The British Press; or, Morning Literary Advertiser.
London, England, 1825-01-13 00:00:00

LI W INTFLLIGENCH.

COL'UT OF CHANCERY, WEDWEIDAY, JAN'. I!.

MILLER ♦ND WIFE V. ELKINS AND wirr.
It appeared that in this case the old lady, who is the plaintiff, and
who is now fr.; year. of age, had beque..thed to leer about twelve
years ago a property to the value of between seven and eight thou-
sand pounds.
Subaequently a question was raised before his Honour, the
Vice-Chancellor, noon the construction of the will containing this
bequest, and his Honour wxs of (minion that certain leasettoll
property of the testator should not be converted into money, but
that she ►hould have tine benetit of the leases during her life. A
rsfet:nce was at the same time directed to the Master upon another
mattrr of account, but no final report was niatle,altltsugh a period of
nearly twelve bears had elapsed, anal the lady was reduic_d to great
dis•resn.

The Loan Cs.tsc Lima regretted that such a dehy Itsd
taken place, and expressed his intention of pronouncing finally is
the cause on Monday next, whether the report were made or not by
that day.
Sevetal cross-applications had been made, order were issued
and re-issued, and to-day Mr. flans. moved to vary the minutes
of the proceedings ; but, after a few observations from Counsel at
the other side,
The Loan enAkCELI.OR Said, he would take all the papers
home, hnd, after a careful perusal of them, would decide in a few
days, perhaps earlier than Aliculay.
Il'e ooti-e this cue niereiy to show with what terrible conse-
quences the delays in Chancery visit the suitors of that Court.

VICE-CH A NCELLOR'S COURT, WznxEsnar, JAW. 12.

Thero was not any cause of public interest in this Court
to-day.

COURT OF KING'S lit:Nell, 1.1-CUMESDAY, JAx. 12.

Siftings RI krorr LAND CIIIET JCSTICL ADSIOTT
atd 'ommon Jut irs.
. TIAII T LEY V. CASE.

This was an action brotiglit by the plaintiff, who is an attorney
in Bridge-street., Blackfriarl, against the defendant, as drawer of a
certain -Bill of Exchange for ISO/. on And accepted by his father,
since deceased, and which had been Wormed to the plaintiff by
one Clifford, of bill notoriety.
Mr. Scala/MT Raid this was a very brief cue, although he un-
derstood his Learned Friend 31r. Brriugham's brief ran to an inter-
minable length. The bill in question was taken to the plaintiff by
Clifford, aho begged of hint to disaiunt it for him, and 1w should
then be able to procure certain papers from a Mr. Kaine, that would
assist him ro pay the balance of 200/. he then owed the plaintiff.
The proof of the signatures of the different parties to the bills har-
ing been given,
Mr. SCARLET'S proceeded to examine his witnesses, and to
prove the notice of the dishonour of the bill having been given.
A letter wan put in, addressed to the defendant, by the plaintiff;
dated the 17th August, toe day after the bill was due, requesting
payment of the bill, but nut saying that it hid been returned
dishonoured.

His LORDSHIP thnuett that this was TIM • sufficient notice of
the bill having been dishonoured t for raw toartat, the bill might
have been due some weeks, or it might not even be due by a day
or two.

3lr. SCARE ETT said, he conceived no particulat form was neces-
sary, provided the party was put on the alert to look after those
who would he liable to him, on his paying the bill.
The Leib Cuter JUSTICE agreed that no form of words was
necessary, but there ought to he something more than this letter
conveyed. He therefore thought the plaintiff must be nonsuited.
His Lordship took a copy of the letter to his note-book.
Plaintiff nonsuited.

WILBY V. DItAIK.
This was an action to recover I,J. Bs. lld. being the amount of a
Bill of Exchange, drawn by the defendant, and made payable to
the plaintiff two months after dal,:.
dlr. ALDERSON stated the cue to the Jury. The plaintiff was a
respectable inn-keeper in London. The defendant was a vndng man
who at the time the debt was contracted was come from Wakefield,
in Yorkshire, (where he had served his time as an apprentice to a
surgeon) to town, for the purpose of walking the hospitals, and
during which time he boarded and lodged at the house of the plain-
tiff. It would be admitted on the part of the plaintiff that part of
the debt had been paid, and the present action was brought to re-
cover the residue. Ile should call witnesses to prove the hartd-writ-
ing of the defendant, and that several applications had been made
to him for the money, at which times he admitted the debt, and
said that his father would be in town soon, and would settle the
demand. !laving proved this he should then be entitled to their
verdict.

.-Theplaintiff's attorney, and the plaintiff's brother-in-law, were
then called, and proved these facts,
Mr. CHITTY, on the pan of the defendant, said, he had a very
satisfactory defence to make to this action. The defendant was, as
had been stated, the sot, of a very respectable mai, living at Wake-
field, in Yorkshire. having served time to a surgeon in the
country, lie came to town in the year 1823, to walk the hospitals.
preparatory to his commencing business for himself. He lodged
at the house of the plaintiff, where lie ran up some very heavy bills,
which his hither had from time to time discharged, after remon-
strating with the plaintiff fur permitting his son to incur such ex.
travagant debts. In July, lei, the defendant's father came to
tows and saw the pfaintiff, who. an that occasion, applied to die
runner to pay his son's hill. Mr. Drake, ben. refused to pay the
whole, but peered to pay 91. as a full discharge of the debt, which
the plaintiff agreed to take, and the matter wait to be at an end.
There was one observation which he (31r. Chitty) would make,
which was, that although when a person pays a part of his own
debt, this is no discharge Int the remainder, yet where a third per-
son conies and says to the creditor, if von will take a part of the
debt in lieu of the whole, and the creditor agrees to do so, then
that agreement is binding, and the original debtor cannot after-
wards be called upon to pay more than the sum so agreed to be
taken. This is upon the same principle as that which makes the
acceptance of sr composition by all the creditors binding on them :
whereas, if only one creditor accepted the composition, it would
rot be binding. Ile should be able to prove that the plaintiff; in
the present instance, did agree to accept 91. front the father in dis-
charge of the whole debt, and that that 9!. had been .did. and
p
having done this he should rely on obtaining a verdict Inc his client.
James Drake, the father. was then examined, who proved the
agreement between hint and the plaintiff; and that the nine pounds
were sent by his bankers from Wakefield. in the month of August,
18/3, to 3lessrs. 11'entworth and Son, and that he wrote to the
plaintiff to call on those gentlemen for the money.
It having been admitted that the plaintiff had. received this sum,
The Luitu triter JUSTICE summed tip the evidence to the
Jury, anti said, that if it were true that the father had paid the 91.
in full. then the plaintitfcould not maintain his action, as it would
be a fraud upon the father to gay—if you will pay me 91. 1 will
accept it in full of lily demand pin your son, and the father, under
such a promise, pays this money—after which the !plaintiff de-
mands the residue from the son. It, therefore. the Jury believed
the evidence of the father, their verdict must be for the de-
fendant.

The Jury, after a short consultation, found a verdict for the de-
fendant.

KATLF ♦`ID ANOTHER r.

___.... _.......__
This was an action of covenant brought by the plaintiff* as land.
lords, against the defendant as tenant of a dwelling-house and gar-
den, situate in Cumberland-street, Ilackney-road.
The declaration alleged two breaches, the one, non-payment of
rent, and the other, nut putting the premises in tenantable repair.
Mr. SCA/M[7'T stated the CSISe to the Jury.
The plaintiffs had purchased the premises in question from 3h.
Tomlin, who had previously granted a lease thereof to Mr. Hein.
mina, for a term of years, at the rent of 21f. per annum.—
Mr. Hemming afterwards assigned the lease to the defendant.
The lease contained the usual covenants on the past of the lessee
and his assigns, to pay the ront and to keep the premises in tenant.
able repair. The defendant hat! by his plea denied that he was the
assignee of Ilemmins, and the principal question which the Jury
would have to try was, whether the defendant was or was not as-
signee. If lie was, then he was liable to the two covenants men .
dolled to be contained in the lease. The defendant hail been for
many years a managing clerk to a very respectable attorney, and
hail no doubt acquired a very competent share of legal learning.
and knew very well how to conduct the business of his clients, but
in this instance it would appear that he had nut sufficiently con-
sidered his own. The first evidence of his being assignee of the
original lessee, and by which the law would construe hint to be
inch, until he had rebutted that conclusion by other proof, was the
facts of his being in possession, paying the rent, and ezeccising all
the rights of ownership over the property tits several years together.
But it would be shown beyond this, that the defendant did enter
into an agreement with 31r. Ilemmins, by which the latter was to
assign the lease to hint, that this agreement was excental, that a
draft of an assignment was prepared, and that the assignment was
actually engrossed. It could not, however, he shown by the attest-
ing witness that the assignment was executed, because that witness
was dead ; but a memorandum of the execution of the lease would
be proved to have been made on the back of the draft by that per.
sun, of the day on which the assignment was executed by Mr. !fem.
mins. It would be further proved, that uo connterpart of the as.
aignment was ever made, and that the assignment itself was not
now in the possession of Mr. Hemmins's solicitor, from which it
would be reasonable to infer, that it had been handed over to the
defendant himself, in whose custody it of right ought to be. Hay.
ing established these facts, he should then only have to prove the
amount of rent in arrear. which was stated to be '2..1.11.. being for one
year, and the sum at which the repairs necessary to he done by the
defendant in pursuance of this covenant hail been estimated.
This he should be able to do. as he trusted, to the satisfaction of
the Juyy. who would then, in the discharge of their duty, give a
verdiee ler the plaintiff.
The tautened Gentleman rafted his witnesses, who fully sustained
the case as opened by him to the Jury.
Mr. 11 t'UNZY said the defendant had no answer to give to the
plaintiff's case, and that a verdict must go against hint.
The Lours entry Jt'STICE therefore directed the Jury to find
• verdict for the plaintiff:
The Jury accordingly returned a verdict for the plaintiff, 100/.,
being NI. fur the rent, and 801. as the estimated value of the re-
P6irs.