p. 411), and Booth v. Quin l 7 Prim, ISO). an authorities
that the acknowledgment of a pnncipal could not take the case out
of the statute awing the securities.
The Court—lt is very hard to make one man answerable for an.
other in MCI like these ; but the practice of this Court and the ge-
:lend current of the cases being that the acknowledgment of one of
seseral parties to a note of hand shall bind thou all. We cannot
adopt a different course.—Rule refused.

assun AND orimas V. nut nwaY.
Sergeant Iltas.iwut- ET moved for a rule to chew cause why the
defendant, who was in custody at the wit of the plaintiffs, 'Wald
' not be discharged, and a satisfaction entered on the record. He
I said that the tierendani had been some time before taken in imecu.
tion by the plaintiffs fin, the same debt, subsequent to which a cont.
mission of bankrupt had. issued against the defindant. sod the
plaintids applied ro.prove digir debt, but the commiiatoners refused
ifi
1 to take their proof. utile,* the
rst discharged the defendant out of
custody, which they sec •A y did. The commission, however,
having been supersesol, the i miffs issued a second re. At. and
the defendant was regain taken in execution. lie submitted to the
Court that the 'Anhui% listing once relinquished the actien, they
could not proceed afresh upon their former pdtunent.
The Colby thought, that the Commission having been super.
ceded, the whole proceedings under it became a nullity, and that
the plaintiffs were restored to all their former rights ; at all events,
this question would be soon set et rest, for the Bill now before Par.
Foment, for consolidating the Bankrupt Laws, had a clause to that',
effect.

•efp•ant nOSAN ‘11•17T then quoted wenl eases in Tidd. on
%Inch he relied, opeciully one, in 2 Ease, p. 243. —Hui, grentcd.