The Sun.
London, England, 1804-02-17 00:00:00

THURSDAY, FEB. 16.

SITTING,I BEFORE LORD ELLENEOROUGU IN WEST-
MINSTER.HALL.

SEVERAL causes were postponed for the day, on
account of the absence of Gentlemen of the Pro-
fession of the Law, Barristers and Atto:nies who
are Members of the Bloomsbury Volunteer Corps,
which was this day inspetted, an occasion upon
which there is no Military excuse taken for absence.
Several other causes went off on account of the
.
non-attendance of Witnesses, so that the business of
the day amounted to very little.

IMLAY v. MULIAL.
Mr. GARROW said, that the Plaintiff, Mr. Im-
lay, was a Merchant ; the Defendant had been a
Dealer in Lace. Some years ago, and in the late
War, the Defendant was at Havre, in France, a
Prisoner, in a state so deplorable as to be afraid of
starving. The Plaintiff happeningAp find him
there, took compassion on him, and-lent him tool.
Some time after the parties came to England, an ap-
plication was made on behalf of the Plaintiff to the
Defendant for payment of this money, when he
acknowle,lged the debt' with gratitude to the Plain-
tiff, saying, he did not think he should have lived
long if it had not been for the benevolence of the
'Plaintiff. Afterwards he declined coming to a set-
llemenr, and the present anion was brought against
him, upon whiCh he.pleaded the statute of Limita-
-tions, namely, that he did not undertake and pro-
mise, to pay within six years. But this plea would
nat avail him, for he acknowledged the debt to a
Gentleman who called upon him for the payment of
it in the month of January, iBoz.' Mr. GAR Row
said, he believed the Defendant was become very
,poor, and that could only be his apology for this
defence. •He hoped his poverty, but not his will,
consented.
A Witness proved this acknowledgment of -the
Defendant.
Mr. ERsittNE said, his case for the Defendant
was, that this money had been lent on
,the credit of
another person, who was to pay it instead of the
Defenda-nt, bur as he had no Witness to prove it,
he would not talk about it.
Verdictfur the Plaintiff—Damages tool.

WATSON v. SANDY.
The Plaintiff is a MOstard Mantifatlurer at Lam.
beth, the Defendant a Shopkeeper at Salisbury.
The latter had given to a Mr., Wright an order for
a quantity of Mustard at the price of sd. per lb.
The Plaintiff, who had succeeded to the business of
Mr. Wright, soon after the receipt of the order,
had executed it at 6d, per lb.
Messrs. PARKE and RICHARDSON, for the plain_
tiff, stated the nature of the traosadionA.and, pr,oved
that two applications had been made:,t fendant for payment in May and Seplito ghe De-
-5,r,.:1802.
Mr.GtEBS, for the Defendant, said he,w' as a very
honest and stupid fellow, in whose house he, the
Learned Counsel, had lodged a long time, but that
this was not an occasion on which his stupidity
could be of any disadvantage to him. He had of-
fered the price for whick. the order was given ; that
price was refused, and the Plaintiff, who seemed to
be as hot as his commodity, might have his Mustard

rcturnQd to him I,vbeneve,r iKt,shoula giye.dictaiohg
fur its s'urrender.--Piaintilf tiins'ulted.

IiAVI€V. CLARKE.

,The Plaintiff was servant to the Defendant; who
is_an iron-founder, and this atuion was brOught for
damages, in consequence of the master. .hiving
inflifted a very severe corp9ral punis4ritent on
the servant. The Court Were kept a, consider-
able .time in -waiting on account of 'the artful -ab-
senee, of. four Witnesses who were now servants
of the Defendant. One only at last attended, who
would depose nothing material to the fats stated
before the. Court. The others were called upon
their subpltena, ‘. which commands them, laying.
aside, all pretences and excuses, to-appear- at the
trial on fain,of tool. to be forfeited to the. King ;
to which the Statute of the s.th Elyz, c. 9, has added
a penalty ofkol. to the party aggrieved, and damages
equivalent to
.the loss sustained by-want of such.
evidence."—Plain nonsuited.

TURING AND OTHERS, EXECUTORS OF MARY
TURING, v. THOMAS JOHNS, EQ,.

This anion was brought on a bond given by the
Defendant for the payment of 1501. a yey in guar-
teily instalments. It appeared, that twenty instal-
ments were dUe, and the bond having been admitted
in the pleadings, nb valid defence cotild be at-
temped.---Verdin for the Plaintiff, 7501.

COURT OF COMMON PLEAS, FEB. is.
HARMAR AND ANOTHER V. KILLING.

This was an aaion brought by the Plaintiffs, who
are,brandy merchants, in London, to recover from
the Defendant, a tavern keeper at Portsmouth, the
price of a pipe of Hollands furnished to him. The
Defendant was known to the, Plaintiffs to be an in-
fant at the time.of making the furnishing. It was
alledged, however, that haying acknowledged the
debt, and promised payment of it, after he came of
age, any plea on the head of non-age had been
abandoned. It appeared in evidence, however, that
when the Defendant made' the promise, he was not
aware of the efna of it, but that he did so under
the dread of an arrest with which he was at the
moment served. In thee circumstances, his Lord-
ship recommended to' lhe,Jury to find a verdift for
the Defendant, ‘vhichlltry accordingly did.

SITTINGS AT6`)Iri'STMINSTER, FEB. 16.

LIMITATIONS

BICKNELL V. KFPPEL•

' This was an action brought by the ylaintiffagainst
the Defendant, Admiral Keppel, to recover an old
delft of twenty.tWo years standing.
The two questions that arose were, whether the
Plaintiff had a debt due.tohim at all ? and whether
there; was such an acknowledgment on the part of
the-Defendant, as took the debt out of the Statute
of Limitations ?

The evidence on the part of the Plaintiff .was,
that a debt had been due to him, about two-and_
twenty years ago, from the Defendant, who was
then a Captain in the Navy, and not very able io
pay it. The amount of the debt did not precisely ap-
pear, as the proof ofits existing at all, as far as appear..
:ed before the Court, was np more than a piece of pa-
per, purporting that the Defendant had paid the
Plaintiff 5531. on accouut, from 'vvhicit it rnight be
inferred that something more was due. 1E was
then given in evidence, that the Plaintiff, long after
six years from the time when the cause of action
arose, sent a letter to the Defendant, containing a
demand of 701.-as due from him to the said Plaintiff.
The Defendant
.returned an answer referring the
Plaintiff to his Attorney, Mr. Cocker, Nasiau-
street, Soho, by whose advice he always regulated
his affiirs,' and stating, that he would inform him
as to his determination and ability.
Serjeant SHEPHERD, Counsel I'm the Defendant,
insisted that the Judge was to decide upon this let_
ter, whether or not it Was an acknowledgment of
the debt.

Serjeant COCKELL,
. f9r,. the Plaintiff, contended
that it was a question of fad} for the Jury to deter-
mine.

L-►rd ALVANLEY mentioned- a case where Lord
KENYON had decided on a letter of this sort, and
on that accjunt the Court had sent the cause back
again to a Jury, to. whom it was submitted as
a question of faa. Whatever, -therefore, his
own opinion on the.merits might be, he was bound
to submit it
,to the, Jury to determine,. whether or
not the Defendant's letter was an acknoWledgment
of the debt. He, therefore, directed the Jury to
consider, in the first place, whether any debt was
due and, secondly, whether.aere was such an-ac.
knowledgment as would take it out of the Statute
of Limitations.

The Jury retired for about half an hour, and then
returned,. finding a
,verdit for the Plaintiff, to
which they said he was entitled both in law and
justice, for the sum demanded, which was 701.