The Sun.
London, England, 1838-11-06 00:00:00

was then put in, together with a letter addressed to Mrs. Ro-
binson, dated April 1835, acknowledging the receipt of 1601.
and stating the amount owing to be 8361. 16s. 101, as she
held the note for 6861. 16i. 10d.
Mr. KELLY said the defence to the action was, that not-
withstanding the promissory note and the writing of the ac-
knowledgment, it was the extent and meaning of the parties
that the money should be given, and never be repaid. He
admitted that three of the pleas had been disproved, and he
now came to the last, that the defendants made the
promissory note for the accommodation of Mrs. Robinson,
and that there was not at any .time any consideration or
value for his making the note. It would be for his Lord-
ship to say, whether, under the terms of that plea, he was at
liberty to show that the money was alwiys intended to be a
gift to the defendant, who had married the niece of Mrs. Ro-
binson. If so, he should be prepared t.) give such evidence as
would entitle the defendant to a verdict.
Mr. Justice LITTLEDALE thought it could hardly be said that
this note was given for the accommodation of the lady.
Mr. KELLY said that if any other course was adopted, it
must either be by motion to amend, er an application to a
Court of Equity.
A verdict was then given for 836/. 16s. 10d., with 1461. 7F.
interest, from the date of the acknowledgment.

EXCHEQUER CHAMBER, THIS DAY

(Before Mr. Baron ALDERSON.)
LEWIS V. BAYS.—TIIE SPIRIT OF LITIGATION.
Mr. Platt, Mr. flumfrey, and Mr. Thomas appeared for
the plaintiff; Mr. Thessiger and Mr. Richards for the de-
fendent.

This was,an action brought by Mr. Charles Lewis, an
attorney, aga;nst the defendant, Mr. Henry Hays, a seal en-
graver. The declaration stated that the defendant was in-
debted to the plaintiff for work done, to which the defendant
pleaded, that as to 12/. 10s., he never promised; secondly,
that as to the sum of 1001., he (I...livered. a bill of exchange,
which had been duly paid ; and lastly, that he had paid the
sum of 121. 10s. into Court, and that the plaintiff had not
suffered greater damage. This the plaintiff denied, and
thereupon issue was f

Mr. PLATT said the plaintiff by this action sought to recover
the balance due to him from the defendant for business done
and money advanced. The first item in the account was
891. 6s. 1 ld., part of which demand arose in this way. A
gentleman named Lilley had some money transactions with
Mr. flays, and the money not being forthcoming, proceedings
were taken, and he was compelled to pay. As there was
some doubt as to the legality of the trans action, on the ground
of usury, the defendant employed the plaintiff to commence an
action for the purpose of recovering the penalty of 3001., in
which the brother-in-law of Hays (Mr. Fisher), allowed his
name to be used as plaintiff, and Me. flays himself was a wit-
ness. The case was heard in the Court of Common Pleas, and
the jury found for defendant. The bit of costs was sent to Mr.
Hays in March, and application made for payment, to which the
defendant replied on the 21st• May, making no objection to
the amount, and promising to pay in the course of the next
month. The next item arose in this way : —Mr. Hays had
given a cheque for 151., which was returned unpaid, and an
action was brought; and on the 24th October Mr. Lewis paid
the debt and costs, amounting to 161. 19s. In November, the
same year, Mr. Lewis lent him 501., it being necessary to raise
some of the money on a bill for 1001., drawn by Mr. Rays upon
a person named Somers, and 101. was paid for discounting.
The next item was for debt and costs again, Mr. Welsh, the
landlord of Mr. Hays, having brought an action for rent
amounting to nearly 35/., and Mr. Lewis having paid 411.
being debt and costs. The last item was in an action at the
suit of a person named Spire, the holder of a bill of ex.
change of 50/., for which Mr. Hayes was responsible, Mr. Lewis
staying the proceedings by the payment of 511. 6s. The whole
amount claimed was 2591. ls. 7d., against which credit was
given for 1001. and deducting also the sum paid into Court,
the balance claimed would be reduced to 1461. I ls. 7d.
After the examination of several witnesses to prove the fact
of the case,
Mr. THESSIGER addressed the Jury for the defendant, and
called Mr. Fisher, who is now confined in the Fleet priscn, to
prove that he was the person who brought the action against
Mr. Lilley.
Other witnesses proved the payment of different sums.
Mr. Baron ALDERSON charged the Jury, remarking that the
only points for them to decide were whether Fisher or Hays
were liable for the bill of costs, and whether there had been
any agreement that Mr. Lewis should have merely the costs
out of pocket.
The Jury found that Hays was liable, and that Mr. Lewis
was entitled to the usual costs.