The Sun.
London, England, 1844-11-13 00:00:00

WRITS OF ERROR.

Shortly after ten o'clock Lord Denman, Lord Chief
Justice Tindal, the Lord Chief Baron, Mr. Baron Parke,
Mr. Justice Patteson, Mr. Baron Alderson, Mr. Justice
Coleridge, Mr. Baron Gurney, Mr. Justice Williams,
Mr. Justice Coltman, Mr. Baron Rolfe, and Mr. Justice
Cressw•ell, entered the Court to arrange the days for
taking writs of error. The days appointed were—
Queen's Bench, Tuesday (the 26th) and Wednesday (the
27th) ; and Common Pleas and Exchequer, on the usual
days in Hilary Term.

COURT OF COMMON PLEAS, Nov. 12.
(Sittings in Banco.)
DIETCALTS V. BUSBY.

The defendant was a tradesmrn at Romford, in Essex,
and having fallen into difficulties, he called a meeting of
his creditors, at which an arrangement was agreed to by
the creditors above the amount of 501. The plaintiff, a
wholesale grocer in London (as we und' rstood the case),
was not present, but being subsequently applied to on
the part of the defendant, they said they would do what-
ever Sir Chapman Marshall and the other creditors
would do. A deed was then drawn up and signed by
the defendant and it majority of his creditors, by which
the former gave up his property to satisfy his debts, and
the creditors, in accepting the assignment, consented to
leave him in possession of a portion of the stock and
household furniture, to enable him to continue in busi-
ness. The plaintiff did not sign that deed, but on the
contrary put in an execution upon the goods retained by
the defendant, and brought this action for the balance of
their claim above the amount produced by the property
seized jasxecution. The jury found for the defendant,
being of apinion that the plaintiffs had bound themselves
with the other creditors, when they stated that they
would do whatever Sir Chapman Marshall and the other
creditors would do.

Mr. Sergeant SHEA obtained last term a rule to show
cause why the verdict should not be set aside and a new
trial granted, on the ground that there had not been such
evidence of consent as could bind the plaintiffs with the
other creditors in the agreement and subsequent deed.
Mr. Sergeant TALFOURD this day showed cause against
the rule, relying upon numerous cases to which he re-
ferred, in which such consent as had been proved at the
trial to have been given by the plaintiffs to the defend-
ant's agent was held to be binding.
Mr. Sergeant SHEA, in support of the rule, contended
that the agreement ultimately come to by the creditors,
who were parties to the deed of assignment, did not
come within the terms of the consent alleged to have
been given by the plaintiffs ; for it was clear that by the
words " the other creditors" they meant all the other
creditors. The agreement, however, was concurred in
only by a majority of creditors of one class, that is, of
those whose debts amounted to more than 501. Besides
it had been shown that the person who called upon the
plaintiffs was not an authorised agent employed by the
defendant, but an accountant who took up the matter
officiously, and the conversation with him appeared not
to be regarded by the plaintiffs as having a definitive or
binding character.
The COURT considered that there were grounds for a
rehearing of the case, and made the rule absolute, upon
payment of the costs of the action, and of their ap-
plication.
The argument, of which we give the only points, occu-
pied the whole morning. The Court rose at half-past
one o'clock, their Lordships presence being required in
the Court of the Exchequer at the ceremony of "prick-
in for Sheriffs."