The Sun.
London, England, 1804-12-26 00:00:00

LAZY REPORT.

CPURT Of KING'sBENTC/f.
HASL,E K 7. VARLEY,
• This was an Adion upon four Bills' of Exchange
for nine guineas each, payable to the. order of the
Plaintiff, given to him in consideration of his luiv.
ing given up the benefit of an agreement he had
with the Wet Dock Company fo'r excavating the
earth in part of 'the Dicky to the Defendant.
The defence set up by Mr. ERSKINE for the De.
&titian' was, that the Defendant had no benefit
whatever from this engagement. The person who
drew these bills on the Defendant, who had accepted
them, was not the partner of the Defendant, nor had
any general authority to draw bills on the Defendant;
but these bills ; were drawn uftbn a specific consi.
deration, which had failed. The Plaintiff had a con.
mid with the Wet Dock Company for excavating
_the earth, and the agreement was drawn up on the
I 4.th of June, the day on which the bills were
drawn. Three persons, one of whom was the
Plaintiff, had entered into this contrad, and he
tranferred' his right to the Defendant, who agreed
to give him these bills ; but if the consideration
for which they were given failed, the Plaintiff
might recur to his original right as between him
and the Wet Dock Company, but he could not re.:,
cover against the Defendant. The Defendant's
case was this, and he understood he should prove
it, that at the time when this agreement was en.,
tered into, it was fraudulent on the part of she
Plaintiff, Mr. Halle, because' lie had foifeited his
agreement with the Wet Doek Compatik, And
therefore was not in a condition to convey any thing
of value upon, it to the Defendant; and that'the
tiff knew the Defendant could not take any thing by
if. If these Bills had been indorsed away, and; were
in the hands of a third person for a valuable consi.
derat inn, and mho knew nothing of the circumstances
at the time of taking the hills, there could be node.
fence, hut, as that was not the casn, the Defendant
was at liberty to spew that the consideration for •
which' the Bilk were given, had failed, and if he did
so, the Defendant would be entitled to a verdiet.
This ease, however, the Defendant did not make
out in evidence, and therefOre the Jury found' a vet.
did for the Plaintift—Darnages 3SI. •

NUTT V, lIUTLER.

Mr. GI aas stated this to be an anion to recover
a'amall sum of money of the. Defendant, in conse.
(pence of the Plaintiff having sold to him the, good.
will • of a inills.walk, anti let him a cellar at, Ken.
sington, where the business Was carried oa, and sold
some pails, &c. to him. There were some Aermer,o
sold also, but 86 they were:attacked to /be dwelling,
they could, not be chattels which could ;be called
44 Goods sold and delivered," he was,aoprehensive
his Lordship would rote that,to be the Law ; which
his Lordship did, andthe rest of the case was proved
for the Plaintiff.
Mr. PULLEkt on the part of the Defendant, called
two witnesses- to chew ,that the •agteement, was pot
made between the Plaintiff' and the'Defendani, but
with the Delendaot's daughter, WhO was a married
woman, and that the goodwill of this Walk was not
worth 21. instead of fol. &C.
The Jury found a verdict for the Plaintiff—Da.
mazer) soh .9s.
?CUM' V. THOUP3OII.
Mr. Grans stated 'this to be an Adion Upon two
promissory notes given by the Defendant to John
Twig, payable to the Plaintiff; or order ; one dated
nth Oa. 'due in January Taos, am! the otlir on
the 9th of December, payable at one month. The De.
fondant was the drawer in favour of Twig, and he
indorsed them to the Plaintiff; and that was the
Plaintifricase,: unless there was some answer to itc:;
but he understood there was a deed executed by
'the creditors of Twig, by which they agreed not to
sue or molest him for any debt now due from him
•to them. for. 9e)- years; to this deed the Plaintiff
was a party, but that was noshing, for they- had a
right to release him altogether, but that did not
discharge the drawer, for he had no remedy against
the person to whom he promised to pay ; not so,
if they had agreed not to sue the Drawer, for if'
they. had agreed to excuse. the Drawer, the notes •
would have been at an.,en4.
The. Notes being proved-.-r! „
Mr. Famine, for the Defendant, said, he should.
prove that these Notes t%ere,given for the aeons.
modation of Twig, without any consideration, and
that the Plaintiff knew it, In point Of law he sub.
mitred that the moment a verrlid . was, recorded
against Thompson, be would have an affirm against
Twig, so that, this. would,be contrary to the deed
to which the Plaintiff was a party, by, which they
covenanted not to molest, sue, or trouble Twig,
for 99 years, for any debt now due from him.
Lord ELLEWBOILOUGSI thought„„if, liereitfter,'
Thompson might bring :Manion against Twig in,
consequence of this verdict, it could not be said, to*
he for any debt now due from Twig, for that would
depend upon the condition of, , whether Thomson
should pay it or not • and therefore this adion was
not repugnant to the deed by which the Plaintiffco.
venanted not to sue, molest, or trouble. Twig for
99 years, on account of any debt now,due tram
&c. Verdict for the Plitintiff—Danirgett
4561. ss. :sd.