The Sun.
London, England, 1801-12-14 00:00:00

nvi

said it was very different, in many.iarticulars, from
the Acceptance of the Defendant. He should not
have accepted it .as the hand-writing of the Defen-
dant, if offered to him. -
Charles Awood, Clerk to the Defendant, swore,
positively, that he delivered the Letter alluded
to Mr. Bowser, at his brother's house by the Royal
Exchange. Mr. BoWser, he was sure, read it, for he
gave a verbal answer to it, which the Witness
wished to state, but the Rules of Evidence would
not allow it.--The -Witness had been Clerk to the
Defendant eight or nine years, dined with him
daily, .knew his hand-writing well, indorsed Bills
by his authority, but never accepted any for him.
Looked at the Acceptance in question, and said it
was so. extremely different front every thing he ever
saw of. the handlrriting of the Defendant, that he
realty and firmly, believed it was not his writing.
John,Taylot, Clerk to a Merchant in 'Thames-
street,. gave an account of the'Bill being brought
to their house fmm the house of the Plaintiffs, to
learn whether it was the ACceptance of .the Defen-
dant or not. The Witness thought it differed from
the usual mode of Mr. Winder'sPAccep.tance in some
degree, "and, that he 'could not nor, would positively
swear. that it. was his hand-writing. That was ail
that past at that time. Having looked at the Ac-
ceptance•then, and,looking at it now, he said it- was
not the usual mode of Mr. Winder's Acceptance.—
He did not scarcely. believe it to be his. He had
known the Defendant six or seven years,, and had
seen him write frequently— He scarcely believed
it to be the Defendant's hand-writing. He said
there was a stiffness in some of the letters which did
not usually appear ill his hand.
Mr. Locket, a Brandy Merchant, had known the
handwriting of the Defendant for eight or nine
years, having -been, in the habit of seeing him write;
said he had never seen .the ,Bill before. Looked at
it, and said it Is .nott, the usual mode of his as„
cepiance. He,did not ihink:it was ,If offered'
to him, as the' Acceptance oflYlr.,Winder, ,he did'
not think he should have-taken it.

It then appeared,' that all ilie.Witnesse, except
the two last, had been with the Defendant at the
Crown in Bow-lane, and that the Witness'Hornsey
Was there with them ; that they ate and drank there,
and that Mr. Winder paid the Bill, &e.
Mr. ERSKI NE wade an able reply.
Mr. justice Lu,Bt„Artc. sulmned up the Evidence,
anti pointed out the material points of the Case to
the attention of the jury, who, very soon aftei-
wards, found a verdiA for The ,Plaintiffs, Damages
3741. 7s. 6d. being the amount a the Bill, With
Interest.

BURTON V. DAY.

'The P,laintifF is: the, Gardner .of Mr. Smith, a
Quaker,_ and MeaTruan, WalWorth ; the Defen_
. dant,.'is an Officer in the Volunteer Corps at that
place. -
The Anion was brought by the Plaintik sup-
ported by-his Master, against the Defendant, for
assaulting him on the night of the loth of Olober
last, when there was ,a General Illumination
_on
account of the news of the Preliminaries of Peace,
The assault was alledged to.have been committed
by the Defendant, first by firing by the side of the
Plaintiff's_ face close to his cheek, and afterwards
knocking him down with the but,end of his musket
while he was standing by, together with other ser-
vants of Mr. Smith, to proteE the House of their
Master; which, as a Quaker, Mr. Smith declined
to illuminate. Several Witnesses who stood by all
the time, and who said, they had no
,connedion
with the parties, swore they saw this, and that. it
was not provoked on the part of the Plaintiff.
On - the part. of the, Defendant several Officers
of the Corps swore, that a person of the name of
Cook had fired close by the Plaintiff before the De,
fendant came up, and that the 'Plaintiff, by, way of
challenge to the whole Corps, said ". he would be
damned if he would not knock down any one that
would fire-by him again;"- upon which the Defend-
ant borrowed the musket of Look, loaded it, and
fired; and then turned round to the Plaintiff, and
asked Now what will.you do ?" That the Plaintiff
then projeaed himself forward,and clinched his gist
in a posture to strike ;the Defendant, upon which the
Defendant struck the-Plaintiff with his musket.

This !educed tht,whole, case to a single point,
whether the Defendant or the Plaintiff committed
the first assault, and that, from the contrariety of
the evidence, became a pure question of credit to
the Witnesses.

, After a very long- trial, the Jury withdrew and
remained out of Court for upwards of at hour, and
brought, in their Verdi& for the Defendant.

The opinion entertained relative to the Gout
being incapable of a perfea cure, is fully refUted in
the Case of the respeCiable Writer of the following
letter, who, since cured in 779 7, had no return
whatever of his Disorders.