The Sun.
London, England, 1804-11-30 00:00:00

CLARKE 'v. COURTENAY.

This Aaiun was brought to •recover 301. the
amount of a bill drawn by the Defendant, a. Lieu.
tenant in his Majesty's service, in favour of one
Lyons, formerly a linen.draper at Porisea, and by
him indorsed to the Plaintiff.

Lyons, was called to prove the bill. Upon his
cross-examination by Mr. °ARROW, he said he
had retired from' business, or rather his btisiners
had retired ,from.him. His tetiremeot from trade
had been notified to the World by a frbercai
in the Gazette. He Swore that M. Clarke had
given value for the bill, and denied that he had
received it from the Defendant to get it die.•
counted, lie also denied having ever acknow.
ledged to a Mr. Aaron, that the bill was given hint
to get discounted, or having written him a letter to
that elrea. His letter was, hotvever, produced, in
which he not only admitted it, but stated that his
evidnce would defeat Mr. Clarke's ;talon.

Mr. Aaron proved chat Lyons had repeatedly,
in conversation, acknowledged that the bill was
given for the purpose of its being discounted. Li
short, every thing Lyons had deposed to was so
completely conttadiaed, that the Jury, while Lord
ELLENBOROUGH was summing Up the evidence,
said, they could not believe a word of what he had.
sworn. The verdia was of course fur the Defendant.

On the last day of Term Mr, GA.ltit OW, in
the Matter of Mr. George Watts, an Attorney
of sath,• who is of as great respedability as
any Man in the West of England, said, "
am to spew cause against a Rule which has been
obtained ; it is a Rule calling upon him to answer
the matters of an Affidavit. The AffiJavit.on which
it is made` is of considerable fetid) and my an.
slyer to it is of some length like Wise. I•arn now:
prepared to'go' through the whole of the scare, and
to state the Substance of thr Affidavit to the Court;
but, in (Wei to save time, Irgave tine Affidavit to
my Learned Friend, Mr. ERKI E, to read. I have
made no scores upon it, because I venture IQ
state, that theie is not a single syllable of cam.
plaint .; that there is not one fad that is not,
in 'mist dirrd and roSit* terms, contra.
di Red ,by . Mr. ,Watts- and other respeetable • per.
sons,; and I think Mr: Shepherd will find himself
in this situation, that otte of the persons who now
makes an Affilavit, swears throughout that that
which is rstated by Mr. Shepherd was communicated
tty him, but that he has suppressed the rest. I )iow
put it to my Learned Friend, Whether there is the
least probability of supporting:the. Rule."
Lord ELLENWOROU6II.....". Mr. AtszisE, have
you seen the Affidavits."
Mr, Ek4l'NE....••••" My Lord, it is' a Minion
made by *Mr. Glass, who is not now in Court.
When called upon by Mr. GARROW in the way I
am, I am Obliged to say, I have read them, and
that they amount to a diced contradiction of our's."
Ltd ELLENIIOROUGH...-.." The Rule must be
discharged, with costs."

COURT OF COMMON PLUAS:

MILO V. GRAHAM.

Our readers will recoiled that this was an ;talon
to recover the aTount.of the value of a quantity of
skins which were stated to be unlawfully detained
by the Defendant. He confessed the debt, but zit
Up a defence" of minority. The Jury, however, re-
turned a verdid for the Plaintiff, to the full amount
of at7l. as laid' in the declaration, subjed to the
opinion tlf the Court on the law, as applying to the
present case,
Sir JAM ES MAWsIIIL L 0 stated.at.length the result,
of the deliberation and researches of all his Learned,
Brothers. The aubirance of their respedive obset,
vationt came to this point, that, as a minor has no
right to cuter into a contrad, he cannot be sued 4.tr
debt., otherwise than for board and other necestia-
ries ; but ii fraudulently gets possession of goods,'
by concealing the circumstance of his minority until'
he shill find it convenient to make use of it as a
plea Or defence against a charge of illegal conduft,
then an action of Daiwa, of of Troyer, will faitly,
lie against hiro.—The Court then ordered the De,
'fendant to bv, detained until the full amount of the
+(mild of the Jury and the costa of Court be paid:

notw:thstanding the ttrht detention was tinlaWfill,
as that was not effeetei by any Officer of, the Court,
the arrest, which was regularly made afterwards,
was valid. As it . was under an attachment for
contempt of Co.urt, a person 'for such 'art Offence
Might be arrested on Sondav, notwithstanding- the
provisions of the Mt of King Charles 11. 'for the
protedion of debtors on that day.
Mr. Serjeant BaILLY made a most able speech,
in the course of which he pointed out the dangerouS
tendency 'of arrests made under such Circumstances,
• being encouraged. Their Lordships would consider
how far resistance would be jtistifiable in such a case,
,and what serious consequences might, possibly fol-
low if the,Court was to say, that in future- when a
,man once had submitted to an illegal detention, he
might afterwards be lawfully arrested.
Mr. Justice Roars; pointed out a case in Lord
Chief Justice Wills, in which a person was arrested
on a Sunday, under an attachment.
_ _ _ _

Mr. Serjeant Bra LLY reminded his Lordship that
that waca case of breach of the peace. This was
one of the exceptions in the'AA for the proteftion
of persons from arrest on the Lord's Day.
The Court finally declired, that they would con.
sult some of the other JiLlges; and,. it they should
be of opinion that Mr. P. should be 'discharged;
they should make out the order as of this day.

• DLCWINS KENNEDY.
Serjeant BasT had obtained a conditional Rule in
this cause on Friday last, that the judgment entered
upon.a Warrant of Attorney should be cancelled,
arid the
.costs incurred thereon paid; he now mowed
it should be made absolute.

. The case, as stated on a former day'by Serjeant
BEST, was, that an application had been made to his
Client, Mr. Kennedy, by a Mr. Johnston, Clerk to
a MC. Hid, an Attorney, for pay went of 274 which
he alledged was• due by him to Mr. Dickens, the
Plaintiff. Mr. Kennedy was quite surprised at
such an 'application, and asked Mr. Johnstwi who
this Mr. Dickens was ? He was theis t,,id by Mr.
Johnston, that Mr. Dickens was in partnership
with a Mr. Stedman ; With • whom the Defendant
was very well acquainted; and, as he knew he was
ihdebts,,sl to Stedman 251. he did not-scruple to axe.
cute a Warrant-of Attorney to Dickens, the partner
',of Stedman, as he conceived, for 271. trusting to Mr.
ptedmws lion:Jur for the two rounds overpaid by
that Warrant, when he should arrive in town. Some
time after he was informed thUt no -pannership did,
or had ever existed between Mr. Stedman and Mr.
Dickens: upon which account he applied ris the
.Court, that the judgment on the Warrant should be
set aside, and the cost paid,. charging Mr;Hill as
the instigator of this fraudulent transaction', merely
;the
the purpose of obtaining the costs'on the War.
rant of Attorney.
Serjeants SHEPHERD and VAVCtiAN opposed the
Rule's being made absolute, stating, from the affi.
davit of Dickens, that he never was partner- with
Stedman ; that the money was due to him fur gro.
ceries ; and that he applied to Mr.. Hill to enforce
payment, who sent Mr. Johnston, his Clerk, to de_
rpand it. The affi,lavit- of Johnston was then read,
Which.staied, that he never had told'Kennedy that
Dickens was partner to Stedman, 'nor "was he ever
?asked a single question 'on the subject t, that he had
inne, as he was direeled, to Mr. Kennedy, and had
:41-,:ysaosled 271; slue by him to Mr. Dickens, and had
obtained a Warrant of Attorney from him, for that
sum, to be ;paid at the rate of 21. a month. The
t;e4rned, Serjeants hoped, on these -grounds, the
;tole Would be discharged ; and hoped- the Court
would nut by content with merely discharging the.
,Rule, as there had been the Most unwarrantable at.
tack on Mr. Hill, a rispeftoble Attorney, by. en.
deavouring to she*. that he, for. the sake of the in.
significant costs rti be had rin'ilds power of Astor.
ney, had entered into a league to. defraud Mr. Ken.
nedy. The Court, without hesitation, discharged
the Rule with costs.

WELL, ymi•tam 1141,1tiltit ANP OTHER 9.

The Couit granted leave to compound this aainn,
brought agaktst site Proprietor anti Printer of The
Dispaich,
,Sun4l;ty Newspaper, to recover two
penalties of tool. for advertising a policy race to be
tan for 151 ~contrary to, the Att, which enafis that
no race shall oe advertised, wherein the parties run
for less than sot.