The Sun.
London, England, 1834-07-02 00:00:00

F COMMONS

,RITY
A the third reading of
Bill.

Somerset, Lord G.
Spry, S. T.
Stanley, E.
Thicknesse, R.
Tower, C. T.
Vigors, N. A.
Vivian, Sir R.
Walter, J.
Williams, Colonel
Willoughby, Sir H.
Wilks, J.
Young, G. F.

TELLRES.
Hodges, T. L.
Benett, John

IPAIRED OFF.
Tennyson, C.
IRITY
t the Roads Act (Ire-

Scholefleld, J.
Serape, P.
Sheppard, T.
Shell, R. L.
Vigors, N A.
Walker, C. A.

TELLERS.
Ruthven, E. S.
O'Reilly, W,

(COURT OF EXCHEQUER.-(THIS DAY.

Nisi Pruis Sittings at Guildhall, before Mr. Baron ALDER-
SON and a Common Jury.)
STALEY V. HUNT.
Mr. WIGHTMAN stated this case to the jury. The action
was brought against a very well known and distinguished indi-
vidual, to recover the balance due upon a bill of exchange for
1411., of which he was the acceptor. He would prove the
defendant's hand-writing to the bill, its dishonour, and the
notice to the defendant which entitled him to a verdict. As
that was not the first time the cause had been before a jury, it
was his (Mr. W.'s) duty to caution the present one against
being led away by the oratory of the defendant, who appeared
in person. On the occasion to which he had before alluded
to he had very frequently designated the transaction as a family
juggle; probably on this occasion he would use the same line of,
argument, and call his case a very hard one, because, as he said,
he had paid the bill already, but the jury must be careful of
him and not take his statements as evidence. Formal proof
of the handwriting was then given, as well as of the presenta-
tion of the bill when due of its nonpayment.
Mr. HUNT then addressed the jury. He said his case was
indeed a hard one, for he had been dragged before the court on a
second trial, when he would have been perfectly willing to have
stood by the verdict of the former jury. (Laughter.) The facts
were these : The bill for 141/. became due on August 19,
1832 ; at that time he was not prepared with the full amount ;
he, however, paid to the son of Mr. Burton, who was the
drawer of the bill, 651. in money, and on the 23d of August
gave him another bill for 751. odd at two months, in order
to make up the balance. Having great faith in Mr. Burton,
with whom he had dealt for years, he did not require the first
bill to be given up. The 75/. bill became due, and was re-
gularly paid. He (Mr. H.) thought the transaction all set-
tled for nearly a year ; because, during the whole of that
time, he heard nothing of the matter. It turned out, how-
ever, at about the end of that time, that Burton was about
to become bankrupt, and then began the juggling.—
The plaintiff was Burton's brother-in-law ; was a ser-
vant, at about one hundred pounds a-year, with a family
to maintain, yet it was now pretended that he had discounted
the 1411., and that he had received for it only the 651. Was
it not more likely, that finding things going wrong, the
whole matter had been got up, in order to make him suffer
by a second payment of the bill. The new trial had been got
because the former jury had given their verdict by acclamation,
as it was stated to the court. He did not for a moment doubt
but that the jury would decide for him, but he trusted they would
not give it him with acclamation, but in a quiet and respectful
mapner. (Laughter.)
He then called
Wm. Burton, who said he had been a manufacturer of stone
bottles, received the bill in question from Mr. Hunt, which plain-
tiff discounted. Afterwards received from his son 651. and a
751. bill, which he sent over to the plaintiff, who kept the
money, but would not take the bill, which was returned to him.
He paid it for a debt of his own to a Mr. Britten, and never
heard more of it. About a fortnight before he became bank-
rupt, plaintiff called upon him and said he would put the bill
in execution against Hunt.
The LEARNED BARON charged the jury in favour of the
plaintiff—although it was a hard case, and it was one of gross
fraud upon Mr. Hunt, yet as there was no evidence to show
that the plaintiff was not an innocent holder of the bill, the
verdict must be for him.
The jury turned round, and after a short time, wished to
retire.

His LORDSHIP said if so they must hear counsel's reply and
his summing up. It was a dangerous thing to find a verdict
contrary to the evidence in the cause. Statement was not
evidence.
Mr. WIGHTMAN then replied, and his Lordship again
strongly summed up in favour of the plaintiff. He said so far as
law and justice were concerned, the cause was an infallible one.
It was a wise maxim of law as well as of common sense, that
where two innocent parties were suffering from the fraud
of a third, that he who had been guilty of the indiscretion
should be the sufferer. In that case there could be no doubt
but that Mr. Hunt had committed a very gross indiscretion,
in not getting up the first bill, and however hard Burton's
fraud might be upon him, yet he ought to be the sufferer.
The jury retired at twelve o'clock, and had not returned
their verdict when we went to press.