The Sun.
London, England, 1846-03-13 00:00:00

DUNCOMBE V. LEVY.

In this case it was arranged that cause should be shown en
Monday next, and that, in the meantime, the defendant
should be at liberty to proceed as if the injunction had not
been granted.
His HONOUR, after disposing of several other cases, rose
before twelve o'clock.

(Before Vice-Chancellor WIGRA3L)
FISH V. LORD PALMERSTON.

His HONOUR gave judgment this morning. The case was
argued before the Court some time ago, and the main point
in dispute was a claim for interest from the date of the sale
of the property purchased by the defendant in October, 1840.
The Court this morning went again into the evidence and
correspondence at great length, commenting on the points
raided by counsel in their argument. His Honour said that
no one could doubt, after reading the correspondence which
had passed between 'he parties, prior to the 7th April, 1841,
that Lord Palmerston had admitted the purchase and entered
into the contract; at the same time the subsequent letters
having been admitted on both sides, the Court would not
hold his Lordship bound by any admisssion found
iu. that correspondence. On the whole it could
not be held that it was a case of sur-
prise or otherwise. The most favourable view of
the plaintiff's case was, that he had proved the
terms, but had failed to prove the conditions of sale. His
Honour came, therefore, to the only point in dispute,
whether interest should be allowed to the plaintiff, and he
decided that interest should be allowed on the purchase--
money, including the timber, from the 10:h October, 1841,
taking that as the date when the contract was entered into.
An inquiry should be made whether, and what, rents and
profits. if any, had been derived from the property by the
plaintiff after that time. If the barn had fallen through
dilapidaiion, or been pulled down previous to that time, the
defendant was entitled to an account against the plaintiff.
The case was such that the Court could nut allow costs to
either party.

SHERIFFS' COURT, March 12
(Before Mr. Under-Sheriff B uRCHELI.)
BAKER V. BALLARD.

This was an action brought to recover the sum of 91. 2s.
OR a bill of exchange. The defendant pleaded that he had
paid the amount.
The plaintiff is a surgeon, and the defendant an attorney's
clerk. . . . .

Mr. TSZOMAS, on behalf of the defendant, put in a receipt
fa the amount. The receipt was not dated ; but the water-
mark on the stamp was the fourth month of 1843 ; it was in
the following words, "48, Gray's Inn- kne.-2eceived of
Mr. William Ballard, 91. 25., as per bill for medicines and
medical attendance up to Michaelmas last—John Baker."
Roger Hall, clerk to the plaintiff's Attorney, said he did
not think that the receipt was in the plaintiff's hand-writing,
but he would admit it to be.
The UNDEa-SmutlFF—What do you mean by-saying that
you do not believe it to be his hand-writing, yet that you
will admit it ? _ _ _

The witness said he believed it to be forged.
Mr. CHARNOCK. said a receipt had been given, and no doubt
it was the one produced.
Mr. THOMAS said it was not pretended that there was more
than this one transaction between the parties.
Charles Harvey was called, and deposed that he was well-
acquainted with the plaintiff's hand-writing, .and that the
receipt was his writing.
Mr. CHARNOCK then addressed the jury for the plaintiff,
and said that he should be able to prove that the defendant,
in answer to an application for the amount of the bill, sent
the bill of exchange, and requested an acknowledgment,
whereupon the receipt was sent.
Charles Home, a boy about fourteen, was called, and de-
posed that he was present when defendant's son called with
a letter. He believed the letter to be the one produced, and
the bill was enclosed in it. Plaintiff told witness to ge' a
receipt stamp out of the drawer, and plaintiff wrote a receipt
and gave it to the lad Ballard. He thought the receipt now
put in was the one, but he c uld not say whether or not there
was a stamp on it at the time.
The UNDER-SHEISIFF said if the witness could not recol-
lect that, his evidence went for little on the other points.
Mr. THOMAS contended that the action was in reality
that of Hall, who held the bill before it became due, and had
admitted that he had written several letters to defendant
threatening to expose him in the Sheriffs' Court as to the na-
ture of his complaint if he did not pay. The Learned Counsel
said it was most extraordinary that Hall should .deny the
genuineness of the receipt when the substantial defence was
that it had been given when the bill was sent.
The UNDER-SHERIFF said it was clear that a most un-
worthy trick had been played on one side or the other, and it
was for the jury to say on which. On the part of the plain-
tiff it ought to be argued that the date had been left out in
consequence of cash not being received, intending !hat it
should operate when the bill was taken up. The proper
course would have been to have said " Received by bill of
exchange," if it was so. On the other hand no'proof of pay-
ment was offered, but the holding the receipt was prima tacie
evidence. On the other hand the bill was still in the possession
of the plaintiff, and that wait in his favour, as it had not been
shown why it was not delivered up •if the money was paid
on it.
The jury, afar a short consultation, returned a verdict for
the defendant