The Sun.
London, England, 1805-08-03 00:00:00

THOMPSON AND OTHERS' V. BURN.

This Was a suit in which William Thompson,
William Foreman, and Edward William Foreman,
ware Plaintiffs, and John Bunri was Defenclapt.

•
on their property.? . His Lordship` said he had sat.
twenty, years at the Bar •ofthat Court, 'and -could
Speak from experience, that he never remembered
one Partnership Suit contested there, in which the
parties were not convinced, that although thdCoUrt
had dOne a great deal of goOd iu the orders it had
.made, yet they could have done a ge,;2,at- dual .more
for themselves, by not differing at all, or, having
differed, by arranging the
,settlement of their dit-
' krenceS among themselves.".:lu- all. cases .of dif-
ferences between 'partners in trade, in the very na-
ture of things, _the, best possible :mode. of settling
suCh.differences *as, for thdparties to. make their
judgment, atling according to their own consciences,
their own Court of Chancery; for it was impossible
for any Other Court to do them half the justice they
could do one' another. This ease was an eminent
instance of that kind, and his Lordship did not 'he-
sitate to, say that both parties, by their present claims,
asked for too much, and should abate of their de-
mands, and meet upon a principle. of equity, which
included moderation. In thiS 'ease I a partnership
had been formed, without properly considering the
consequences of the union : the partners had made
.up a partnership,like artove match, in which nothing,
isthought of but coming together, and when they
find that no provision is made for the stability of the
union, but that they have ta‘sen each other for be;:-.
ter or worse; and discover that they cannot agree,
they therefore wish to separate, but disagree on the
terms of their separation. -In this case; . his Lord-
. ship was quite sure that the parties could not do so
Well in any way, as by coining. to an arrangement
among themselves ;
_and he• was also sure that this
. day twelve months they would either have to rejoice
that they.had-accepted, or -regret that therhadde-
clined this advice. With a view to afford them an
opportunity for this purpose, his Lordship ordered
this Matter to stand over until Mon‘lay.next.

• • COURT OF KlNG's feLY 29,
HOLMES AND ANOTHER BOUGH.
THIS- was an Action for Money had and, received ),
to the Plaintiff's use. •
The Plaintiffs were Assignees of one Pierce, a
Bankrupt, who formerly kept the Two Brewers
Public-house; in. ,Bunhill-row, where he had been
supplied with spirits by the Plaintiffs, to a consider- ,
able amount. The Defendant being* also a •Credi7
for, the' Bankrupt had made a Bill:of Sale of apart
of his property to
.him, which,.the Defendant alter-.
wards disposed of. This sale., it appeared, was made
after Pierce had committed an ad of bankruptcy,
and the chief question, turned upon the- trading of
the Bankrupt.
Mr. Bevin proved the Petitioning Creditor's debt.
On his cross-exainination it appeared he was the
. Master of the Ct•!mohics at Vauxhall, but had also
been for many years, and still was,Clerk to the Plain-
tiffs, The usual credit given by distillers to pub-
licans was according to the,quantity of litinor which
they drew, but- in general, payments were made in
8 clays. ,
Mary Ceybon, the Bankrupt's servant, proved,
that her master left his, house on the -loth of oe-
tober, and said he- was going to take a week's
pleasure in the country with. his -friendS, .but lie
never returned. She tad frequently carried spirits
to customks out of doors. . On her eross-eximena-
tion, she said he was not a wholemle importer„ nor
did he carry on any,great business: She used some,
times to carry out. a pint of
,gin; or rum, Sc-e., to a
customer.' -
Michael Williams proved, that lie*,had bought
one hogshead of gin, and five gallons of rtun.from
.Pierce, at one time ; but he ,was then 'dist.ressed
sto
make up a bill and he rather put-Chased it, as a
friend than any thing else. . •
Mr. Coomb, the
.Defendant's Attorn'ey, proved
*the sum paid over to the Defendant-
Mr. GARROW, for the Detendant, said, he did not
defend his Client on thegrounds of Pierce not having
committed an set of bankruptcy; the fad wits, the
Defendant, being• a Gentleman of fortune and re-
speftability, had employed Pierce under him at the
'West India Docks, and thinking his fortune should
be made if he could get into the public business, be.
had prevailed on the Defendant to set, him up. 'The
only question was, whether he was subject to :the
Bankrupt Laws, being a publican, who,, by' Aft of. Parliament, were exempt In support of pfopo;
.sition, he quoted the case of Saunders atid Rolls, in
:which it was laid down by Lord Mansfield, that a
vi6tualler was to be considered., as a publican, and
not liable to the Bankrupt Laws. The Learned
-Counsel 'lc as proceeding to cite other eases; when'.
Lord ELLENBOROUOA obseryed, that' it had been
proved, that, in purseanee of his general trade,
he had sold a pint of spirits out of doors, which Was
'too great a quantity for any person to take at one
time; it was therefore to be taken as a trading.
The Learned Counsel,' in further addressing the
Jury, said, though his LordShip' had thought a pint
too much to drink ,all at. yet it was well
known that since the use Cif spirituous liquors had
crept into the,plaee of the more wholesor4c, beverage
of ale ,or porter, famines' generally drank a pint of
diluted spirits at a sitting. • •
Lord El..tamionotTon.--" In order to constitute
a trading, it mast appear there was a' trading be-
yond selling in the house. In the prosecution of
his trade, he sold out to every one that came for
it; he must, therefore, be, considered as a dealer
and chapman, within the Meaning of the Act : how-
ever, I will leave this faa to the 'Jury ; , but, in my'
idea, there is enough to constitute a trading."
The Jury, considering it was a trading, a verdiCt
of 1061. was entered for the Plaintiffi..