The Sun.
London, England, 1804-02-16 00:00:00

RT.

COURT`OF BENCH,. FE2. fj,

REFOKE LORli ELLENISOROUGH IN. GUILDHALL,

LON 110 N

UPFOLD LEFT.- •

. .
Mr. CAR ko'W, after, making a. few observations
on the unforfunaie effeas'io the Suitors of the Court
from the nonattendance of Witnesses when causes
were called on, and congratulating his Client and_
the Public_ that his Witoesses in -this cause were
ready, *proceeded. to Opera this Case. The. De-
fendant, Mr: Leet, he 'said, had various occupa-
tions ; he was Fitainer, and-fie:was Audioneer, and
he was now to be„introduced -to his Lordship and,
the Jury in another charatler, that of-Estate Sale- .
man. -He read advertisements in Papers, and there
learnt sometimes that one man is about to sell an
estate : he goes and makeS a bargain- with him, al!
though he has no money to pay for it. He
then finds out who wants to buy an estate, and he
goes again to him to sell it, and thus becon.es a
middle-man between the buyer and the seller of the
estate, and gets his profit -between them. Ae:
cordingly, as audioneer, he bought an estate of a'
Gentleman of the name of Tasker, who had bought
it ,of Dr. Hutchinson : there had been no convey-
ance between these two oarries, but it was agreed,-
to save expellee, that the estate should be c,,A.ll,:eyed
at once from Dr. Hutchinson to the person whOtn-
Mr. Leet, the Defendarik should produce -as the
purchaser : that person was Mr. Upfold the Plain.
tiff in this cause.. Mr. Upfold agreed with Mr.
Leet for this estate for 380!. ;' Mr. Leet having
bought it for 3201. ; so that he had an advance
upon this sale, by way of profit to himself, of 601.
Upon this purchase Mr. Upfold paid down to Mr.
Leer Sol. upon account of the purchase of the estate,
for which 801. he was asking the , verdid of the
Jury for the Plaintiff, because this estate was never
conveyed by the Defendant to- the Plaintiff, there.
fore he was entitled to recover this money back
again, and the Defendant was not. in a. condition
to convey this estate to the Plaintiff, he had not
performed the contra-a- on the condition of which
he had receivedsk. Sol. nod, therefore he must re-
turn it. The contra& was not completed by.reason
of the miscondul of the Defendant, for all the
other parties were ready, but he, instead of deliver-
ing up the 201. which -was the difference between.
the 601. which he was to have by way. of profit and
the 801. which he had received, after several appli-
cations•made to him, at last sent his note for 201.
which the' owner of the estate would not take,
ing determined to take nothing but 501..50 that the
estate was nevei.conveyed to. the Plaintiff; although
the deeds were prepared and ready to be. executed
for that purpose,.and the Plaintiff was ready to pay
the remainder of the purchase money. - Upon
proof of this case Mr. GAR ROW said he would be
entitled to the verdict of the jury for the whole sum
of Sol. because,- as the, Contrad*st as at an end, the
whole money ought ,to be returned, it being paid
to the Defendant: without, any consideration; and
he should have restedohe case here, but he thought
it would be a little more discreet for him to go a,
little further, in order to ler the Jury into the secret
of this cause; :The Defendant now said that he had
.paid back the Sol. and he had got a receipt from
the Plaintiff for it in full of all demands. Now,,if
he should prove this ease as fie had opened it, he
had better gay no more, bet .siVe the Jury. the
trouble of hearing any mire, if they did not think
they had enough already ;' hot he must go on, lest
the Defendant should be hardy enough to pro-
duce and to rely on this receipt ;
,but there was
no magic in the word Receipt, albeit the word-i
" in fUll of all demands were to be found in it,"
The question which the Jury would have to in-
quire, would be, Has the money been actually paid ?
This Defendant, he said, had no inconsiderable
quantity of the Rogue in his Composition ; and he
had also, as Providence• would have it, a decent
portion also of the Fool in that same composition, as
he should demonstrate to the jury in a moment.
While this transa&ion about the estate was depend.
ing, the Plaintiff's father died, and his estate and
effeds were sold by, audiono The IM'endant pre-
sented himself to ;he Plaintiff„,and desired that he
might be the Audionter to the father's cads,' to
which the Plaintiff assented,. and the Defendant ac_*
cordingly sold them. One day after .he had sold
these effeas, he met the Plaintiff in Riegate Mar;
kez, and addressed him—" I am very mucfrblamed
by my friends for not taking receipts fur the money
pay to the owners of goods I sell for them as.
Audioneer—l wish you would give me a receipt
for the goods which I have sold and accounted with
you 'for your father's at the auction."-" I cannot

do' it now," said the Plaintiff, " I will when I Meet
you again." They met again. The Defendant
said to the Plaintiff, " I have paid you the money
produced by the sale of your fathers goods at the
audion, i wish you would uow give:me a receipt
for that money. I am very much blamed' by my
friends for not taking regular receipts for these Auc.
Lion Sales." The Plaintiff had no Objedion ; 'they
accordingly went to :the Swan Inn, at Riegate,
where i\ar. Leet wrote a receipt,. which he under-
stood was to be to-day produced in ssatisladion
of this demand. But it would be.no objection to
this adion to recover of the Defendant this sum of

.80i. deposited with him for the vurcliase of the estate
of Mr. Tacker. He wrote with hiss own hand this

receipt, which it secnied was this day to be pro.
,duced. Now, it had been once said by a man of

wit, "Oh! That my Enemy would write a Book!"
Meaning. theret-;y that his folly might lirpwblished.

He would apply this sentence to the ctse of -a re-

. .
ceipt improperly set tip..as• an answer to a dt:tnand,
which it did not apply 40„ kg 0 !
that mine Eneniy had a Receipt -!" Still ;mire, •' that
he had a receipt in full of hlfdetnand,l" Mt;re still,
that he had an Attesting Witness to) it i If this
Defendant had only got this receipt Signe,i by the
Plaintiff, he would have notiiing more to do than
to produce it in Court, prove the hand-writing, and
leave the Plaintiff' to struggle with it as well as
he could„, and certainly there might have been some
difficulty in getting rid cf it ; but here there were
two things which enabled the Plaintiff to get over
thii receipt very easily; It Was written in the kind.
writing of the Defendant, and' there was ariatteeti:tg
Witness to it. "file receipt was thus—,,s Nov. 6th,
iSoz; Settled with John Leet, Autai:;neer,"—He