The Sun.
London, England, 1835-12-09 00:00:00

EXCHEQUER COURT-(TIW: DA

SEBONI V. KIRKMAN AND ANOTHEM
This was an action brought against the exe cu tors of gr.
Kirkman, to recover the sum of 401., as the vatic of a piano-
forte lodged in the hands of Mr. Kirkman, a pianc 'orte maker,
by the plaintiff, who was a singer at the Opera.
Mr. MARTIN, for the plaintiff, put in a paper , dated 1814,
which purported to be a receipt for a piano-f ote front the
plaintiff, for which he was to be allowed 401. on account when
he returned to England, he being then bound t( > buy another
from Mr. Kirkman, who signed the agreemeixt. He also
called a son of Mr. Kirkman, who had not seen: the plaintiff'
since the year 1810 ; but he might have been in E. ngland often
since that.
Mr. KELLY, for the defendants, said the Jury, iu ust presume
from the action, or any claim having been so ;ton g delayed(
that the plaintiff had in fact got another piano, ani.i that the
transaction bad been settled. Was it at all likely that till
plaintiff would; lie out of his 401. for twenty-on e years, a pe-
riod which would put an end to a bond debt. ' The Jury, b
trusted, would have an opportunity of seeing th.t: whole of the
transaction. He had the books of Mr. Kirkr aan, in wliieh
he bad entries in that gentleman's hand-writing, which wotild
prove this to be the most dishonest claim ever stet up. As that
gentleman was now dead, he hoped the evid en ce would be
received
His LORDSHIP said the books could not be re coived as evi-
dence in favour of his executors.
Mr. KELLY was sorry that such was. the rule of law, but he
trusted the Jury would not think that it was at; all probable
that the plaintiff would have slept over his rights: so long,. and
would not introduce so dangerous a principle as the giving.
.
credit to this claim, which was never made in the life-time e
Mr. Kirkman, and made now after the death of all who could
be witnesses in the cause.
The Learned JUDGE summed up, and the Jury ircumediateli
returned a verdict for the defendant.

SANDERSON V. SIMPSON.
This action was brought by the landlord of the ;Boar and
Castle, Oxford-street, to recover the sum of 1031. from the
defendant, a surgeon in the same neighbourhood.
Mr. ERLE stated the plaintiff's case. He said th e action
was brought to recover the balance of 441. odd, the defendact
having paid into Court 591., which was the amount for gooo
supplied to the defendant personally. The plaintiff was intimate
with the defendant, and used to supply him with wines
The defendant had a brother, a Lieutenant in the Navy,'
wb
crime home in 1832 ; he went to reside with the derma dart,"
but his wife did not like it, and it went so far, be belie'
that she declared that either she or the brother should JOY.I'
the house. Accordingly the defendant chose the lesser .01
and went to the plaintiff to whom he introduced the breilw;
Tom, who was to reside in the Hotel, and be (the defenda-atJ
would be accountable for; the bill. The brother was tat°
in, and treated more like one of the family than a guest, the
plaintiff having altered his style of living and hour of dine
for his accomodation. He resided there for a long time, a
on the 24th March the defendant gave notice that from tha
time he would be no further liable. Up to that time
plaintiff: the
sent in the bill, and it was not quarrelled at all anti
a in.-)nth after, when the defendant set up the Tom' own
on'
liability. He would prove that the brother " olle was n't
a state of absolute distress, having borrowed small sums 0'
money from the servants, so that it was evident that tired
plaintiff would not have given credit to him.. They had
charged for eighteen weeks, at the rate of 58s. a-w eek.
Mr. HUMFREY said the defendant did not dispute any- of tha
items ; he disputed his liability only.
Mr. ERLE then called the waiter, who proved that niren th°
defendant came and introduced his brother, he heard him- 4a)l
that he would be responsible for the bill. The defendant alff
told the witness to pay attention to his brother, and he .010111"
recompense him for it. He also called Miss Betts, the lreeP,e,
0
of the hotel, for the plaintiff, who; proved': that she asked tu,
defendant for money after his brother had been a monthr
in the hotel, when he said, " For God's sake, don't tell I.°
(71',„
n
that I am responsible, as he will never get a ship," ad
another occasion he gave notice that he would be no longct
responsible. He also paid her a sovereign, which she bad lea
the brother.
This was the case for the plaintiff.
Mr. HUMFREY addressed the Jury for the defendant. 1,1:
1;
was not instructed to complain of the chargee in this bill--1
deed, he thought 58s. a week a small charge for the privilagl
of boarding at the Boar and Castle, and enjoying the society
the young lady whom they had seen. He denied the liability
the defendant, even upon the evidence of the plaintiff.
ill
was evident from it, that all the goods were supplied origins
on the credit of Thomas H. Simpson, and that the defends':;
was to be looked to only if he did not pay. If they wetethe
that opinion, then the plaintiff had no right to recoverriv
agreement as to responsibility not being in writing._
e
ease was one of hardship, and he trusted they would turdtb
verdict for the defendant.
His LORDSHIP left to the Jury to say whether the credita
given to the defendant or his brother. In making up t's%
minds, they were to bear in mind that before the brother'
taken to the hotel, he was living at the defendant's expense
0
his own house, which he was obliged.to leave in consequello
of a quarrel with the wife of defendant. As Thomas waa_Ait
poor, it was not likely that the landlord would give the cc'o
to him, as he was perfectly aware of it. He thought wo
was evidence to show that there had been some contract n'
the defendant.
The Jury interrupted the Judge, and returned a verdict
the plaintiff—Damages 441. 10s.