The Sun.
London, England, 1831-12-08 00:00:00

DRUMMOND v. BURT.

This was an action brought by the plaintiff, a solicitor,
to recover damages from the defendant, who was also a
solicitor, for an alleged libel. As the Special Jury were
being called into the box,
Mr. CAMPBELL, for the defendant, looked at the record,
( which filled many sheets of parchment) and said be thought
it his duty to intimate to his Lordship that the plaintiff had
made an application to a Judge at chambers to be allowed
to amend the record, which was refused, and now it appeared
th it the record notwithstanding had several alterations in
it. He had an affidavit to prove that the plaintiff's clerk
had made those alterations.

Sir JAMES SCARLETT, for the plaintiff, stated that he
was not aware of that circumstance, and that he understood
the application to a Judge at chambers had been to add
another count to it.

His LORDSHIP said he was willing to go on with the
cause if the parties liked.
It was here intimated that the plaintiff's clerk, who
made the alterations, was in Court.
Lord TENTERDEN desired the record to be handed
up to him, and upon examining it with his copy,
stated that his copy, which had Mr. Drummond's
name at the back, did not contain those names which ap-
peared to have been introduced into the record. Those
names seemed to have been introduced in order to show
special damage by the persons refusing to employ the
plaintiff.
Sir JAMES SCA RLZIT, after consulting with his client.
said it was exceedingly improper to alter a record with-
out the permission of a Judge; but he hoped, under the
circumstances, his Lordship would allow his client to strike
out those names.

Mr. CAMPBELL opposed that application, and
Lord TENTERDEN said he thought he ought not to grant
it considering that a person had taken upon himself to alter
the record without the order of the Court.
After some further discussion, Sir JAMES SCABLETT
said it was with great regret that he felt the most advisable
course to pursue was to withdraw the record.

The record was accordingly withdrawn.
MORRIS V. MULLETT AND WIFE.

Mr. CONYN, on the part of the plaintiff, stated that this
was an action brought by the plaintiff, a surgeon, to re-
cover of the defendant and his wife a sum of 2001., being
the amount of a bond executed by the defendant's wife on
the 20th of August, 1812, previous to her marriage. The
defence was that at the time of the execution of the bond
the defendant's wife was under age.
Sir J. SCARLETT, as Counsel for the defendants, ad-
dressed the Jury, and stated that as his clients, by their
plea, stated that Mrs. Mullett was under the age of 21
when she signed the deed, it was his duty in the first
instance to prove the truth of that plea, and if he suc-
ceeded in doing so it would be a valid defence. The
Learned Counsel having stated the circumstances of the
case, called— •

Elizabeth Giles, the eldest sister of Mrs. Mullett, who
stated that her sister was born the beginning of 1795,
or latter end of 1794; that in 1799 their father died,
and in 1810 their mother died. The plaintiff bad at-
tended their mother in his professional capacity, and had
also lent her some money ; after the mother's death, and
at the solicitation of the plaintiff, the witness and her sister
joined in the bond in question to the plaintiff for
the amount of his demand. The witness swore that
when the bond was executed she told the plaintiff and Mi.
Burton, his attorney, that her sister was under age, but
they replied, it was of no consequence. Her sister mar-
ried the defendant, who is an upholsterer in the city, in
1815. In that year the witness took the benefit of the
Insolvent Debtors' Act, and thus got exonerated from the
bond.

Several other witnesses were called to prove that Mrs.
Mullett was under age when she signed the bond.
Mr. GURNEY, for the plaintiff, called Mr. Burton,
attorney for the plaintiff, who stated that when Mrs. Mul-
lett excuted the band she appeared to be 22 or 23 years
of age. He also swore that the first witness did not tell
him that her sister was under age. _ _ _

Two other witnesses were called to state their belief in
Mrs. Mullett's age.
His LORDSHIP having summed up,
The Jury found a verdict for the plaintiff. Damages 2001

THE MARKETS.-(THIS DAY.)
GENERAL AVERAGE PRICE OF BRITISH CORN,
For the Week ended Dec. 2, 1831, made up from the Returns
of the Inspectors in the different Cities and Towns in England
and Wales, per Imperial Quarter.
Wheat-61s. Bd.l Oats „--- 233. od.l Beans—,....„ 395. 11d.
Barley-38s. 3d.1 Rye 38i. 7d Pease— 445. sd.
IA PERIM. AGGREGATE AVERAGES OF TUE SIX WEEKS PRECEDING.
Wheat....".... 61s. 10d I Oats --- 235. Id.l Beans,.-- 403. Gd.
8ar1ey..~...., 395. Id.l Rye 38s. 4,1.1 Pease...-- 445. 4d.