The Sun.
London, England, 1841-11-09 00:00:00

BROOKS V. MITCHELL,

This action was tried before Justice Wightruan at
the late Liverpool Assizes, when a verdict was found for
the defendant.

Mr. WORTLEY now moved for a rule to show cause why
that verdict should not beset aside, and a new trial granted,
on the ground that the finding of the Jury was insuffi-
cient and inconclusive ; that it was, in fact, no verdict at
all. The evidence given at the trial was that a person
named Evans, who was a Sergeant in the Guards,
on his return from foreign service, found an
uncle in business as a small banker in Man-
chester. He took Evans into partnership, and in 1824,
Evans wishing to put a foster-brother named Lenns,
into business, advanced him I,oool_ for which he took
a promissary note, payable upon demand. It ap-
peared that the interest upon the note was
paid up to the year 1835. The note was endorsed,
or purported to have been endorsed, to a person
named Royle, on the I2th March, 1836, and by Royle to
the defendant, in March, 1838. In 1836 Evans became
much embarrassed, and, in August of that year,
became bankrupt ; at which time he went to
reside with Royle, and it was proved that Royle,
so fat' from being a creditor, was a debtor to Evans's
estate, and that, so- far from being able to advance
1,0001., he was at the time in very low circumstances. Royle
was appointed assignee of the estate of Evans, but
nothing was ever said about the note, nor any claim
made upon it. In 1837 Royle compounded with his
creditors, and became bankrupt in 1838, but not a word
was said about the note. In the latter year the defendant
wrote to the maker of the note, saying he had held it
for some time, and then wanted payment of it. Lenns
died shortly after, and the defendant sued the widow ;
she applied to the Court for an into-pleader rule, to
know to whom she was to pay the money, and then for
the first time the plaintiff, who Was the assignee of
Evans's estate, became aware of the existence of the
note, anti claimed it, on the ground that neither Royle
nor the defendant had given consideration for it. The
suspicious appearances wQre, first, the dating of the en-
dorsements, which was unusual, but was done to make
it appear as if the note had been passed Lefore the
bankruptcy of the parties. There had been dividends
paid upon both Evans's and Royle's estate—the first
ss. 6d., and the second of 4s. 6d., so that the defend-
ant, if a bona fide holder, might have got 10s. per pound
upon the note, but no claim was made under either
bankrupts. The Jury found that Mitchell had given
consideration for the bill, but they further said there
was no evidence to show whether Royle had or not. Now
all the evidence was that Royle did not, and could not
have given consideration for the note.
The COURT were of opinion that the verdict might
stand if there was evidence to support it, but they
granted a rule on the ground that it was against evi-
dence.—Rule granted.

COURT OF COMMON PLEAS, Nov. 8.
(Before the LORD CHIEF JUSTICE, and Justices COLE-
MAN and MAULE.)
COLLYER V. STENNET.

This was an action brought on the part of the Tackle
House Porters of the City of London, to recover the
amount of porterage of goods landed in the port of
London, and carried into the City by the defen-
dant, he not being one of the Company of
the Tackle House or a ticket porter. The de-
fence was, that the goods belonged to a foreigner,
and were consigned to a foreigner (that is, to
a person not of the Corporation of the City), and that,
thererore, the privilege of the Tackle House did not in
terpose, and a foreigner was entitled to carry and to re-
ceive the porterage. The plaintiffs, on the contrary,
undertook to prove that the goods in question were con,
signed to a freeman, and not to an alien. The case was
tried at Guildhall before the Lord Chief Justice, as fully
reported in The Sun at the time, and a verdict found
for the plaintiff. Mr. Sergeant Channell since obtained a
rule nisi for a new trial, on the grounds, first, that the ver-
dict was against evidence, and secondly, that improper evi-
dence was received, members of the Corporation in-
terested in the issue having been admitted as witnesses.
Mr. Sergeant TiLrouaD this day showed cause against
the rule at great length, and cited numerous authorities
to prove the admissahility of members of the Corpora-
tion, it having been laid down that the statute could not
intend to disqualify so many as ten or twenty thousand
witnesses in one locality. If so, cases would arise in
which no evidence could be adduced of even the most
notorious facts.