The British Press; or, Morning Literary Advertiser.
London, England, 1818-04-11 00:00:00

THE BRITISH PRESS.

lA)N DON,

SATURDAY, Arm. 11, 1818.

A Flanders Mail has arrived, with Papers
from Brussels to the 7th instant. It is stated on
official authority, thnt the Grand Duke of Balsam
has consented to revoke the sequestration laid upon
all Swiss property, and that the usual relations be-
tweet' the two couutties are thus restored.

A Cabinet Conned was yesterday held at the
Foreign-Office, at two o's•lock, which was at-
tended
hy—
The Earl bf Westmorlantl. the Earl of Liverpool, Earl
Bathurst, Earl Mu!grave, Viscount !mouth, Viscount
Castlereagh, Viscount Melville, the Chancirtor of the Ex.
tbs./ore, Mr. CTIII ttttt g, Mr. Robinson, Mr. B. Bathurst, &t.
—The Council *at till near four o'clock.

Yesterday morning Mr. Rusk: left town to pro—
ceed nit his embassy to Berlin. The Right Mei.
(irnekm,ew was accompanied by Mr. PauI:OMAN,
the King'e Messenger.
The !metered ship Earl of Morley arrived iii the
Downs at Thessaday night, from Calcutta. Left
the fallowing Company's ships at Calcutta the .d
Dvcemlwr :
Thomas Grenville), William Pitt, Miner's, Roar, Princess
Charlotte of Wales, Streatham, ■nd Marquis Wellington ;
suit shin the private ships Moffatt and Cornwall.

Accounts have been received by the American
ship littgrily. of the tintler-tnentioned ships being
at Cmiton the 3 tat October hot :
Aroltewater, amitles Grata, Waterloo, Bombay, and
Mul.iuns Camoles. _

The D. fence, •nil the Jupiter, from London,
arrov.-d ,it Bengal, 341 Dee. The Westrooriond and
Wellington, from Liverpool, also arrived on the ed
Der. at Bengal.—The Barbora end Aux has er-
livtil in the Downs fruin

INTLLIIGLAICE.
COVRT OF KING'S or.Neu,
Fainsv. Aram 10.
BRANDItuyi e. svilAttTottr.
This was an action tri a proinissory note. for
1,5401. und was tried befure Lord ELLEN no.
ut the London tinting, after last Michael-
-11114 Terin. The facts were ohm* these :—Messrs.
Houghton and Co. were winners in two houses.
The one for carding on commercial speculations,
the other for doing insurance business. The lie-
fendaut, Mr. Wharton, was their partner in the
latter, and introorged the insurance concern entirely,
but had nothing at all to do with their meicial
traossctions. His being one of the firm in the in-
surance house was known only to the 'parties
themselves. The bill in question was drawn in the
year 1810, in the name of Houghton and Co. ac.
cepted by Messrs. (Ailey and Co. and endorsed by
the drawers to the Plaintiff, Mr. Braudrum, for
goods sold and delivered. Separate commissions of
bankruptcy were afterwards sued out against the
partners in the mercantile house of Houghton and
Co. ; and the present Plaintiff, under these com-
missions, proved a debt, for goods sold awl deliver-
ed. of 2,4001., exhibiting the pininissoiy note for
1,5401. as a security for a part of the demand. In
January, 1911, he received his last dividend—hut,
nearly six years after; he discovered that Mr. IVliiirs
ton was, at the time of the boll being drawn, and
down to the time of the bankruptcy, a partner of
Houghton and Co. though no commission had issu-
ed against him. Ile therefore brought his action
against Mr. Wharton, the solvent partner, for the
amount of the promissory note of which he was
joint drawer mid endorser, and recovered 1,4504
being the full ',mould of the bill minus the aunt of
901. said to be received on it as dividend under the
commissions. A point was, however, reserved,
namely, whether the payment of the dividend,
within six years, miller all the circutnstances of the
ease, revived the bill, arid took it out of the ope-
ration of the Statute of Limitations. In last Hilary
Term, Mr. SCARLETT uhtuliutil u rule to thew cau-e
why the verdict should not he set aside, and a non-
suit entered, on the ground that the Statute of
Limitations barred the Plaintiff's claim.

Messrs. MA 'MYATT, GURNEY, and CAMPBELL
this day skewed cause. They argued that this case
was analogous to that of Jackson and Fairbank,
Mg East, 401, in which it was held that where a
joint party to a promiasory note admitted the debt,
it received it, although the period specified by the
Statute of Limitations had gone by—and in that
case, the solvent party was held liable for the de-
mand. In the instance before the Court, it was
clear that the Defendina Ind been in partnership
(though unknown to the Plaintiff) with Messrs.
Houghton and Co., and therefore was subject to a
joint liability with them. Messrs. Houghton and
Co. having paid a dividend on this bill, acknow-
ledged the validity of the demand—and the last
dividend been paid, within six years. took
the debt out of the Statute of Limitations. The
Plaintiff bad brought his action us soon as he pos-
sibly could—that was, when he discovered the De-
fendant was one of the partners.
Mr. SCARLETT. in support of the rule, contend-
ed. that the whole of the argument on the other
side was founded on tic( . It had been avenmed,
that a dividend had been paid ou the promissory
note, and that, therefore. the Statute of Limitations
would not avail the Defendant. Thi., however,
was not the case. The dividend was paid on the
entire debt of 8,400/. for goods sold and delivered,
for part of which the promissory note was a secu-
rity; but, if the note had not been iii existence, the
dividend must equally have he.ii paid.
The COURT held, that the Statute of Limitations
had not been answered iu this case. The doctrine
of rebutting that Statute by any other declaration
than that of the party himself, who was liable. op-
!leafed to have grown out of the case of Jackson
and fairOank, which occurred in the 21.1 of his
present Majesty. Although that decision did not
perfectly satisfy their Lordships, they would not, as
it had stood so long, attempt to impeach it. But,
it might be observed, that formerly the Statute of
Limitations appeared to be looked on with extraor-
dinary jealousy. fildr.ed, a wish seemed to exist to
hunt it out of the law of the land. Their Lord-
ships, however, considered it a most beneficial Sta-
tute, and as useful as any other part of the law.
The prevent case differed materially from that of
Jackson and rairbank, and they did not wish to
push the prim iple of barring the right to plead the
Statute of Li ~,, iations further than it was there re-
cognised. They were unwilling to recognise all
implied acknowledgment to pay, instead of an ex-
press one, as depriving an individual of the benefit
of that Statute. Particularly as the implied ac-
knowledgment might be 1111111 C without the perty to
whose disadvalitege it wail to he used being at all
acquainted with it. Their Lordships would not
sutler the infereace drawn from au act door to take
II Cabe out of the Statute of Limitations, which
ought only to be effected by an express acknow-
ledgment. The case quoted proceeded on a diffe-
rent principle from that now before the Court. 111
that case, a proof was made under the commission
on the very instrument on which the debt accrued ;
but here the iiistrunient was only produced as a se-
curity for a debt, and corroborative of the Go-t that
a certain aunt was due. The debt due under this
commission was evidently uue to which the Defend-
ant was not a party. It wits due f tloughtou
and Co. for goods sold and delivered, for which this
bill was given to the Plaintiff, as a security. But,
whether it existed or not, the original debt might
be proved, and under that proof the dividend would
be payable.
Rule fur a Renault made absolute.

PARODIES.
THE RING V. CARLYLE.
As the Court was on the point of rising. the De-
fendant in this ease stood up to address their Lord-.
ships.
Lord ELLessonoveu—" Who is that ?"

Deferidetni—" Mr. Carlyle."
Lord ELLENSOROUGH—" Have Yon an 6f-
davit ?"
Defendant—" I have an affidavit, my Lord, and
wish to move for the discharge of certain reeogni-
wires."

Mr. &mow then read the affidavit. It set
forth that the dernewt, Richard Carlyle, resided