The Sun.
London, England, 1809-12-26 00:00:00

• '.c:;t, but believed it was not lost when Mr. Parkin
wa* in town about the time it became due, which
.cas io, th 2 inonth of
,Nov. 1796. The
.witness had
itaxched 'tor the note a.. great many times, li-ut
a was
unabie to find.-it. The. witne,,s had ;erice a
conversation with the dafendant in tite,early part of
. the year 17945 there Was a bill drawn; by Mr Par-
kin, the defendant, on the plaintiff,"whiCh had not
been duly attended to, for he was then in the plain-
- tiff's debt, on .which occasion, said the witness, Mr.
Parkin was very much out of humour at the circum-.
stance, and „insisted 'that the state of pis accounts,
\va,i such that the bill-ought to have been accepted.
I then told hint, .notwithstanding what he asserted
about the state of his accounts, lie was aware that
he owed 'Mr. Willan a considerable sum of money
More than Was on the face of that account : he said,
" that was nothing_to me, that was between Mr.
Willan and him, and I had nothing to dO with it ;
that I, had nothing to do with any thing but the ac-
counts before me."
,These coach accounts did not
include the note in question.
Cross-examined by Mr. GURNEY.

He said that the defendant was in the habit of
transmitting bills and drafts, and making other re-.
Mittancesp the plaintiff, to take up his (the de-•
iendant's) acceptances -in. town. The defendant's
letter, in answer to that of the plaintiff's attorney,
demanding payment of this money, was then read;
it contained the following expression, as opened by
the - Attorney-General You may -be assured,
that, on delivery of his (Mr. Willan's) account, if I.
owe him-any. thing,- he shall be paid ; but I expel-
he is in my debt."
Mr. GURNEY addressed the Jury for the defend-
ant. He submitted it to be an extraordinary thing,
that this note was not demanded payment of when
it became due ; or that Mr. Willan had not taken
care to pay himself in the course of the account
which he had with Mr. Parkin, and that no 'pay-
ment had been demanded from the year 1796 lc,
the'year 1805.
Lord ELLENEOROUGH, Laving , summed up the
evidence to 'the Jury, left it to them to say whetho
they belieted the evidence of the defendant's an-
swer in Chancery, in.which he had sworn that he
had paid the note; or that of Mr. Sill, who posi-
tively contradioted it, and who sWore • positively that
no such convetsatiwi as that related by the defend-
ant ever took place; nor did any such agreement as
he referred to take effeet.—Verdid for the

BARLOW V. MACKINTOSH.
Mr. ATTORNRY-GRNBLAL staid, that this was 3.n
anion on a policy of insurance on goods, in a
vessel which went on a voyage from hence to
Holland, by license of his Majesty, under his
sign manual; it was on goods; if they should be
lost between Dunkirk and the Weser.—Now he
had nothing to prove, but that. Rotterdam was
between Dunkirk and the Weser ; for the vessel
was seized there, and the goods confiscated.
The vessel was afterwards restored, but the goods '
were not. -
The Captain proved that fa& and the license
was produced ; but it was not proved that the li-
ce! ate was aaually granted to the party who held it ;
and therefore
Lord EI:LENEOROUGH held, that this license would
not do ; and it would be extremely dangerous to
give, it effect, v.;ithout prOof ; it V( as given byt`ie
Crpwn to the inaividual who held it ; for then any
person, who obtained a license, might sell'it to any
body else, wilum the Crown had it :nor in
.COHletll-
- to trust ; or the person who had it might
lose it' out of his pocket, and any body who might
pick it up, might trade with it, contrary to the will
of the Crown ; and therefore the plaintiff must be
called (nonsuited.)—Plaintiff nonsuited.