The Sun.
London, England, 1825-01-13 00:00:00

VICE-CHANCELLOR'S COURT, JAN. 12.

. _
A motion of no public importance, respecting the validity of
a case of building-ground, has occupied this Court for the last
two days : the judgment will probably be delivered to-morrow.

COURT OF KING'S BENCH, JAN. 12.

Before Lord Chief Justice ABBOTT, and a Common Jury.

HARTL.EY V. CASE•
Mr. CHITTY opened the pleadings. This was an action
brought by the plaintiff to recover the amount of a Bill of Ex-
change, payable four months after date, for 1501., drown on the
13th of April, 1824, by the defendant, Richard Justice Case,
jun., upon Richard Justice Case, sen., and endorsed over to the
plaintiff by a person of the name of Clifford. The defendant
pleaded that he was not liable, and upon that point issue was
joined.
Mr. SCARLETT stated the case to the Jury. The plaintiff
was an attorney, residing in Bridge-street, Blackfriars ; and
the circumstances underwhich he had acquired the Bill of Ex-
change which formed the subject of this action, might be nar-
rated in a very short compass. Mr. Hartley, in the course of
business, had received a Bill of Exchange, on which were the
names of two persons, Russell and Clifford, of whom he knew
nothing except that they were two of the parties to whom the
holders of the bill had a right to look for its satisfaction. That
bill was dishonoured on becoming due, and Mr. Hartley, in
' consequence, found it necessary to institute proceedings against
them both. To satisfy the debt and costs which were thus in-
curred, Mr. Hartley agreed to take four bills of 501. each at
different dates, which were all successively dishonoured as they
became due. Actions were instituded upon them, and various
proceedings were going on, when Russell called upon the plain-
tiff with a bill for 1501., drawn by the defendant, accepted
by his father, and endorsed by Clifford, and said that if he
would discount it, it would enable Clifford to redeem certain
securities, which were in the possession of Mr. Kaye, and
which, when restored to his hands, would enable him to
discharge the debt which he owed to Mr. Hartley. At the
same time lie referred him to four or five persons of credit
for the respectability of the Cases, and Mr. Hartley, having
made the necessary enquiries, thought that he might safely
advance the money,. to redeem Clifford's securities. He
accordingly sent for Mr. Kaye, who admitted that he had
certain securities belonging to Clifford, but told him that a
commission had been issued against that person, which, how-
ever, it was likely would be superseded, as only three or four
creditors had proved debts under it. Mr. Hartley in conse-
quence paid to Mr. Kaye the amount of the demand which he
had upon Clifford, and gave to Clifford his check and draughts
at a short date for the remainder of the sum ; so that, whatever
might be the nature of this transaction, either between the two
Cases, or between them and Cliffbrd, it could not affect the in-
terests of the plaintiff', who had given full value for the bill.
He was led to suppose that, the defence which would that day
be offered to their consideration would be this—that this was a
mere accommodation bill between Clifford and Case. He
would, however, tell them thus early that it was no such thing,
but paper, which had been given by Case to Clifford in ex-
change for some which Clifford had given to Case. He would
now prove to them the formal parts of the case he had opened
to them, and after he had done that, would look forward with
confidence to the verdict.
The handwriting of the drawer and accepter of the bill was
then proved, as was also its presentment and dishonour on the
16th of August. The answer which the witness who presentrd
it received, was, that there was no money there at the time of
the presentment, but that there might be some in the course of
the day.
Samuel Page, a clerk of the plaintiff, proved that the en-
dorsement of Clifford. On his cross-examination he said " 1
know of no transactions between the plaintiff and Clifford pre-
vious to some respecting a 98/. bill, which took place two years
ago. I don't know that Clifford was at that time a bankrupt.
I do not know when he became so, or that it was before this
1501. bill came into Mr. Harley's hands. I believe that this

Clifford is the same person who was recently convicted at W,,st-
minster. I know that at the time when Clifford gave this 150/.
to Mr. Hartley, he was in custody in the King's Bench
upon three detainers lodged against him by Mr. Hart-
ley. He was -in custody so far back as August, 1823. I
do not know that he used to get out and transact busi-
ness from time to time in Ely-place., The 98/. bill I spoke
of was drawn by a person of the name of Stubbs, upon a
person of the name of Binks. Mr. Hartley sued Binks
for it. Ido not know, either from Mr. Hartley or any other
person, that Mr. Rinks, refused to pay it, saying that it hadbeen
got from him by a foul conspiracy. Mr. Binks has not paid
the bill. The cause of Hartley and Binks was put down
for trial in December, 1823 ; it never was tried.
On his re-examination, he said, Clifford was detained at the
suit of Hartley for three bills of 50/. each, given for the debt
and costs due on the 98/. bill. I was not in the office when the
150/. bill was trought by Hartley to 7 Clifford, I know that
after it was brought, he sent to make inquiries about the Cases.
Another clerk was called to prove that a letter had been sent
on the 16th of August to the defendant by the plaintiff*, The
letter was put in and read. It stated that the party writing it
was desired to apply for the payment of a bill for 150/., drawn
by Mr. Case on Mr. Case, and hoped that it would be imme-
diately paid to prevent the necessity of law proceedings.
Mr. Charles Kaye was then examined.—l know nothing of
this bill transaction. I attended at Mr. Hartley's office in
consequence of asummons which he had taken out to stay pro-
ceedings in an action which I was conducting against Clifford.

I received two sums of 25/. and 45/. for the debts' and costs.—
That bill of 801. is endorsed by, Clifford. I was solicitor to the
assignees under the commission which was issued in 1822
against Clifford. I was in consequence in possession of his
books. •

Cross-examined—l am not aware that at that time I had
securities of Clifford's in my hands, except some dishonoured
bills might be so called. No proceedings ever took place un-
der the commission ; there were no assets, and the commis-
sioners would not allow him to pass his examination, declaring
that they were wholly dissatisfied with his conduct..

Mr. -BROUGHAM— Did not the Commissioners say that
Clifford appeared to be in league with all the swindlers in
town ?

The LORD CHIEF JUSTICE—Even if they did say so, how
can we hear it ? They are most respectable men, no doubt.,
but we cannot admit what they say as evidence in this Coast.
Gentlemen ought to know better than to put such a question to
a witness.

The witness continued—Clifford attempted to settle with his
creditors, and a petition was prepared to supersede the commis-
sion issued against him.
The LORD CHIEF' JUSTICE here addressed himself to Mr.
Scarlett, and said, " I have been doubting for some time whe-
ther the letter of the I6th of August was a sufficient notice to
the defendant of the dishonour of this bill."
Mr. SCARLETT contended that it was a sufficient notice.--
There was no set form of words in which such notice must be
drawn up. The threat that legal proceedings would become
necessary if the bill were not instantly paid, distinctly proved
that the bill must have been dishonoured.

The LORD CHIEF JUSTICE—That is a mere inference from
the letter; is that sufficient?
Mr. BROUGHAM reminded his Lordship that the bill was
only due on the day when this letter was written.
The LORD CHIEF JUSTICE.—If there is any authority
which will render this notice sufficient, Mr. Chitty can perhaps
inform us of it.

I

Co'
takt
CO
the)
Alt
the

Mr. CHITTY contended that the notice contained in the letter
was sufficient, but admitted that he did not know of any case
running exactly like the present.
Mr. SCARLETT then put in a letter from Mr. John Harri-
son, the defendant's attorney, dated August 17, in which it was
stated, that Mr. Case had handed him a letter of Mr. Hartley,
of the 9th, requesting him to pay this hill of 150/. when it be-
came due; that he therefore informed Mr. Hartley that Mr. ,
Case intended to resist the payment of it ; that he (Mr. Harri-
son) would receive any process which Mr. Hartley might issue
against Mr. Case, and that he would give Mr. Hartley the ne-
cessary undertaking.
The Loan CHIEF JUSTICE—This does not supply the de-
ficiency ; for if it is to prove any thing, it proves the dishonour
of the bill on the 9th.
Mr. BROUGHAM (for the defendant)—Nire call for the letter,
to which this letter of' Mr. Harrison's is an answer. as
Mr. SCARLETT—We have not that letter, and we stand on I 11
that which we first put in.
Mr. BROUGHAM—That letter would show that the 3lr.
Case alluded to in Mr. Harrison's letter, was Mr. Case, the
father, the acceptor of the bill, who is since dead, and not Mr.
Case, the son, who is the defendant in this action.
The LORD CHIEF JUSTICE agreed with Mr. Scarlett in
thinking that—there was no set form of words prescribed for.: 34
giving notice of the dishonour of a hill ; but must not there he:
something in the letter informing the party specifically of it. anti'‘
not something, as a threat of legal proceedings, from which he tie
might infer it ?
Mr. SCARLETT—The only object of the notice is to put the bii
drawer on his guard.- -
pq
The LORD CHIEF JUSTICE—And therefore he ought to be II"
specifically informed of the fact in order to put him on his • le
guard, I think. After a short pause, his Lordship continued--
It seems to me quite clear, that the notice is not sufficient.-- eui
It ought to apprize the drawer of a fact, which this notice does pi
not. The letter of the 17th does not apply at all to the subject. tt
If any thing, it makes the case stronger against the plaintiff, es, :Is
indeed, does the evidence, from which it appears that on the e'
day when this letter was written, the person who presented it I
was told that there was no money there then, but that there err
might be some in the course of the day. I think, therefore, the °:
plaintiff must be nonsuited.
The plaintiff was nonsuited accordingly. .

I
t ei

The Carlow Morning Post pronounces the
paragraph which we copied from the Irish Times,
respecting the seizure of 500 pikes in Carlow,
to be an " infamous falsehood."
CURIOUS DISCLOSURE.—The trial of Macan (It"
and Forde, two thieves, before the Commission's
could not, fail to have excited the attention of
the reader. A peace-officer asserted that a fel'
low came to him to let him know that he vras
going to rob, and to ask to borrow money to as'
sist in the commission of the felony ? He
.told
the Court and Jury that the fellow was not take°
up as a vagrant, or held to bail, or proceeded
against in any shape; and next he revealed the
fact of this same fellow having waited upon biro,
on a former occasion, to apprise the police of his :4,
having been concerned in posting Rock notices ill =Q
Chapelizod ! Really these are curious disclo-
sures.—(Dublinlilorning Register.)

- -
FIRE.—( Windsor, Jan. 12. ) —This morning, about seven
o'clock, a fire broke out at the paper-mills at Horton, neat
Windsor, belonging to Messrs. Tipper and Fry, of Londont
which was completely consumed, with another adjoining for the
manufacture of mill boards 'and brown papers. Three roe'
went to work at the mill at four o'clock this morning, and it i 5 "k
supposed a lighted candle dropped unknown among the paPer.
in the upper part of the mill, where the fire originated, whicl"
was not discovered until too late. Prompt assistance was relv;
dered, but the buildings being all wood, with such quantity 0'
paper, all attempts to save it was useless, and they were soya pr
consumed. A third mill adjoining the other two, was saved,
having a party wall. We understand that the above propertia cu
is insured at the Sun Fire-office to the amount of between 700
or 80001.
of, it.

COAL MARKET, J. 12.
Ships at Nlarket. Ships sold
62 Newcastle -
19 Sunderland - -

Price,
—s Od to —9 0
33s Od to 43s 6a_

to
MARRIED.
On the 11th inst., at Rodborough, Thomas Adlington, Fsterz
of Upper Tooting, Surrey, to Mary, the only daughter of to th
late Peter Smith, Esq.,'Walbridge, of Gloucestershire. 11;
On Tuesday, the 11th inst., at the College chapel, the'Re:,
Thomas W. Champnes, rector of Fulmer, Rucks, and Coto' Ti
ford, Oxon, to Miss Langford, of Eton Collego. 11;

....-- 1)k
DIED. ill
On the sth inst., in her 73d year, in Newman-street, 31x5, of
Maunteney : she was the eldeit daughter of the late Sir «'l le
Liam Barclay, Bart., of Pierston, Ayrshire, and sister to t" SI
late Captain Sit James Barclay, Bart., Royal Navy. ,,,. gi
On the sth inst., at Richmond-green, Thomas Walmes"l" ti
Esq., aged 56.
On the 12th inst., at his house in Bentinck-street, Geode p
Ranking, Esq. 1,4,
Early on Monday morning, the 10th inst., Richard WO t/
son, Esq., M.D., aged 40, at his house in Argyll-street. jr,. 11
This week a shoemaker died in Barrofield, and was yes°
dayinterred in the Calton burying-ground, aged 104.---(Giar
gow Chronicle.)
_...4

Printed and Published for the PROPRIETORS, at she
OFFICE, No. 112, strandTly J. B. CensTIKAS•