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

•,' ' •
wondered why the Petendant had ,not. etopt there,
because he was to tell the jury-to-day..that the See,_
dement included, the*ol. for, Mr...Taskethi estate7r
Or why he hid not saitf, " fettred 'all demands;"--,e
that Was the wile', in which. an honest man of
business would have worded it, if a real, settlement
of all concerns between them had taken :place—
bute no, he -" settled for -the Sale. of
the 6 said,
of April, Now that was the
real statement of the transaction, and honestly
and above board ; that shotim have been the whbie of
it, for it was the intention of the Plaintiff to eve
him an
.acquited of the goods—bUt afterwardS", Mr:
Couatto-ei.insisted, the Deleodana put in,-itand all
dethands." Now, if he had this •the receipt, and
in ha for the 'B6l. depOsited far the tistate of Mr.
Tasker, the Plaintiff-would not have signed it, but
would haVe scot the Defendant to the Plaintiff's
Attorney, a man of 'perfect honour, who would
dace taken care that he should not sign any thing
that should do away his right of aetion against the
Defendant for the 801. he had paid withoUt conside-
ration;; but rot a word of the 'Bol. in this receipt'.
The Defendant then sent for Mr. Elf, the Landlord
of the Inn, to witness the signature to this receipt.
Mr.:GAtthoW said he had not seen the receipt, but
when it was produced, The Jury would attend to:the
manner in' which the words " and all demands,"
were pUt in. Why did he say this ? Because, he
said, he was 'conscious these wards were written
since his Client signed the receipt. Was any mo-
ney paid at tha',tetime -in cash ? When ? Where ?
Not a word 'neon these paints. What had the Land-
lord of the Inn to do with this? Nothing; and
yet he was called in to attest it. But this was not
all ; but the Defendant, for further e'autione made a
copy of this receipt, after the Plaintiff was gone, and
after Wards desired the landlord to make another copy,
fdr fear there should be any dispute—why should -
there, be any dispute if the transaction was 'fair 1--1.
Some time afterwards on application to hiM for pay,
men; of this Sol. he had the impudence, to say he- -
had- got 'this receipt,_ which' when shewn to Mr.
Elf the landlord, who had witnessed it, it struck •
him that the words, " and all demand 4," were put
iniirf. a cramped hand in a corner after the rece,kpe was
sighed ; but at that time he had not had the copy
deliveted to him, Now, Mr. Gnaitowsaid, he"
warned the Defendant to take care how he made
this defence, if he pet-fisted in instrufting- his learned ,
"Counsel to give it in evidence ; and if his Lordship
and the Jury should be of opinion, that the: words
" and all.. demands" were interpolated, he should
'think it his duty to move his Lordship, . that, this -
receipt. might be impounded to he forthcoming to
answer the purposes of public justice, and the De, _
fendant should hear of it again. He should now
prove the payment of .the 801. to the Defendant on
account' of this estate, and the contrad being
broken off because the Defendant .did not payhhe
201. he was bound to pay, and- that would entitle
him to a verdict for ahe Plaintiff. :If the Defendant
should he hardy enough to insist upon this receipt,
Mr..Gatt Row said he should then go further.
The agreement for. the sale of this estate by the
Defendant to the Plaintiff; the deposit of 801. for
the purchase; the Plaintiff's readiness to complete
the contrad, the deeds being prepared for the con..
veyance ; and that the contract broke off on account
of the Defendant not paying the 201. as he had en.
gaged to do ; were all proved.
Mr.- HART, Attorney for the Plaintiff, swore,
that he attended the parties as Attorney ; that the'
contract having broken off on account of the De.
kndant's not paying the 201. ; the Witness told hint •
that on that account the business could not be set-
tled, and that therefore he must pay back to the
Plaintiff the 801. or he should proceed against him: ,
this was on the ii th of September, r Boz : he
turned shortly on his heel and said, " very well."
Finding he did not pay, the Witness wrote to him a
letter; on the id of October, for for the payment of
the debt,. which he did not pay. He was arrested'
about the 19111, The Witness saw the Defendant
afterwards frequently on the subject of the action.
At first, in the month of November', be said he hoped
the Witness would not injure: his. fatnily. The
Witness said, he did not wish to' do' so, and pro.
posed to him, though his Client did not knoW'of it,
that the Defendant should give his prdmissory note
for 201. payable•in a month, and the remaining 601.
on the first of 'March following ;' he seemed satis.
fled with this, but he would not agree to pay the
costs. The Witness told himhe was theecause of
die costs being incurred, and therefore ought to pay
. them. He called on the Witness on the toth of
November.; -he said it was a. foolish cause he was en-
gaged in with Upfold, and that Upfold would core'
tainly lose his cause. The Witnes said he thought
nor, for that his cause was an extremely good one.
Upon which the Defendant said, I wid len you
what, 'I have got a receipt in fnil of all dem.:ndse
He then read the receipt, but did not let the Wit-
ries look at it. On the first of December he came
to the, house of the Witness again, and said he was
surprized he should press the action, knowing he
'was in possession of a receipt ; he was sure- the
Plaintiff had misstated his case ; that he wished to
see the Plaintiff, that they might meet.face to face,
by which he should have an opportunity of convin-
cing the Plaintiff's attorney, his client was wrong.
Accordingly an appointment.was made for 'that pur.
pbse. The Plaintiff came, the Defendant was sene
for, but did not come,
'The Attorney's Clerk proved he called at the
Defendant's house but did not meet him there ; saw
him go out in 'a' few minutes afterwards, on which
he ran away; the Clerk ran after him, told him the
?iaintiff was waiting for him ; but the Defendant
ran away, and never faced the Plaintiff.
, Mr. Elf, the Landlord of the Swan, at Riegate,
proved he was called in to witness the signing of
the receipt from the Plaintiff to the Defendant, who,
after the Plaintiff was gone, sent the Witness a
coPy
.of it, saying it was to prevent disputes ; de..
sired the Witness afterwards to make another copy.
The Defendant never before, although he used his
house on market-days, asked him to keep a copy of
any receipt. The Witness saw no money pas.
Mr. MAR R YAT, for the Defendant, insisted
that according to the Plaintiff's own sheaving, only
201. could be due to him, although he had arrested
the Defendant for 801. He insisted on this receipt
being an 'answer Attion. He said he could
call Witnesses that the Plaintiff and Defendant had