The Sun.
London, England, 1804-01-31 00:00:00

,
MIA r. Pttov.olis saidthey had, anti that there-
fore this Motion to enlarge that Rule until :the first
day of the next Term was become aosolutely indis-
pensable for the Sheriff's protelion.
The CHIEF JUSTICE said, that as the matter
was now depending in Equity,the Court must enlarge
this Rule until the next Term certainly.—Rule en-
larged.

MOLINTFORD .1). GIBSON.
This was an Aaion of Troyer, brought by the
Plaintiff, as Administrator of one Howard, who
died intestate, against the Defendant, to recover
the amount of goods delivered by. the intestate's
wife after his'decease to the Defendant, who was a
creditor of his, he having previously. sold the goods
in question to him.
The aaion was tried at the last Summer Assizes
at Stafford, before Mr. Justice LAWRENCE, and a
verdia was found for the Plaintiff, under the direc-
tion, as to the law of the case, of the Learned Judge.
It
_was now sought to be set aside, principally on
the following grounds, by Mr. MILLS and Mr.
J Amy's, Counsel for the Defendant : That the wife
Was executrix in her own wrong, and it is laid
down in various Authorities, that a payment made
to a creditor by an Executor de son tort is a good
payment for the creditor, and cannot be invalidated.
In support of this position, several of the ancient
and modern books of Reports and other Authorities
were cited.

The Judges delivered their opinions seriatim, and
unanimously concurred in favour of the verdift.
They said that the cases cited were not in point,
the farts not tallying with these, which appeared
from the Learned Judge's Re.port, in the present
case. The Court was not called on to give any
opinion as to the legal validity of a payment made
to an intestate's creditor by an Executor de son tort,
afting habitually and with the knowledge of the
creditor as such. But here was a delivery of glods,
by an unauthorized person, not tiding as executrix
in any instance whatsoever, save as to the very.ad-
in question, therefore the creditor could nor have
previously supposed that she was afting as Execu-
trix in that single solitary instance. He might as
well be s.sid to have afted as an Executor de son tort,
as he participated in the aft by receiving the goods
from her, and is would be a very dangerous prece-
dent to establish, that an aft of this nature consti-
tuted one an Executor de son tort, for a servant or
any person in the house of an intestate, at the time
of his decease, might dispose of jewels or money ;
and if such servant or other person so disposing of
an intestate's effeas, happened to be a beggar, what
remedy; in that case, could the legal Administrator,
and other fair creditors have ?—Rule discharged.

MONDAY, JAN. 30.

Tx Is being. the 3oth of January, the day of
King Charles's Martyrdom, the Court did not sit ;
but the Grand Jury for the County of Middlesex
were sworn in to make Presentments, &c. in the
usual torm. _ _

Mr. Justice GROSE observed to them, that he
was not aware of any particular matters to come be-
fore them, if there were, he sh"uld have thought it
his duty to address them upon such matters; but
this he knew, that they had proved by. what they
had done on former occa.icms, that if any thing par-
ticular.was to be done notv, it would be well done.
He had nothing fat tier to add but say, that what-
ever the business should be that came before the
Grand Jury, it would be disposed of in a manner
that would refieEt honour on themselves, and be of
advantage to the Public.
The Grand jury then withdrew, and some Bail
were justified, which constituted the whole of the
business of the day.

COURT OF COMMON PLEAS, lAN. Z 7.

HAINES V. BERKS.

Mr. Serjeant BEST applied for a rule to chew
cause why the verdiel. for the Plaintiff, in this case,
should,not be set aside, and a nonsuit entered.
The action was tried before Mr. Justice ROOKE,
at the Sittings after last Term. The subje& of the
aalion was a Bill of Exchange, and the point on
which the Defendant, who was the Indorser, had
contended for a verclia in his favour was, want of
due notice of its dishonour. The Bill fell due on
the rst October, and. it appeared in evidence that it
was not presented for payment till after nine o'clock
that evening, being a Saturday,. The Acceptor
lived in Tottenham-court.road ; the Plaintiff, in
the near neighbourhood ; and the Defendant, at
Knightsbridge. That notwithstanding, however,
no notice of the dishonour of the Bill was sent to
the Defendant till Tuesday the 4.th, at two o'clock
in the afternoon, three days alter the Bill fell clue.
The Learned Counsel was aware that it would be
said, that the Bill had lain in the hands of the
Plaintiff's Banker till late on the Monday, and
therefore that no improper delay was imputable to
the Plaintiff. This, however, he contended could
not operate as an excuse. .The Bill had not been
paid away to the Banker, but had merely been pur
into his hands as agent for the Plaintiff. Any irre-
gularity in his condua, therefore, must attach to
the Plaintiff.