The Sun.
London, England, 1803-12-08 00:00:00

REPORT.

COURT OF KING's BENCH, Di.c. 6.

St Cif/4GS /MORE LORD YIAJNBOROUDIt, Af:D A $1•1.-
CIA'. JURY, IN WLSTMINSTIR-lIALL.

BRYAN V. HOR.9IIMAN.

Mr, GARitow stated, this anion was brought by
the Plaintiff, who is a farmer, against the Defendant,
who is a miller, to recover z6l. I is. for wheat sold
and delivered to .him, to that amount. To this de.
mind the Statute of Limitations had been pleaded,
that this debt hail been incurred upwards of six
years ago. That Statute went on the presumption,
that the debt had been paid ; but it had been de.
tided, in a great variety of cases, that any acknow.
ledgment on the part of the Defendant, hat the
debt .had not been paid, would take it out of the
Statute.

The first Witness on the part of the Plaintiff was
Thomas Searl4 a Sheriff's Officer, who said, he had
arrested the Defendant for this debt, when the Dc.
fendant said that it had been more thin six years
since the debt • had been contrafted, and that he did
not think the law would recover it. The Officer
told him that was nothing to him, and that he must
either go along with him, or find bail, which he did.
He tc.hl the Witness this debt was fur wheat, or
Some kind of grain.
The next Witness was Thomas Capeuftll, who was
the assistant to the last Witness's. 'The Defentlant.
told him, that be considered he did not; Owe ,Bryan
a farthings. it being upwards of six years since the
debt was contraaed. On. the Witness asking him
the question, he said he had 'received the wheat,
that he had paid forpart of it, and that 26/. and up.
•wards •reniained due.
Mrk PAltit, leading Counsel for the Defendant,
observed; that it was extremely improper in any
Sheriff's Officer • to ask questtans of the person
whom he had arrested, and then to make. such an
use' of them.
• that Lord ELLENDORpVGII said, o he, should
have held that ;his evidence was not sufficient to
basVe taken this case out of the. Statute, had it not
been for theie'vrOrds, that he saiti'lle acknowledg.
ed that, z6l. and upwards, remained doe.' His Lord.
ship said, he Should, he very glad to have thiscon-
sidered. This most, useful Statute had been frittered

away in a manner to which he did not agree ; at
least said his Lordship, r will not add 'another in.
• stance. These words, if believed, took the case
our of the tote, though they would not have
done so, according to the first construetion, he
should have been‘disposed to put on the Statute in
the absence of all decided cases on it. The Statute
went on the presumption the debt, was discharged ;
but if the Defendant acknosyledged it was still due,
he did not rely on that presumption arising from the
Statute, by admitting that he had not paid it.
Mr. PARK% addressed the' Court on behalf of the
Ilefendant, and put it to the. Jury,, whether the
evidence of the second witness ought to receive
credit ? If they believed his testimony, the De,
feudant was absolutely ruined ; that, however,
must not prevent :them from doing justice. He
observed, that at York, on the Northern Circuit,
it; %vim it a constant custom for debts to be proved
by the acknowledgment of the debtors to the S!le.
riffs. Officers wlp at tested them, which was most
shameful and improper, and a.violaziJi) of :the trust
reposed in them.. When they arrested poor men,
where they had no friend to advise with, and hard,
Iy knew what
.they were about, they made some.
thing like an acknowle4gment, which the Olflcers
swore into w pusitiec admissiOn of the debt. These
two Witnesses came inio'COUrt to support a fad,
which he' bad no means of, contradiding, as he
could not call the Defendant himself. It was very
extraordinary that the Defendant should. admit
• that this debt was due to the second Witness, when
he did not admit it to the principal. It was part of
the province of a Jury to exercise their jOilginent
an the credit., they thought due to the Witness.
The _whole case tier oda on ;1 particular expression
-be alimitted the balance of 261. was due. '

Lord EL L NBOIttAIGH observed, the: question',
was, whether
,the Jury believed the. Witness spoke
the truth, when he said the Defendant admitted
this debt was due I It depended on. these words,
whether the declarations of the party would amount
to a confeSsion to t4ke: it out of the Statute.. That
most useful Statute. considered', that if a debt had
been owing upwards of six years, that. vouchers
might be lost, and witnesses might be dead,, and
thereinte it presumed, the debt had been satisfied.
But that presumption might be destroyed by the
at of the party acknowledging the contrary fad,
that the debt had Lot been paid. A great deaf of
observation had been. made on the coodud of
Officers, extorting confesNions from persons whom
they bad arrested and certainly : any person in that
predicament, who bad been guilty of such condoett
Was extremely repteheAsible; and great dibirleiirlic.:
tion was always. expressed by judge&TO reeeive.
their evidence; Unless with considerable grains „f
allowance. < flu Lordship said; he did not'filiti-any
particuhir language had been. Med .to extraet any
confessions from the Defendant. If they believed
the evidence, he thought' the Plaintiff entitled to a
vertild ; but if they did not, they would find a
vcrititi for die Defendant.
Vertigt for Plaintiff e6l. ts.

DEcEmbeit 7.

THR KING V. n119E3 AND /010.7/11111.

This, was an information filed
,by His Majesty's
Attorney General ;Tams( the two Defendant4Mi.
elniel and John Hedges, imputing to them that, by
meats of false vouelletiviihich they obtained trom
the Clerks and Keeperia, of the Stores or His Ma.
jetty's Dock-yards at Deptford and.Woolwich, they
had procured false certificaqs of work dune, mate.
6;113 found for the masts and tackle: of His Majes.
tyii Ships at Deptford and 'Woolwich, and. that
thereby, in
,four :tiff rent accounti, they hid sent
in at stated
.periods' in the years r Soo and 1801,
whereby they 'ha procured' payment in Navy Bttls
for matet Is that were never found, and for labour