The British Press; or, Morning Literary Advertiser.
London, England, 1809-11-30 00:00:00

C )CRT OF KING'S BENCH, Wseruhrrran, Nov ay.
Sittgags at Itiesi Prior, before byrti. ELLEtt-

soaovou.
COVERTUIig.
FRANCIS LAMBERT r. 74411THt ♦TKIN/, otkensise

AIEULDITH and ANNE ATKINS.

This was ah iictioa brought by th.• Plaintiff to
recover the amount of a joint bond given to him by
the Defendants, to secure the onus of 5001. die
debt of a third person.
The circumstances of the ease were, that the De-
fendant, Martha, represented herself et the tune of
the signing of the hunt, as a widow, who had mo-
ney in the funds, iii her own name.
The frond wig proved to he executed on the
19th of November, IsoB, by one of the subscrib-
ing witnesses.
In defence, it was set up, that the Defendant
Martha, was tinder roverture, she having been 1114 -
ried in the year 1790, to James Meredith.
This was proved by the Parish Cleik, where the
banns were celebrated.
A female witness proved that she had seen a man
with the Defendant, Martha, slice the execution of
the bond, whom she called James Meredith, and her
husband ; but, on her cross-examination, she could
not say that they had ever cohabited together. or
slept in one room, or that they ever dieted too.
the r.
Lord ELLENBOROUGH left the. facts to the .Im7
fur their consideration, and observed, that if the
tieraou,whom the Defendant had called her husband,
since the execution of the bond, was the same that
she married in the year 1790, it would have been
easy for her to have brought forward more sufficient
evidence RS to that; but it was a inere (iteration for
the Jury to decide on its merits. If they believed
him to he the same person, they would give their
verdict for the Defendant ; for if one Defendant was
exonerated, it had the same effect on the other, as
it was a joint bond ; but if they thought other.
wise, and that the acknowledgment of a husband,
after the bond was executed, was intended to de-
feat the present action, they would give their ver.
diet for the Plaintiff.

The Jury, without hesitation, gave a verdict for
the Plaiutiff.
STEINMAN I% MOSES MAGEIES.
Mr. PARC stated this case, and said, it was an
action brought on a bill of exchange, to recover
37111. 4s. td. That this case bad been once decide
eft by the Court, and he begged to be understood,
that it was now brought in opvnsition to tbat judg-
ment, hut on new merits. he could prove a com-
plete fraud, if his instructions were correct. That
the Defeudar.t had got a Mr. Garland to go rouud
to his creditors, to make a compromise with them,
stating, that the Defendant had left the kingdom—
but that he, Garland, would give them 10 per cent.
for their debt, on condition that they would ale.
a release for the remainder, namely, 80 per cent. :
this they agreed to, under the impression that the
Defendant had left the kingdom : but it now ap-
p•nred that he never had ; and, instead of his
being only able to pay .20 per cent., he was at the
time in circumstances competent to pay tos. in the
pound. Tii . Learned Counsel contend... J.. if
Nuts toe Jury must give a verdict for
the Plaintiff; as no court of justice could coun-
teuan..e such a proceeding. He the!' proceeded to
exam:ne witlesiue.

Thomas Buruace proved the writing of the De-
fendant; the bill was drawn by the Defendant in
favour of the Plaintiff; and accepted by George
Isaacs.

Philip Phi'bps proved the acceptance of Geor
Isaacs.

George Isaacs deposed, that he accepted the bill,
but did not pay it, as lie received no value.
On his cross-examination, by Mr. Gaaaow, he
said, he was in the habit of borrowing acceptances
from the Defendant. He accepted the Bill in
question at the request of the Plaintiff, as a mere
guarantee ag4inst any default of the Defendant, in
his payments to the Plaintiff.
Mr. GAIIIOW-•••" My Lord, they must prove
that the Defendant was served with notice of the
hill being dishonoured."
Mr. Paac—" Does your Lordship think so ? if
you do, we must be nonsuited, as we cannot prove
its service."
Lord Et.t.Einououult—" Certainly, I think
so."_

Mr. PAR 10;" We only came here by proviso ;
we will never try it again, so they may as well have
a verdict for the Defendant."
The Jury, tinder the direction of the Court,
gave a verdict for the Defendant.

1111111PUERD U. HUGHES.
Thin oat an action to recover the amount of an
Attorney's bill, 111. for prosecuting too persons, at
Maidstone assizes, whom the Defendant supposed
had stolen some of his property.
The items in the bill were proved by the Plain-
tiff's clerk ; and
The Jury gave a verdict fur the Plaintiff, 61. ;
credit having been given for 51. received on ac-
count.