The Sun.
London, England, 1803-12-03 00:00:00

IAW REPORT.

COUKT or KlNG's BENCE!, Dr.c. 2,

rALKNIR V. ORD AND CORDON.
Tnrs was au aaion brought to recover 2221.
which arose in this manner :

Falkner and Ord had fo'rinerly b•en in partner.
ship together as Tea..dealers, and at the dissolution
the partnership a diviiion was made, as nearly as.
it could be ascertained, of the property between'
Ahem, and. among 'the rest, of all the good out.
standing debts. The way in which the debt now'
in question arose was this :—A bill from Surinami
of the amount of 2631. 75'. was remitted to Ord and:
Gordon, in which they were interested to,t he amount
of 401. The rest of the bill was due to the Plain.
tiff, Falkner. The bill ia'payable at six months,
but not due yet. It is drawn by a Gentleman at
Amsterdam. Falkner, the Plaintiff, as being en.
titled to the greater part-of the Bill, thought he was
entitled, to the possession of it, and applied to Ord and
Gordon for the bill, offering them a security for
their ,a.oU. upon • their delivering the bill to him.
They refused tudo it on any terms but actual payment
of their +oh but upon such payment they said they
would deliver up the bill. The Plaintiff's attorney
afterwards consented to .3o so, and called on the De.
fendants for that purpose ; he offered them their
401. hut at thal time the bill was not in the De.
tendants' possession, it having been sent to Amster.
da;n for acceptance. He called 'at a subsequent
period, and made them the same tender, asking
them if the bill had been returned ? The De-
la tid ants told him it was, but then they did not
chose to deliver up the Bill, upon which this At!tion
was brought to recover the amount of the Bill after
dedating the 401. which was the amount of the De..
fendants' claim upon the Bill, the rest belonging to
the Plaintiff, and, as he contended, they had pro.
&nised to do.

Lord ELLENDOROUGH at first entertained some
doubt whether this was nut :lawn palium, and that
the Plaintiff should be nonsuited.

On the part of the Plaintiff it was submitted it
was not, because here was a security of payment to
the Defendants, at all events, of what was due to
them, by the tender of +ol. and beyond that, it
offered to them an aceeleratiob of payment.
Lord ELL 14NBOROUGH' held that to be sufficient,
and therefore there was A verdid for the Plaintiff,
Damages zzzl. suhtr.taing the 401. to which the
Defendants are entitled out of the Bill. But it was
agreed that Execution shall not be taken out against
the Defendants, if the Bill' should be dishonoured.

CHAMBERLAIN V. CALLENDER.

Mr. EitIICINII said that this was an affirm to re.
cover the sum of 1181. for a Curricle. The Plaintiff
was a .Coachmaker, the Defendant an Attorney.
When this Curricle was bespoken, the Coachmaker
asked the Attorney for security for the payment of
the money which the Carriage would come to.
a Security !" said the Attorney, I will give you
a draft on my banker." }-k gave the Coachmaker
a bill. The Carriage was finished and delivered—
the Bill became due—was dishonoured—and away
rode the Attorney in the Curricle—and the Plain.
tiff had not seen any thing of him since.
Verdift for the Plaintiff, Damages