The Sun.
London, England, 1834-12-05 00:00:00

STANDEN V. GARTH.

Mr. HOGGINS stated that this was an action of assumpsit
for money paid to the defendant's use. The plaintiff and
defendant were both officers in the army. The defendant,
Captain Garth, whose name was probably not unknown to
the Jury, had granted an annuity, and the plaintiff had be-
come security for its regular payment. It was not paid by
the defendant, and the plaintiff was therefore obliged to pay
it. A very large amount of it had been paid by the plain-
tiff to the annuitant through the hands of a Mr. Howard,
who could not be found to be called as a witness, and the
plaintiff must be content therefore with a verdict for such a
sum as had been paid by Colonel Standen to the annui-
tant's agent. The sum which the plaintiff now claimed was
427/.

The annuitant's agent was called, and he stated that the
whole sum paid was 8551., of which he had received 3641.
directly from Mr. Howard, and the sum of 4911. from the
plaintiff himself.
The clerk to the plaintiff's attorney stated a conversa-
tion he had had in the prison of the King's Bench with the
4efendant, in which the defendant admitted that he owed
427/. to the plaintiff.

The Jury returned a verdict for the plaintiff—Damages
327 l

COURT OF COMMON PLEAS, DEC. 4.

WIGGINS AND ANOTHER V. RUMSEY.
This was an action brought to recover the amount of
certain farming stock, crops, &c., sold under an execution
by the defendant.

The plaintiffs in this case are the assignees of a person
of the name of Joynson, formerly carrying on the business
of a tanner, at West Wickham, and also part proprietor
of a stage coach running from that place to London. The
defendant is a solicitor, residing at the same place. It ap-
pears that, in 1829, the bankrupt gave a warrant of at-
torney to the defendant for sums of money advanced, and
also for bills of costs, upon which judgment was not en-
tered up until May 2, 1832. Prior to that time the bank-
rupt, who was in a very extensive way of business, bor-
rowed money of a niece of his, Caroline Joynson, who
had a legacy left her under her grandmother's will, which
was to have been repaid a short time after. In the be-
ginning of 1832 she, requiring the money, became
urgent for the payment of it from the bankrupt, who
made many promises that he would do so. In answer
to one of her notes, he stated that he would meet her
brother, W. Joynson, at the Oxford Arms, in London, for
that purpose on a particular day he named, and that he
would speak to the defendant, and endeavour to make some
arrangement for a speedy settlement, which appointment he
never kept. The defendant, Mr. Rumsey, being aware
how matters stood with respect to the bankrupt, sent in an
execution upon his judgment on the 4th of May, 1832, un-
der which the whole property was sold. It was contended,
on the part of the plaintiffs, the assignees, that the breaking
of this appointment was to be taken as an act of bank-
ruptcy. The case underwent the consideration of a Jury
last February, who found a verdict for the plaintiff ; but
the Court, upon an application for a new trial, sent it down
again, that it might be more thoroughly sifted.
On the part of the defendant, it was contended that the
breaking of this appointment, which could not be considered
in the light of a promise to pay, was not to be construed
into an act of bankruptcy.
The Jury brought in a verdict for the defendant.
This verdict will have the effect, therefore, of upsetting
the Commission.