The Sun.
London, England, 1812-04-30 00:00:00

BATH V. TAYLOR.

This caw stood for argument, in the peremptory
paper, a role having been obtained ‘by M. Jervis,
to sh‘,v cause why a new trial should not he grant-

ed, the jury having given a 'icierAla for ale licla;n•i'ff-1
on a bill which originally bore date on the Ist
August, but had by the drawer, with a view to ac-
commodate the acceptor, the present defencletii,
been post ,dated days, the date having, prey ions to
the drawer's .(Mr. Ledger. of King-s!reet, Cheap-
side), putting the bill out of his. own possession,
been, by the consent of the acceptor, changed in's
twenty-first,_instead of first of August.
Mr. GARROW and Mr. Arforr having argued
the case on ttit part of the plaintitf, arid
Mr. JERVLS and Mr. Str.wnton the part of the
defenrfaut,

The Court were unanimous' in deciding that the
plaintiff could not here recover. Where the altera-
tion was attervvards made, in furtherance of the ori-
ginal ,intention of the parties, or where a (teed, or
other writing, which origioally a nullity, was by such.
alteration first rendered effectual, or brought into
operation; in_ either of these cases a new,sinni)
was not necessary.; but, in all cases where the bill
or other writing, was originally a ►alid secnrit v, and
was agreeable,to the original intention of the parties;
no alteration could be Matte on any such document
without a new stamp. Mr. Justice BAILEY even
held, that if it had been the original: intention of
Ledger, the drawer, and Taylor, the' acceptor of tj:e
bill in question, to vary the date olt time to time.,
as it might suit the acceptor, that could not lega4
have been done.—Rule made absolute.

COURT OF COMMON PLEAS, APRIi,29.
THE RUMP AND DOZEN.
HUSSEY V. CRICKETT.

In this case, Mr. Serjeant VAUGHAN had obtain:
ed a Rule to shew cause,why the verdict
loz plain-
tiff should not be set aside, an'd a non,uit emelt
' Mr. Serjeant BEST appeared, to shew caut,,t,
against" the rule.

Toe Loaf) CHIEF-JUSTICE, when he opened the
notes which he had taken of the case, said) 11)e,
Coort had now to consider a wager of such a kind
as he hoped would neverappear in the presence of
a Court of Justice again. ,It happened, that;. Ole
29th of May, 1809, the parties in the case; aciorn;-
panied by several of their friends, had a nit-rly
meeting at a tavern, and -a conversation taking pk,e
between Hussey and Ciickett concerning their aLet,.
it vas mutually agreed, that a day should be up--
pointed for the examination of their ages) and w
ever. should happen to be oldest was to"p6y fur ci
certain kind of dinner, called the a Rump and
zen ;" they parted, and a day being appointed, hy
the iniervention of some of their comrades, the
party met, to the number of eight persons, but
Crickett di.i not appear, upon which the plaintiff
produced.the certificate of his age; and, by the sii-
.pnlation of the bargain, the delei.dant wa, declared
-to have foPferied the price of their entertainine,n,.

ln. the evidence of Hurd', one of the party, it ap-
peared, that the Nic itness was very anxious for a .din-
tier, and acc,n-dingly ordered it, and paid 'he
for which he was reimbursed by Hussey. They wtte:
all'schoOkellows, and when the agreement 3V,:q
made, it was signed by both parties. He consider d
the " Rump and Dozen" to imply a good dinncr,
with as-much wine to cool it as could be conve-
niently drank. The bill amounted to 181. including.
the attendance of waiters.

By the evid,..nce of Keen, another of he party, it
appeared that he was dei)uted by Crickett ht a day
.11,i place wiiere the party might meet, tor dinuer.
It had been expressly stipulated that both partici
were to appear at table with certiticatts of
ag-s, and whoever was oldest, had to account to the
landlord.

Upon the whole of the.evidence his Lordship ob-
served., that Hurd had paid the dilte', %ithoui ii e
approbation of Crickett, and when. the trial ap-
proached its termination, he had Ncruvles in hi 4 own
mind upon the pr,priety of maintaining the souse"
Mr. Serjeant BEST, iu S. ewing cause Apinst the
Rule, observed, that the parties made the wager of
such a nature, that it could not be known who shwa d
pay the dinner, until the entertaiainent was over.—
But upon consideration of his case, Crick,-;tt endea-
voured to shuffle himself from the responsibility,
though it had been manifestly proved that he had
assented to the.bargain, and also that he permitted
the dinner to be ordered. Hussey, by partaking of
the diuner, had rendered himself respousible ro pay
it, though he certainly possessed the right to sue the
defendant for the experses.
The LonD CHt EF JUSTICE said, he did not alto•
gether comprehend what a " Rump and Dozen"
was ; by the evidence it appeared an indefinite en-
tertainment.

Mr. Serjeant BEST said, " Why,. my Lord, we
had a most. competent judge, the landlord, betwe
us, who described it as a comfortable dinner, a here
a roasted goose displayed herself smoaking node;
the nose at one end of the table ; and as much
good wine as a man could conveniently carry away
with him. Coaccrning the law of the case, he
would argue that it was not an unlawitil wager; •
The 1.,0RD CHIEF JUSTICE said, he ought not to
have tried such a ridiculous wager ; but it wcs needy
less to repine, here it stood before him.
Mr. Serjeant VAUGHAN, in support of the applis
cation, s.ficl, that the very name of " Rump and
Dozen" smacked of immorality. Here an aksom-
'uly of 8 hungry persons determined to make Crickets.
maintain them for one day, in 'which thcy dronk
no less titan fifteen lottles of wine. The bell, he
would maintain, was illegal, because it wa, inde-
finite, and even the landlord himself could describe
the, " Rump and -Dozen" as only a feast, where sr,
much meal and wine was partAen of,- as they ct.o d
conveniently carry away. Now, how was it po.st-
ble to gauge the belly, to discover what load it could
carry away ? •By being a provocation to glut-
tony add drunkenness, the bet was immordl ;
and, .besides, there, appeared three shilltngit its
the bill for. anchovy toast, to provoke thirst,
so that drunkenness might follow: Every
person who knew Crickets, would describe him ak
gentleman who bad furnished too many unnrcessi-
ry -" Rumps and Dozens" to people, but who tr't
himself in no wise disposed to pay for the meat and
merriment of other men, who had run him in.°
high expenses -during his absence from London. The
case of a game of Hazard was thrown out 01 he;
Court by Lord Loughborough, and the rea,.m wi,y
the case of the move in the game of 13ackgamm. n
was entertained in the Court, was, because it wa!, a
wager made upon a lawful garde. Upon the
therefore, he would asierr, that the case conic' 1,,,t
be maintained, and that the ye:did should be
nulled.—Rule refused.