The Sun.
London, England, 1829-10-20 00:00:00

LAW INTELLIGENCE.-(THIS DAY.)

COURT OF KING'S BENCH.
SIR JAMES JELF V. ORIEL.
Mr. CAMPBELL (with whom was Mr. Broderick)
stated that this was an action upon a bill of exchange for
200/., drawn by the defendant, and accepted by Lord
Audley. The Learned Counsel had heard it hinted that
the defence to this action was, that it was an usurious
transaction ; but how usury could be established he was
at a loss to know. He then proved the band-writing of
the defendant and Lord Audley.
Mr. DENMAN (as now addressed by Lord Tenterden,
from his havinm been raised from Common Serjeant to
the dignity of King's Counsel) intimated to his Lordship,
that although the bill was accepted, and made payable at
Sir James Esdaile's bank, yet the following words were
added in another hand-writing—" or at No. It 4, Poland-
treet, Oxford-street." This last sentence was included in
ation, which was dearly bad, as it stated the sen-
tnce to he a part of the acceptance, and that the hilt was
made payable at Poland-street, when, in fact, the accept-
ance only made it payable at Sir James Eadaile's.
Mr. CAMPBELL submitted, that this case was the very
one which came within a recent Act of Parliament, and
hoped that his Lordship would permit them to amend the
declaration, as it was clearly an oversight by the special
pleader.
Lord TENTERDEN said, that it was a blunder by negli-
gence, and not an oversight that could have been commit-
ted, if proper care had been used.
Mr. CAMPBELL—WouId your Lordship allow justice to
he defeated by an accidental slip of this sot t by the special
pleader.
Lord TENTERDEN—T am not going to allow justice to
be defeated. It is always my object to do justice, but there
is a discretion vested in me which I must exercise, accord-
ing to my own judgment, and exercising that discretion,
I do not think that this is a cue to which the indulgence
of the Act alluded to ought to be extended.
Mr. CAMPBELL—But will your Lordship allow me to
suggest the reasons by which I think this a ease within
the Act.
Lord TENTERDIN—You may suggest what you please,
Cr ; I thought you had done, or I should not have spoken.
Mr. CAMPBELL then submitted that previous to the
--rha,-"Aurpna `lsal67-
order to correct that defect, and give the Judge power to
etend indulgence to such eases as he should think fit.—
This was clearly an oversight, and he thought, with great
deference, that his Lordship would still allow them the
begat of that Act.
Lord TENTERDEN said that if he did, he should be
holding out a premium to negligence. It had been for-
m/Ay too much the practice to swerve from strictness in
practice, for the purpose of doing justice in particular
eases ; that practice lad established precedents, which had
introduced an injurious laxity in the practice of the law
which he could not approve of, and he regretted that such
a laxity should ever have been produced. This was clearly
- a piece of gross negligence, and must follow the regular
course.

The plaintiff then went on the count for the account
Air, DENMAN (with whom was Mr. ARLISS RICH-
ARON') eantended against 6 is count, that the marble for
which the bill was given was not bought by the defendant
his agent ; aria secondly, that if it had been so bought,
it was ►wt worth half what was charged for it, for the
purpose of proving which be called witnesses.
Mr. CAMPBELL replied, the learned Judge summed up
the evidence, and the Jury found a verdict for the plaintiff
Damages 2001.

SPIRACY TO DEFRAUD.-THE KING V. JOHN CAR-

KINGTON AND - BEAUMONT.

Mr. f', PoLLocx, with whom was Mr. FOLLET, stated,
that this was an indictment against John Carrington and
another person. named Beaumont, for conspiring to de
fraud Messrs. Ferguson and Co. of goods to the amount of
I IS/. 2s. The defendant, Carrington, opened a mercer's
shop, in Bridge-street, Blackfriars, and induced Messrs.
Ferguson and Co. to give him credit to the above
amount. The Learned Counsel said, he would be able to
prove that as each parcel of goods was furnished to Car-
rington, it was fetched away by Beaumont, who kept a
shop in Holborn, and there exposed the goods for sale, at
dress price than Ferguson and Co. could have bought them
at. Under this proof, he had no doubt that the Jury
would return a verdict against the defendants.
Mr. Truesstcgtc appeared for Carrington, but Beaumont
had not retained Couniwl.
After some evidence had been adduced, the Learned
Audge did not think that it could support the indictment,
yd theAdendants were acquittefl.

COURT OF COMMON PLEAS.
DIELAPIEL.I) P. Pii.XF.SIAN AND OTHNILS.

The plaintiff in this case is a partner in the firm of
Messrs, Coombe, Delafield, and Co., the Eminent brewers,
and the defendants are respectable solicitors in the city.
The action was brought to recover compensation in da-
mazes for an alleged negligence on the part of the defend-
mats in their proiessional business, by which negligence the
plaintiffs had been indswe4 to advance a considerable sum
of money on security of a lesaa of the Bird-cage public-
house, Bethnal-green, which lease it afterwards appeared
bad become forfeited before the money was advanced.
After several witnesses had been examined on an objection
of Mr. Serjeant Jones's, tint plaintiff was nonsuited.
In the course of the above trial, it was found necessary
to have the evidence of a person named Junes, the person
who received the money of the plaintiW. On his being
called into the witness-box,
Mr. Serjeant WILDE objected to his evidence, on the
ground of his having taken the benefit of the Insolvent
Debtors' Act. The Learned Counsel contended that that
Act only related to the person ; and as all future property of
insolvents was liable to the payment of their debts, they
must of necessity have an interest in any matter relating
to their estate.
The CHIEF JUSTlCE—Brother Wilde, Las there ever
been any decision on this point ?
Mr. Serjeant WILnE was not aware that there had.
Serieavt TODDY—No, my Lord ; it is the first
Slime an objection of this kind was ever raised.
The CifIEF JUSTICE—I have known many persons who
Thad taken the benefit of the Insolvent Act examined on
matters relating to their estate ; but then no objection was
varied,
,and therefora there is no authority. I see very
feWetitt the objection, and I cannot think him an
`Atchnitisi‘le *anew., brother Tuldy.
=Mr. Serjeant Tannv begged, on so important a point,
• • and one of such novelty, his Lordship would hear him, be-
fore he !tinily decided on the admissibility of the witness:
CHIEF JUSTlCE—Certainly, with pleasure.
Mr. Serjeant TODDY then contended at considerable
length, that theta was no distinction between the compe-
tency of a bankrupt to give evidence, and an insolvent who
had been discharged front his debts under the provisions of
the Act. It wait not enough to suppose that by possibility
she witness might bow it future interest in the question, it