The Sun.
London, England, 1826-06-14 00:00:00

MEMBERS RETURNED.

1/11LCIIVED THDI MORNING.]
WA IIW 1 1: COUNTY--D. S. Dugdale; F. Lawley.
WALLING/ORD—Colonel Hughey; Colonel Rolhirts.
Dnotrvicit—.l. H. Foley ; Earl of Sefton.
Tivsnvos—Lord Sandon ; Hon. R. Ryder.
Monatorrn, NEwrOnv, AND Us—Marquis of Worcester.
Rtrox—Right Hon. F. T. Robinion; L. Sbadwell.
MIDSURST—J. Smith; A. Smith.
Ricttmoxn--Hon. T. Dondes_i S. M. Barrett.
Mokervn—Lord Morpeth ; W. Ord.
Tortiltss—Lord Barnard ; T. P. Courtney.
CAIIELFORD—M. Milbank; Colonel Craddock.
CALUNGTON—A. Baring; M. Attwood.
lslAw TOWN (ISLZ Of WIORT)—H. Gurney, Esq. ; C. C
Cavendish, Esq.
NEWPWIT (far of liViowrj—ltight Hun. G. Cintning; Hon,
W. H. J. Stott.

LAW INTELLIGENCE.

COURT OF CRANCERTifis DAY.)

OItINOTICAT), IH NIIATTICItiarHOWA KO AND (1111814

BANKRUPTS,

His Loansnie had now to decide this matter against Mr. Grim-
stead: It appeared that Mr. G. had been introduced to Mr. Gibbs
by a Mr. Walsh, and, looking at Mr. W.'S evidence, it seemed
that Mr. Grimstead was a person to whom caution might be
given; only one person, however, imputed weakness to Mr. G., and
he did not carry it very far. Every transaction appeared regular
until the November, 1819. At that time items were entered in
a book, and a letter Written to Mr. Grirnitead. With respect
to that book, his Lordship hid felt totally unable to reconcile the
dozen answers that Mr. GriMstead had given regarding it ;
sometimes he had denied having ever seen the book, at other times
lie confessed that he had ; he had not examined it, and again he
had examined it, but not with requisite attention, and so on. His
Lordship, however, was satisfied that Mr. Grimstead had not
only seen the book, but that it had been in his possession for a
long time, and that he had shown it to persons, and discussed its
contents. If there were no Usury Laws, Mr. Grimstead in a
Court of Law, by the production of that very book alone,
could at once obtain a verdict for the money he claims, together
with ten or eleven per cent. interest. Looking at the evidence of
Mr. Grimstead, Mr. Gibbs, the documents, and the evidence of
other persons examined, his Lordship really thought that no Judge
Could sum up this case favorably to Mr. Grimstead, nor any Jury
say, with justice, that this case was untainted with usury.
Mr. Holm then submitted that his clients, the assignee*, ought
to have their costs.

His LORDSHIP considered them entitled to costs as against Mr.
Grimstead.

Mr. TRESI.OVE added that there were six petitions.
Mr. HART, fur Mr. Grimstead, hoped the gentlemen did not
mean to ask for the costs of all those petitions.
Mr. Homo: certainly did mean to ask for the costs of them all.
His clients had been uniformly right; the Commissioner* had, in
the very first instance, refused to admit the proof; and if the as-
signees were not now to have costs, it would have been better for
them to have allowed the proof in the first instance.
Mr. HART thought it unnecessary for Mr. Horne to be so
zealous: when a man was ruined, it was a matter of indifference
whether he was ruined for 10,000/.or for 100,0001.
_ _

. _
Mr. HORN'''. hoped Mr. Hirt did not mean to address this ob-
servation to his private feelings; no man could lament misfor-
tunes more than himself; but where he stood he felt bound to dis-
charge his duty, and to insist, on the part of his clients, for their
costs, after having been dragged through almost all the Courts in
the kingdom, and having been uniformly successful. Many had
been ruined by the bankruptcy as well as Mr. Orimstead, but
that was not his (Mr. Horne's) fault.
His Lounsitte said, if Mr. Hart found that he could offer any
thing against the claim of costs, he would be glad to hear him on
Saturday, or on any day he pleased.
Mr. HART thanked his Lordship.

COURT OF COMMON PLEAS.-...(Tars Dar).
SKENXS p. JACOII.9.—,TUDOI4/NT.
a butcher, to recover the sum
the Statute of Limitations, and
le to show cause why non-
suit should not wt mils having been obtained on the ground that
of
fe ThislP6ll iar wasit,riiih an
wnuas actioneeeilendnaiiipted broughtea,;iet ai lyrui
the Defendant bad, within six years acknowledged that be owed the
been ergusd this Term, the four Judges delivered
dlehbeto4ansde phraovi,oinitted to pay it when circumstances would enable him. g
acknowledgment.i ieetheirooAp ei
nr i aoftta.
favour
ftd atlep
e;
in Connoheti
uetfiatJk, uens cet
it ch:01
out
gstr)rfoatunhnteld
ssAttfairiau
ttjetulusi
frantic ; and though it had been ruled, that a promise to
pay, would take it out of the statute, yet a conditional pro-
mise did not before the plaintiff could recover on the above
promise, he should show flat the defendant was in sufficient cir-
cumstances.

Mr. Justice PARK and Mr. Justice BURROUCH
gave judgment
against the nonsuit„ on the grounds that an acknowledgement of
the debt was an implied and that it was analagous to
a promissory-note, where *record on the back of it, of having re-
ceived interest for the wont was held sufficient to take it
out of the Statute of Limitations, and would enable the party to
mover at any time within twenty years after the interest had
been received. The rule SSO aside the RORlllit was illtiOrdingly