The Sun.
London, England, 1807-11-03 00:00:00

THOMAS WILLOCK V. JORM BRADDOCK. • .

The Plaintiff, in this a&ion, charged the De-
fendant with not selling certain
.goods-, for the
Plaintiff's account, in a mercantile
.Matiner ; with
not insuring property, according to orders, in a ship
called the Co/ambit! : there were ten counts be-
sides, , for money had Bud received. The pleas 'were,
the Siatate of Limitations—no promises,
set-off; and further, a rejoinder, that the Plaintiff
was, and had' been in America since the cause of
action accrued ; to which issue Wasioined, that tbe
Plaintiff 'was in England.
Mr..GAit now said,- that as to not disposing, of
.the
goods in a mercantile way, and as to the additional.
neglect in the Defendant; not to insure'thproperty
in the Columlia,, he should not trouble the. Gentle-
men of the. Jury. He sought to recover 6271. 18s.
6d. with interest from the .26th•tif Sept. -1800,
which the Defendant himself acknowledged to be
due, by .his own account. He further sought the
damages resulting from the non-acceptance and
non-payment ofa, bill for 6001. on the Defendant,
he. having effeas in his hands .4elurigkilg •to the
Plaintiff, to that amount. The questions for the
consideration of the July were two, fur they had no-
.thing, to do with the Statute of. Limitations : Ist. If
the Defendant could establish any 'Set off against his
own account ; ed. It' he could resist the lobs arising
frOm The dishonour of the bill for 6001: he haVing,
by his own
.statement; . the money in his hands .to
answer to it?

• Several' witnesses were called, and the account
Was produCed, dated the 2501 of September; 1800,
in which the Defendant acknowleged himself to be
debtor to the Plaintiff in the sum of 6271. 18s. (id.
The ATTdRNEY-GENERAL' for the Defendant,
acknowledged. that his client, had stated that he was
indebted to that extent. He said, that Mr. Braddock
was formerly in partnershipi with a Mr. Cox, who,
during that connexion, veitt to America. He was
there in 1800, and conduCted himsejf in a mantier so
dissolute and extravagant, that it became. neceuary to
dissolve the partnership in that year, which Was (long
by notiee in the Gazette; and in all the AMerican Pa-
pers. Before this event, Braddock and Cox had
transacted businisty with the Plaintiff, and the ac-.
count stated was sent on the .25th of November,
1800. But all these accounts involVed the condi-
tion of errors excepted, and two bills were excluded
by mistake from -it to the amount of 1100 l: The
.one was dated the 29th October, 1799, for 3001.;
the other on the ,18th of November following, for
8001. and both. were drawn by Cox, at bo days, on
Braddock and Cox, in favour of Willock.

After the evidence had been gone into on the na-
ture of the accounts between the parties,
,Lord ERLENBOROUGH said, that it was qdite clear,
that the bottom of these transactions was not dis-
closed. It was' extremely improbable, that a mer-
chant should send out an account of ,this kind,
making two such material omissions; and it might
be, that these bills ware satisfied in some other con-
cerns between the parties.
In the aequel it was agreed, that a verdi& for
8001. should be taken ; that 6281. should be ad-
vanced by the Defendant, and laid gut at interest ;
and that the whole should be.refetrecl to the, arbitra-
tion of Mr. Waddington ; the books and all pa-
Pers to be produced to the arbitrator.

.108 W SMITH V. JAMES MAIM

The Plaintiff and Defendant are both merchants.
The action was brought fcir 4241.. ss. ed. on an
award of Mr. RondeaW, of which 141. 12s Gd:
were, the .tcoits of the arbitration. The defenee
was, a set-off with .Mr. John Maire, the brother of
the Defendant, to which, however, the concurrence
of the Defendant was not proved. In the sequel, a
verdi6t was given for the Plaintiff 4091. 123. 84.
being the total amount of the award, deducting the
costs. •

Lord Et.LENBOROUGH remarked, that it was very
proper the costs should NI paid by the party against
whom the award was given, but it, could not be en-
forced unless it wail Stated in the submission that the.
tOsts should be so discharged;

There vas no ,Court of Aldernien- held to-day.
The Loan-MAYom, after inspetling the Returns,
ordered the price of Bread to continue at the late
rednetiOn.

The Edinburgh Paper of Thursday last says :--
" Yesterday the Loan ?uovosr received, by a
King's Messenger, a letter from the Seciretary at
State, informing, that his ikle..tas:ry had given per-
niission to the Count Do tit LE, his, family,, and
suite, to occupy the apartrtients in Holyrood HOuse,
which were formerly inhabited by Royal High-
ness Morrsigpa, and desiring his Lordship to cause
the'necessary arrangements to be [wide."
Married.thii morning, at St. George's, Hanover-
square, by the Rev, R. COLLETT, JOHN TATHAMJ,'.
Esq. of Craven-street, to Miss'JONES, daughter of
WILLIAM JuNks, 4sq. of Charles-street, Grosve-
nor-square.