The Sun.
London, England, 1841-11-06 00:00:00

WILLIAMS V. FORD.

This was an action of replevin tried before Mr. Baron
Maule at the last Wiltshire Assizes. There was an
avowry of rent in arrear to the amount of 451., and a plea
of payment. The Jury found a verdict for the defendant.
Mr. ERLE now moved for a rule to show cause why
the verdict should not be set aside and a new trial had,
on the ground of its being against evidence. On the
part of the plaintiff it was proved that after the rent be-
came due there was a sale of a portion of his property,
which amounted to 4CI. The defendant was present,
and said he had his own rent to pay, and requested plain-
tiff to let him have the 451. The son of the plaintiff
went and borrowed 51., and the father having added that
to the produce of the sale, handed it to the defendant.
A servant of the plaintiff heard the defendant say he
was in a hurry to go and pay his rent, and that he
supposed the receipt would do at another time. Not-
withstanding that evidence, which was not contradicted,
the Jury found for the defendant. There was no question
about the 451: having been paid to the defendant, but
there was a large sum due by plaintiff to defend-
ant
for a considerable period, and the only question was
whether the payer, in handing over the money appro-
priated it to the rent, or gave it to the creditor to be ap
plied to the liquidation of a portion of the old debt.
He did not think under these circumstances that any
other conclusion could be come to than that the plaintiff
was entitled to a verdict, and there being no fact to dis-
credit the witnesses for the plaintiff, he was entitled to
say that the verdict was contrary to the evidence, and
that the case should have a reconsideration.
Lord DENMAN said the Court would consult Mr.
Baron Maule as to his view of the case.

EXCHEQUER.-(THIS DAY

KELLY V. SOLARI.

This action was brought by Mr. Alderman Kelly, as ;
one of the Directors of the Argus Life-office, to recover
from Mrs. Solari the sum of 1971. 10s. alleged to have
been paid to her in mistake. It was tried before Lord
Abinge rat the sittings in London after last Term, when,
under the direction of his Lordship, the Jury returned a
verdict for the defendant, he at the same time giving
the plaintiff's counsel leave to move to enter the verdict
for the plaintiff if he was wrong in the law.
Mr. THESIGER now moved accordingly. He said the
late Angelo Solari had three policies upon his life in the
Argus office, one for 4004 dated 3d August, 1836, one
for 2001., the one in question, dated 3d September, 1836,
and one for 400/., dated 23d May, 1837. The premiums
upon the policy effected in September, 1836, amounting
co 13/. 165., was payable quarterly, viz. 31. 9s. on the 3d
March, the 3d June, 3d September, and 3d December ;
and there was a provision in the policy that it should
cease in case of the non-payment of the premium within
21 days after it became due. It appeared that Solari
received notice on the 3d September, 1840, that the pre-
mium was due. He did not pay, and consequently the
policy expired on the 23d September. On the 18th Octo-
ber Angelo Solari died. On a day in the February fol-
lowing application for the amounts of the poli-
cies was made at the office by Mr. Rapallo,
on behalf of Mrs. Solari, the defendant. It ap-
peared that one of the Directors, named Clift,
being made aware of the fact of the premium not having
had written on the policy the word " lapsed"
but when Mr. Rapello calkd for payment, the
bainecetpuneanprcyaiildieing then in the country, and the director Clift
having no recollection of the facts at the moment he paid
the sum of 9971. 10s. to Mr. Rapallo on behalf of Mr.
Solari, the-der9liclant inolittling in. that s4ra 1974 los.