The Sun.
London, England, 1826-11-08 00:00:00

COURT OF COMMON PLEAS.—(Tms DAY.)

WALTERS V. THOMAS AND ROBERT BUNN.
In this case, Mr. Sergeant Boca recausT moved for a rule to
show cause why the verdict of lb. Jury should he set settle. The
cause was tried before Mr. Justice PARK in Northumberland. It
appeared from the evidence of one Armstrong, who was agent
for the plaintiff, that about the middle of January last he sold to
the defendants wheat to the amount of 499/. ; and on the 2d
of February the defendant, Robert Bann, Jailed. Armstrong
entered in the plaintiff's books the sale to the debit of Robert Bunn
only, and shortly before hie failure received a cheque from Thomas
Bunn for 2001. on account, for which he (Armstrong) granted a
receipt, which stated the payment to have been received from
Robert Bunn, by the hands of Thomas, who asked him why he
did not state it to have been received from both, to which Arm-
strong answered that it was of no consequence.
Mr. James Watson, clerk to Mr. Thomas Bunn, deposed
and proved that it was he himself who asked Armstrong why he
had so worded the receipt, to which the latter answered, that he
conceived it was with Robert alone that he dealt.

The Jury found a verdict for the plaintiff.
The Learned &tame...ter contended that the verdict should be
set aside in so far as concerned Thomas Bunn, because, although he
was present when the wheat was purchased, it might be presumed,
from the subsequent conduct of Armstrong, that he had no con-
nection with the purchase. Besides, there never was a regular
partnership between the two brothers, although they might on
some occasions have dealt together.
The Cum, JusTic; however, from the whole circumstances
of the case, was inclined to think that Thomas must have been
concerned in the purchase, and therefore refused the rule.

SIX JOHN ?EXILING AND CO. ?. JOHN HOMY.
Mr. Sergeant TAHOE stated, that this case was brought under
their Lordships' notice on Saturday, and he now begged leave to
move for a rule, to set aside the verdict of the Jury for the dc•
fendant. It was tried at Guildhall before the Chief Justice. It
appeared that in August, 1825, the plaintiffs, who are bankers,
advanced 20001. on the joint and separate note of the defendant
and eight others, Directors of the Imperial Distillery Company, at
six mouths date. When this note became due, 1000/. were paid,
and a new note, by the same persons, at three months, taken for
the balance, but the words joint and separate were omitted
when it was written, and in this state it was signed by all the
parties except one, who sired it after the words joint and sepa-
rate were introduced into at by the Clerk of the Company, it was
suer this given to the plaintiffs. On the Bth of May last, after
it was due, the plaintiffs wrote a letter to the defendant demanding
payment of his joint and separate note, to which on the following
day, the defendant wrote for answer that he would pay imme-
diate attention to the matter.

Mr. TADDY contended that the defendant was jointly and sepa-
rately liable for this note, because, although the words joint and
separate were introduced after he signed it, yet it was in the
terms of the original intention of the parties.—Rule granted.

PREROGATIVE COURT.—(Tnra DAr.)
(Before Sir JOHN NICHOLL, Knt.)
On the motion of the King's Advocate, letters of administra-
tion were granted to the King's Proctor, in several eases where
parties died intestate, and without leaving any known relations.