The Sun.
London, England, 1824-07-23 00:00:00

LAW INTELLIGENCE.

COURT OF'COMMON PLEAS, Juix 22.
Before the Lord•CldefJnstice BEST and Special Juries.

Mr. F. POLLOCK• opened the Pleadings: The plaintiffs in
this Action were the assignees of the estate of John Legh and
Co., bankrupts, and the defendants were Messrs. Morlands,
Auriol, and , bankers, in Pall-mall. The action was for
money, had and- received. The defendants had pleaded the
general issue, and on that point issue had been joined.
Mr. Sergeant ‘IttLDE opened the case for the plaintiff, which,
ha said, contained inure materials of confusion than any cause
which he had known during his experience at the bar. He
would, however, exert his unnost endeavour to simplify it, and
to present isan as clear a shape as poisible for the consideration
of the jury. This action was brought to recover 6,0001., be-
ine the proceeds of six bills of exchange for 1,0001. each, which
the bankrupt John Legh had deposited in the hands of the de-
fendants. The question which the jury would have to decide
was simply this—had the defendants any set-off to seduce the
claim which his clients made upon them ? The defendants
admitted that they had received the six bills of exchange ; but
they said that they had one set-off against theta of 4.0801. 10e.
10d. in respect or three bills which they had discounted
for ihe Orrel and Pemberton Coal Company, of which the
bankrupt John 14%.11 bad been the agent ; and another act-off
of I 4804.113.- &E. w high stuorr*„..h.7l.tet."/“.d •74.
on his private banking account; which, with a sum of
90. that had been paid into Court, would make up the sum of
6,0001. claimed by the plaintiff's. l'he items which made up the
sum ofat;0881. 10e. 101-would all depend upon the same prin.
ciple; imiLas the chief question in the cause arose out of them,
he should shortly proceed to state it, merely informing his
learned friends on the other side, that he should put them to
the strict proof that the bankrupt had overdrawn his account
by li2Bol. with the-defendriats. -In the commencement of the
,year. 111.12,44eperel and Pemberton Coal Campany stood in
neednf Pectiniery essistance, and applied for it to Mr. aforland,
through th'eagency ache bankrupt, who asked them to discount
for that Compiinybil own note of hand for 1,2501., and two bills,
one of 1,500/. and another of 1,0004, drawn upon a person of
Stephen's-green, Dublin. At the
the.tnl
entahme
seri ofbi
?as;
erreesid discounted,ing
the bankrupt deposited with
Memel's. Morlands six bills of eichange, as a collateral security ;
and the pment action was brought to recover their proceeds, as
the bills which they had been given to secure had some time ago
been discharged. The defendants contended that those bills had
'not been discharged ; and if they could establish that point, they
had a right to retain so much of proceeds of the six bills as
would protect them from any loss. He must now Inform the
Jury, that the Orell and Pemberton Coal Company kept un
account with the defentiant—t het thebank rupt, John Legit, also
kept an account with them ; as did also his brother, Mr. '.l`.
Leg!), the al ember for Newton, who was under several guarane
tees to thetm for the Oriel and Pemberton Coal Company. It
was his dety that day to contend that the three bills for 3,7501.
had been cleseharie;ed by the Orrell and Pemberton Coal Com.
pany ; and in doing so he should chiefly rely upon an account
which the defendants themselves had delivered into that Coin.
pany. It appeared from that account, that the three bills to
which he had alluded were dishonoured when they became doe;
that the defendants had placed them to tile debit side of the Or.
eel and Pemberton Coal Company's amount; that they had
afterwards received many large peyinents upon that account,
and had finally closed it by receiving as balance from Mr. Legh
the large Kum of 33,748!. Now it was not for him to say what
the accounts were between Mr. T.Leiell and the defendants; he
had only to contend that they had no right to retain the pro.
seeds of the bankrupt's bill on account Wetly claimsthey might
suppose themselves to have upon hie brother Mr. T. IRO: He
laid it down as a clear point of law, that when banker had
demand against his customer, which he placed on the debit able
of the cuettnuer's account, audavheis n 4 went on receiving and
rg paying lae sums ofmoney on- behalf of that customer, he had
no righted the dosing of the account-to go beek and select any
particular item of it, and
,say that it had not been paid. The
sums received must always be considered as going to the pee-
ment of the oldest item*, and could not he placed .oppositiiin
to any particular item which the banker might think it proper
to selects: ta
This prieci pie had bees e s
hliehed Dewainc's
(*Use, and- Nl,W,tiorl 'considered tts indisputable law. Acting ,
upon this principle, he contended that the three bills to which
he had be:ore alluded were fully satisfied by statue which the
defendants acknowledged themselves to have received on be-
half ofetlat Orrel arid Pemberton Coal coequy,
after the di4.
honoor of the hills was notified to diem. -If he made that
point out iti evidence, his ioraship, he was eure, would tell
them that they mbst, -in Paint at' law, end a verdict for his
Clients.
The rule for paying into Court 6321. 19s. 9d. was then put
iii and tend, for the purpose of proving that the plaintiffe were
the assignees under the commission issued against Juhn Legh
And C 0.,.
alr;-Sergeant Teseny, for the defendants, submitted, that
as they bed given notice to the pl.tietille at the tithe -they paid
thiS money into Court, flint they should call anon them to
prove the act of bankruptcy, and the subsequent proceedingsunder the corninission, the payment of that money into Court
might not be considered as a waver at their right to dispute
that which they had given notice at the time of making the
payment, that they would dispute by every means in their
power

- COURT OF CHANCERY, JULY 22.
THORNTON' v. CURLING.
Mr. SHADWEL I. applied to the Court on the part of the
plaintiff; son of the late Colonel Thornton, of sporting notoriety,
for an injunction to restrain 'the defendant front receiving the
rents in France or England, or otherwise disposing of any part
of the personal property of Colon ,t Thornton. The eircum-
stances, it appeared from ih statement of the Learned Co nisei,
were shortly these. Colonel Thornton .marriAl towards the
close of'lBo6, and in the beginning of 1807 the present plaintiff
was born. In 1812 the Colonel separated fro.n his wife, and
visited France in 1814, where he finally fixed his residence in
1816, carrying with him a lady not his wife. By a Royal Or-
dinance, he obtained permission to establish his domicile in
that country, where lie purchased an estate in 1817. He sub-
sequently sent over from England, pictures, plate, furniture, a
valuable stud of horses, and other personal property to a con-
siderable amount; and in various letters to the public Autho-
rities, expressed his determination to reside in France, and
hie wish to become to all intent.; and purposes a French
sublect if he could obtain letters of naturalisation. lie-died
in 18133. leavinchlicerite end-child, the only persons a .111-
ing to the Ittell'Or•England entitled to his
__personal prtty
in the event of his having died intestate. In 1818, however,
being at that time in England, he made a will, aff'ec:ing to
dispose otherwise of his personal property. The questitin came
before the French Tribunals, and the will was declared invalid
according to the laws of France, it having been admitted at the
same time that he was domiciled in the country. Dr. Curling,
the defendant, upon application to the Ecclesiastical Court here,
obtained probate, and the question now was what .disposition
ought to be made of the personal property under all the cir-
cumstances of the case. The Learned Counsel contended; that
the will having been declared invalid' by the laws of France,
ought to be considered invalid in England, because, had it
been valid in France, it must have been acted upon as a YOU
will in this counTe.
The LORD CHANCET.I.OR—How can I say that is not a good
will of which probate. has been granted. I must consider Dr.
Curling as acting under authority, which I cannot controul
except in case of misconduct. Such an application is quite
new in this Court. • Probate having been granted by. the Ec-
clesiastical Court, I am oconcluded'on the question as to there
• being a will or riot.
M. %Vrote.--My Lord, 1 humbly submit, that even con-
sidering Dr. Curling as trustee, the personal property ought to
be disposed of according to the laws of France.
The Lone) Cireerceeeou —lf the law of England is such
as enables me to make disposition of the personal property in
conformity to the law* of Frarice' the Court will act accord:
ingly ; but I will not 'decide that question on such a motion
as this.
The SoLtcyron-GENE RAT. said, that after the payment of
. Col. Thornton's debts, no property would in fact remain on
which either the law of England or France could operate.
The Lour> CseeereE et.Oß—Dr. Curling ought to be careful
how he acts upon this will as if it were an effectual one.
Mr. HEALD said, that Dr. Curling, in his answer, stated
a variety of circumstances which threw a doubt on the question
whether or not Col.- Thornton was domiciled in France.
Mr. SHADIVELL said there was one curious circumstance in
this case. The JUdge in France, to whom an appeal had
been made, said he would wine to no decision until the judg-
meat of that Court brad been previously given.
The Loan CHANcrt.r.Ort—;-It is clear, whoever may dec'de
first, that, probate haviegbern.granted, I can come to no de-
cision on such a motion as this. The question of domicil: is in
many cases a.very nice one. lt is often a difficult matter to say
what place is to be properly called a man's domicile. Had
Col. '1 hornton died in the East Indies, in the service of the
Company, he would not be considered as domicided there.—
Dying, however, in the King's service, it would be considered
his domicile.-111otion refused.

DAVIS AND OTIIERS, ASSIGNEES OF LEGH, v. 31011T.AND
AND CO.

COURT OF KING'S BENCH, GUILLITIALL, JULY 22.
This day the for.. London were. resumed before tit
LORD CD iEr Jt; sl'l6r.: and Con-pon Jnri4,l4.

eitice v. neriteEej,
This was an action bretig,ht by the plaintiff, who is a bake: re.
siding at Southend; to recover core ee9eiitiou, in damages, from .the
defendant, who is an twertieY liv:gio:1:-.14:1Lniwt7%,nlotc:Phhhcoelf,,t,(1
negligence in the conduct Of an
undertaken on his behalf. The eeibtienee
.or, the c,,564 , as,
.appeared in evidence, is thie ; la. the beginning of the .year
1822, the plaintiff, who was den tueler ege, too; a• heiutte•at
the rest of twenty.saven pound iwr annum, foe the purpose
of carrel:lg on his httainess, Peeing uennPled thu Premixes
for three maths, he quitted . it, withort t given • eny
notice to the landlord ; consequence of which Mr. flay, the •
lendlord, sued hnn for the payment of belt" a year's rent,
Which he alleged to he tine. 'The . plaintiff instructed Mr..
Bullen to defend the action upon the, plea of his minority at
the period of his having entered ioto the contract. The cause
was get down for trial in the Sittiiees nfter Hilary Term, 1823:
Mr. Spurn], of Kingestreet, Cheapside, agetit to the defen-
dant, being apprehensive that the cause "night corne on on.
Seturdtty, and not having reeeietei the brief, or seen the wit-
nesses to be produced, obtained a postponement of the cause
on payment of • the come of the day, ,amounting to -IP/. Tee.,
and wrote do*n to Mr.' Bullet), apprizing him:of the.cireton-
etsnee, and requesting to send the brief and winteeses to town,
aR the cause would in all probability be called ortehe following
Monday. Accordingly the defendant ozone up to town on the
."1-uult,Yeetteti took with him the elder brother, of the plaintiff
and his servant, but emitted to sulTano the father,of the plain.
who.,he had been interacted, was the persm to prove the
minority.•, To remedy this defect in evidence, Mr. Bullen sent
of the plaintiff's brother to Macho:ter to procure the certitteate
of his brother's baptlein, but . not having returned in time, and

Air. Se'rgen n t SPANK= folklWed on the game side. It was.
unfair to presume that a. party admitted that which he gave
notice that he would dispute. If the doctrine were considered
sound, that the payment of money into Court, in an action
brought by the assignees of a bankrupt, ittlmitteii tlie validity
of the•commission, what was a defendant to do who disputed
the commission, and yet felt that he was indebted to a ,certain
point to the estate of the bankrupt, though nut to the amount
claimed by his assignees ?
...Mi. sergeant WILD atirnitted that the defendants had
given notice to his clients that tncy wouldcan upon him to prove
the proceeding; under the corramsston, Ile diA no: feel it ne. J

cessitry to argue the point which his learned friends had just
made.
The Loan CHIEF JUSTICE maintained, that the payment
of money into Court admitted the title of the plaintiffs to sue
for it. The plaintiffs were mentioned in the rule as the as-.
signees of John Legit; a bankrupt. This was an admission ~on
the part of the defendants that Legh was a bankrupt, and the,
plaintiffs were his assignees.. There was, therefore, no occa-
sion, in his opinion, to proive the proceedings under the corn.
mission. . .
Mr. Sergeant TannY requested.that a note might lie taken
of this objection, , '
His Lonnsitto Immediately assented.
Mr. Knight, the plaintiffs' attorney, was then examined : he
deposed as follows :—I received this account (producing a writ-
ten paper) from Mr. Williams, the cashier to hlorlands and
Co., as their account with the Orrel'and Pemberton Coal Com-
pany. It has been admitted by Sir 0. Duckett, one or the.
partners in the firm of Morland and Co., as their account in my
presence, and in.that of Mr. Williams. I conversed with them
regarding itabout a fortnight ago. At that time Mr. Williams
stated in the presence of Sir G. Duckett, that six bills fur
6,0001. had been received by them from Mr. John Lieh,
the bankrupt, as a r,ollateral security for their discounting
his awn note of hand far 1,2601 and two bills drawn on a per-
son of the name of Lea, at Dublin—the one tbrJ,oool., and the
other for 1,5001. 'Mr. Williams stated that there was a further
bill of 1,0001., which they had paid to John Leigh, as against
the produce of the bills fur 6,0001, which they had received. I
did not cleatly understand whether this last bill was for the Or-
rd and Pemberton Coal Company, or for Mr. John Legli's
private account; I think it was for the latter. They told me
that the three bills they discounted were dishonoured, .and
therefore they claimed the proceeds of the six bills Rs a set-off.
The three bills when dishonoured were put to 'the' debit of the
the Orrel and Pemberton Coal Company. The entry on reb.
20, 1022, is, " Bill on J. P. Lea, returned 1,1051. 'Cs. 3d.
Irish, at 81, 1,016!. 16s. 9d." The second entry is, " February
22, bill on Legh returnedl,2sol." The entry on the 20th of
February is. " 13111 on J. P. Lea, returned 1,6611 Is. 511. Irish,
at 81, 1,5271. Ils. 6d." It appears by this account that they
had credited the Orrel Company, on the 17th of January, 1022,
with two of the bills, which were afterwards returned, and the
note of 1,2501. on a subsequent day.
Cross-examined by Mr. Sergeant TADDY.—Sir 0. Duckett
wits present at the whole of the conversation whiCh I had With
Mr. Williams. lie was writing letters part of the time, but he
occasionally joined in our discussion. He discussed the ques-
-1 tion that bankers had a right to apply the sums they received to
any item they chose, notwithstanding they were in the habit
of making payments and receipts daily for the party. I men-
tioned to him, that the case of Devaines was decidedly in the
teeth of such a practice. Mr. Williams delivered *upon oath to
the Commissioners of Bankrupts the-account I have produced,
as the account regularly kept and delivered in by his house to
the Orrel and Pemberton Coal Company. I had this account
in my hand, and pointed to it, alien I had this conversation
with Sir George Duckett and Mr. Williatna. The whole dis-
cussion arose upon this paper. I pointed out to them the items
which I have mention'ed.
Re-'examined--They told use. that they had received the pro-
ceeds of the bills fort,ooo/.
The account was then :put in and read. It commenced on
the 24th of January, and concluded on the sth of September,
1222: The last item put to 'the credit of the Company was,
" Per Thomas Legit, 133,7401. 19s. Id." ,• •
Mr. Sergeant T.ADDY, for the defendants,,stated that though
he had examined Mr. Knight pretty strictly, as to the identity
of 'the account produced, he was not instructed,. nor did he
intend to contest the delivery of any account delivered by the
defendants, or to deny any receipt or payment of money that they
bad declared themselves to have made. He had cross-examined
Mr. Knight in the manner he had done, in hopes that he should
elicit something from him which would compel the plaintiffs to
call Mr. Williams, the cashier of the defendants, into the box
to explain the accounts which he had given in, and which could
not be fairly explained without him. As he only wished that
the whole transaction should be fairly before them, he would
do that which his Learned Friend ought to have done : he would
call Mr. Williams Into the box, who should state to them the
whole of this very complicated transaction. He must state to
1
thorn at this stage of the proceedings, that the defendants did
trltilgt,,,rt so much on their own account, as on ac-
counta -14egii. Ile admitted the principle of -law laid
down by his Learned Friend, that when money was paid trite
the hands of a banker on account of one atilt customers, and.
when that banker was daily paying and receiving money on his
behalf, the money paid into Ins hands must be considered as
applicable to the earliest items on the banker's account, and
could not be selected as the balance to any particular item. He
did not, however, see how that principle of law could be ap-
plied to this case, which he contended was altogether different
from the case of Devaines, to which his Learned Friend had
alluded. He would state that the transaction to the Jury in the
manner in which he intended to make it out in evidence. He
admitted thatthree different accounts had been keptat Morland's,
by John Leah, the bankrupt, by Mr. T. Legh the Member .
for Newton, and by the Orrel and Pemberton Coal Company.
Now he must state to them, that NIL 'l'. Legit was under list '
bilities generally to Messrs. Itlorlands and Co., for the Orrel
and. Pemberton Coal Company, to time arriatint of 33,000/. ; and
that he was indebted to them on their account at the period
when the bills were given which raised this action, in the sum
of 41,0601. That was a point which he wished the Jury to
keep in their remembrance. In time beginning of 1022. Mr.
John Legh, who was agent for the Orrel sad Pemberton COA
Company, applied to Messrs. Mordent' fur an advance of
money on two bills of exchange and his own trite of hand, and
requested that those bills should be placed to the credit of that
Company. Messrs. Morlands, not bang satisfied with the bills,
asked for some collateral security. In consequence, they recived
—first three bills, and afterwards two more bills of exchange for
1,0001. each drawn on the Rev. Mr. Hill. Having thusgot security
for 5,0001., they advanced 5,700!. to the Orra and Pemberton
Coal Company. Mr. John Legh, at the same-time, applied firs
an advance of 1,0001., on his own private account, and having
given a sixth bill for 1,000/. obtained it. Finding that the seen-
rity lie had given more than covered the advances which had
been made to him, Mr. John Legh asked leave to overdrair
his account. Be did so; anti by that means l'al given the de.
fendants a tiet.:off, which he should prove to them in a manner
that-r.

Cross-examined.—On the 22d of February, 1822, after these
two bills had been placed to the credit of the Company, their
account was only bad •by 1,2001. Independently of these two
bills, we made payments about the some time of 1,6801., on ac-
ceptances which we had given for them two months previously.
I do not know that the large sum of money which I stated to
have been paid to our house for Mr. T. Legit amounted 'to
48,0001. 1 know that it was about $O,OOO/. tier 40,0001. • The
account with the Orrel and Pemberton Coal Company was kept
in the usual form.
The case for the defence was closed.

Mr. Sergeant .tirieDE replied upon the evidence; and con-
tended that no answer had been given to the case which he had
made out. He bad stated that these bills had been satisfied,
two modes—first, that they had been debited to the Orrel-and
Pemberton Coal. Company, and then that they had been extin-
guished by the great payment which the bankers bad received
on its account ; and, secondly, that they had been satisfied.by
the T. ayment or 33,0001. odd, which had been made by Mr. T.
Legit. His Learned Friend had asserted that no Much pay-
ment had ever been made by Mr. T. Legh ; but although *be
gave it the soft name of a transfer, his own witness had proved
that it was not only a payment, hut a payment in cash. Be-
sides, it ought to be recollected that the bills had been-given
for a special purpose, and were nut, therefore, applicable to the
general purposes of the Company. Linder these circumstanccs
he left his case with confidence in the bandit of the Jury. • -
The Loan Cttri F JusricE, in summing up the evidence
to the Jury, told them, that the accounts involved in this ac-
tion were left entirely to their consideration. Thank Heaven,
he hail nothing to do With them.' "All that he had to do, was
toexpound the law relative to them, which was very clear. By
the civil law, money received by a banker had always been
applicable to the payment of the oldest debt. The law of
England bad at one time varied Iron the civil law ; . but it. WAS
now settled, that in the civic ()fa banker the. payments were not
to be applied to any particular debt he chose to select, but to
the oldest items of account. The -NTT %void, therefore, consi-
der in this case when these hills had been debited to the Orrel
and Pemberton Coal Company ; and if they' found. the pay-
ments afterwards received on its aecounts by Morland were suf-
&fent to liquidate them, then the plaintiff would be entitled to
recover. He thought, however, that tliey ought not to take into
their consideration the sum of 33,000/. t,ytt, necettee it had only
been a transfer in account, and not money absolutely paid.
Still, if the other stints received for the company exceeded the
tttnount of these bills, it would be their duty, us he bad before
told them; to find a verdict for the pleintill:
The Jury then retired; and after being n1):•et front Cottrt
for a considerable time, found a verdict for the plaintiff.:4:l4-
wages 3,1131.

ATEI.ANCIIOI,Y AFFRAY.—S lOh'S 'Parr was held
on Tuesday. .Towards evening the usual scenes of turbulence
began, and by six o'clt-e't fights were to be seen on evert part
of the Common. About nine o'clock nine young Men, maims,
who had been working at Duntrdne, -carne from that phony-
wards. The Afoot., to meet their eniptoyer, 11ir. smut, mason,
Hawithill, who wad there w --pay them their wages. This
dole, two of the party escorted . their Master off the grokind,
While the others went towards- Stobstnuil Toll, fbr -the
double purpose of getting some /refreshment and waiting
the arrival of their companions. Having been refused ad-
mittance, • 11. v had only gone aside for a few paces when
a party of fellows, armed with difrerent lethal weapons,
(o.ie, it is said, watt a hatchet), issued from the house, and
be-..an their murderous work. One young wan, alma John
Allan, received repeated blows, whisk felled him to the ground,
and he never afterwards opened his lips or uttered a-sound. His
brother rushed forward, knelt, and. seized the lifeless 'corpse
in his arms; and, while in this agonising position, he: was first
knocked down; twice he raised liiroiclt, and as often iiiatiqur
again laid prostrate and severely wounded by the'releralcit as-
sassins. All the other companions of the Unibrumate mono, were_
less or more wounded, one of them very set iousiy.
ing party, in number 12 or 14, also attacked a,p,.y.nft
and ivith bludgeons so injured 'his heed. and bruit',
feared his life may also he laid to thtiraccount:
le;
yfiert
longing to a bleachilehi is much in the mattiote.e:rn
tltsi
lte ur,as
attacked he in vain fled.for safety to a fieltl
found lying with his skull fractured. an
41
tit 'xi. "p.):,T7t4.1:1,
bruised. The murdered man was oldie ,adatir
anti greatly esteemed by his eintVrn-tult.",,, bee„ i,ned
tion is at present in progrelL auttrderers; bat they haVe
the apprehension of the suspectct,
iyiedtteirtlidiseedi.)the 0111117

Mr. Serjeant WILDE said that he would admit that the de-
fendants had a right to deduct the 1,000/. which they had ad-
vanced for the personal use of the bankrupt, and also the
2801. 16s. sd. by which he had overdrawn his account.
The 140 RD 01 Mr, J Lamm—Then, as a sum of money
has been paid into Court, this admission narrows the question
to this point—have the defendants a right to rethin the amount
of the three bills and the loss charged upon them? Does it
not ?

Mr. Serjeant WILDE replital that it did.
A conversation then took place at the bar, in which it was
determined that the sum of 3361., charged by Morlands as a
loss of profit on the three. bills, owing to their non-acceptance
in Ireland, should be referred to sonic gentlemen to tl:cfda
whether, under the particular eircuinstances of the case, it was
a charge that bankers usually made to their customers; if it
were such a charge, then it was to be allowed to them in the
account. •

athoenjuhraya. . .
tl;liaartrot twiet,ti.thielqisuelestairoonedforfrtileilelidr earagnusiedder:t;
MT. Merge.ant TADDY then 'proceeded with hie address t i
beer taut . , ..._
~ . .
the supposition, that after these three bill* had been debited EXT11.401(1)1)1Alt YWI Lt .—Died, .in Sent
to the Orrel and Pemberton Coal Company, large pay- , square, Carrielltegtoe on the sth instant, Jane Lee,' deal"
meats had been received- by Neesrs Morlande and C0.,0n ! eted 80 ears, torn the house in l'illiell she, (414 - rhz.:
their behalf which more than covered them ; and, as a i :rot nevee ltite'ten to 1)11 absc" from it one IligilL IS; her
proof of' it, he had stated, that 33,0001. had been paid to teem w.ll she bequeathed 1001. in tivet to the. pour of Cai-ron behalf' of the Company, Mr. T. Legit. Now, h. wOuill !f,r' r
004 and ee per arroum to In,: membere of the Eat„,,,, "
tell his learned friend, that no payment had ever been Church ei that tows for the purpose .0e put, i .• ""°4,,ted
c tatung ecte.
inatle by that gentleman ; the 33,0001, to which his learned mertal elements. 1 him gilt is the mor .
t. remerkehle •
friend had alluded, Kati merely been transferred h 6-40 Piew.otec. and was tiev . ' • '‘ ''''
.to the credit s e was a e tr in the Chunf
of the Orrel anti Pemberton Coal Company, and to the debt of during divine service. She bequeathed several It , t '
31r. T. I.tigh. If there. had been a payment in cash bi %ono) respectable persons of Catricittrry,t3s . le ''4"." '44.
Jr.l. T. Legh to theta, than he would allow diet Ws Partite rodtlue of her propert,y, animating to t;utii. tt,„3,lg• tth,'
friend's law would have applied to this case ; but he would the Meyer, her
and Dissenting Ay - i t;„ i%lt:;°f-t-,.."`
prove to them, that there had been no payinent, but only A Diarergus, DavY4 Bowman, Eee. anti Air (lea inusii'' 7 "V.. ''"*.
tranSfer, which did not discharge the claim which Moist-et lifer. the same place ; the Interest to b . 1. ..,--- --`e.lneetto, of
Jamie had upon these bills. McsaYs. Morlands bad made this stims not exceeding thtee
rnin.e. e t mood 'Raiment, in
transfer, hee-308eAlr. T. Leigh wag under liabilitiot to them t' * of the Seoteb quarter, Carrickfe 1131
t°
such inh4tlliall"
very great amen% for the Coal Company ; and 111tvi"gmndeits brother, John Lee, send the (10,10 Tgus at had it
with
they nirestO 31r. T.l
he with alt the righte which they lied fore counts to them. Those
who 1
.r, Ott} who Kati paitl.theit ace
let not paid their aceountisto be
tuerly. Pos".e.wd. =Nothing was more clear in poir t oflaw than this . elicit' tied from her charity,
principle, that ita eretittor went againat a stieetY ipstrAd. of they or theirsp
ad the' at t' tines into i
eve"
t"
("e
tith'd
""‘'
t° httndii°l ratia4"l"l4li
13
againS t the principal, the surety was entitled to all the benefit teuvtees. . The ite,eient b naull
peke of her brother and donor 'serte
le,nich the prtnei pet would have had, had the surety. gone against proof of the debt, 1. i
i)e dle antl•prollighte ..to be- for ever .eX -
MM.:- He maintained that if the Jury should entitle the. assige eluded from said
need by their verdict to recover the sutra they now claimed, they accounts have charity. Persons who have aleeatly_,paiti their
. a light to the said charity, although- not 1411
wOold bl.) taking so much money front the pocket of _ll-ir. Legit, resident inthe :•,entelt quarter, provided they have formerly.
sus Learned Priend bad acted as if eceoeuns had been closed, liN •e 4,1
there ( Oil Me Corresper;dent, Jay 20- )
.