The Sun.
London, England, 1836-11-15 00:00:00

BROOKS V. FARLOW AND BROOKS V. BOLLAND.

Mr. Sergeant STEPHEN appeared to show cause against
a rule which had been obtained in this case, which con-
sisted of two actions brought upon a bill of exchange for
2001., one action against the drawer, Farlow, and the other
against Bolland, the acceptor. The declaration in the first
instance, in the case of Brooks v. Farlow, contained a count
upon a bill of exchange against the defendant as drawn for
money paid, and an account stated. The defendant de-
murred to the declaration on the ground of its having set
forth " a bill of exchange for 2001., four months after date,
which period had already elapsed," instead of stating " which
period had elapsed before the commencement of this suit."
The declaration was amended by consent, and the amended
declaration stated the period had elapsed before the
commencement of the suit ; and also the count
for money paid, and the account stated had been
struck out of the declaration, and it now consisted
exclusively of the count upon the bill of exchange.
The time for pleading to the declaration expired on the 7th
of November, and the plaintiff had delivered his bill of
particulars, claiming 941. as part of the consideration of the
bill of exchange mentioned in the declaration. The de-
fendant, previously to the expiration of this time, took out a
summons for a detailed particle of the said sum mentioned
in the particulars of the demand. The case came before
Mr. Justice Parke, who refused to make the order prayed,
and dismissed the summons, but gave the defendant two
further days for pleading. This further time expired on
the 9th of November, and in the mean time his Learned
Friend, Mr. Sergeant Bompas, was instructed to apply to
the Court for particulars, and he obtained a rule Nisi.

The LORD bIIIEF JUSTICE did not know that the decla-
ration contained only one count. He understood that there
were two.

Mr. Sergeant STEPHEN believed that the motion for a
rule was granted on the ground that the declaration con-
tained two counts. The defendant was not entitled to a
bill of particulars upon a count founded upon a bill of
exchange.

Mr.-Sergeant BOMPAS appeared to support the rule.
He contended that the action ought not to be brought
upon a bill of exchange, but for goods sold and delivered.
The bill of exchange having been given to the plaintiff for
goods delivered at various times, part of the bill of ex-
change had been drawn. The question between the parties
was not the amount of the bill of exchange, but of part of it,

!d.

being in fact the amount of certain goods sold and delive,
He begged to state that when he applied for the rule, he
was not aware that the declaration had been amended.
The LORD CHIEF JUSTICE was Sure that the rule Would
never have been granted if they had known the state of the
record. He distinctly understood that there was a count
for an account stated, as well as for a bill of exchange, and
a party was entitled to a good bill of particulars upon a
general count of an account stated. It now turned out
that there was no count at all except the count upon the
bill of exchange, and that was a count upon which a party
was not entitled to a bill of particulars at all, unless strong
special cause were made of the utter inability of the party
not knowing how to go on with his defence. This was not
the case in the present instance. It seemed to him, there-
fore, to be a case in which they ought to confirm the order
made by the Learned Judge (Parke), who bad the case
before him at Chambers. In his opinion that Learned
Judge was quite right in his determination, and the rule
must be discharged with costs.—The rule was accordingly
discharged.