The Sun.
London, England, 1840-04-22 00:00:00

MAYER V. ISAACS.

• This action was tried before Mr. Baron Gurney, at the
sittings after last term at Westminster, when a verdict
passed for the plaintiff, damages 2001.
Mr. WHATELEY now moved for leave to set that verdict
aside, and to enter a nonsuit, pursuant to leave given him
by the Learned Judge. The action was upon a guarantee
in these words—'. In consideration or your supplying my
nephew, Mr. Vogel, with china and earthenware, I will
guarantee the payment of any bills you may draw upon to
the .amount of 2001." Tne delivery of the goods was ad-
mitted by the defendant—the only question was whether the
guarantee was a limited or a continuing one. He (Mr.
W.) contended that the guarantee was limited to 2001.,
and to bills to that amount, given for goods as above,
and it was proved that bills had been paid to that
amount and more. He • had made another point of
the trial. The business of the pkintiff in London was car-
ried on by a person of the name of Rennick, to whom the
guarantee was given, andin whose name it was directed,
that gentleman representing that he was the party liable
to the plaintiff.
The COURT considered that enough of doubt had been
thrown upon the docu.!.ent to require that it shuuld be
further considered.—Rule granted.

THE CORPORATION OF TIIE BORCT:GII OF LUDLOW V.

LECHMERE CHARLTON

This action wts tried before Mr. Baron Gurney, at the
lste Shremsbury Assizas, when a verdict passed against
the defendant for 3001.

Mr. Sergeant TALFOURD now moved for a rule to enter
the verdict for the defendant. The action was brought to
r.!cover 375/. for rent due for an estate leased to the defen-
d.int by the Corporation. The rent was admitted to be
due, but the defendant pleaded a set-off for work and lab]ur
done by the consent of the Corporation under the
following circumstances :—lt appeared that a public.
house, called the Charisma Arms, the property of the
defendant, stood rear, and formed an obstt uction to the
bridge at the entrance to Lud!ow from Shrewsbury. It
was considered a nuisance, and the Corporation agreed to
give Mr. Charlton 5001., for taking down part and re-
moving the other further from the road. Mr. Chariton
agreed:to acceit the sum ,with an addition of 751. for
making a road to the House. This was minuted in the
books of the Corporation, and a vote of thanks passed to
Mr. Charlton upon the occasion. It was proved that the
work had been done, but on the defendant proposing to put
in the books of the Corporation it was found they were in
Chancery, and the Vice-Chancellor did not think Mr.
Charlton had such an interest in them as to be allowed to
produce them. That having been proved, secondary; evi-
dence was given of these entries, but two points of objection
were taken against the allowance of the set-off. First,
that the entry in the book could not be used without beirg
stamped, and secondly that the Curporatioa had no power
to enter into such an agreement, except under their common
seal. He contended that the last objection was disposed of
by tho agreement having been fulfilled. The defendant's
right of action had accrued, and consequently the set-off
was good. He further contended that the agree Lent in
the books was not a contract, but a mere memorandum of
what the Corporation had done, and therefore did not re-
quire a stamp.—Pule granted.