The Sun.
London, England, 1811-11-27 00:00:00

' LAM REPORT.

COURT OF KING'S. BENCH, Nov. 27.

WILLIAMS V. EVERET.

•

At the sitting of the Court, Lord ELlOsottouoti ,
froceeded,to give judgment In this case, which had
come on for special argumeot in last Easter. Ternft.
upon a Kule to set asidethe•nonsuit obtained by. the •
defendant. The circumstances of the case were as
follow 7.-=-A person of the name of Kelly, residing
on.l.the'Continent, transtriitted, to the defendant,
who was'hiscotrespondent here, a bill of !exchange
for t, i 261. direaing certain sums to be paid to ail-,
ferent- persons, , add among them, to pay to the
plaintiff 3001. under particular circumstances. Ap-
plication was 'made by. the plaintiff, through. -the
medium of his Attorney, to the defendant, for ,pay,
meat of this sum, which the latter, for some tea..
sons, refused to comply with, and the plaintiff lU-
tached the money in the hands of .the defendant,
by process in the Lord Mayor's Court ; be ear?, ,
wards brOught his ation, when 'the defendant °ob-
tained a norisuit, and the question was, whether
person' receiving'. money from his correspen,dent
abroad, should be considered as absolutely bound
to pay the money transmitted in the manner directed,
or as the appointee should desire. In, this case it
appeared, that so far, from giving hiS assent, the
pally had absolutely refused, and it might be Con.,
tended, that, by the a& of receiving' the bill; the
defendant 'might say he only held it for the use of
the remitter, unless by-some positive engagernent.
with the person who was the objea of 'the retnittei,
he should be held to be hOund. upposing the bill
tei have been stolen Of. Jost, in that pats the plaintiff
cotikl not, sutler, .theremitter (Kelly) alone would
be the looser. This appeared to the Court to de-
cide the case, for the Court -field, that in all cases
of, property ,where the bolder was not the respon-
sible person, it was a proof that the , property was
in someone else. In the case of Butualis v. Fullers
which had been relied upOn in the' course of the
argumetit in- the .present case, the difference was,
that -the defendant then had received cash for a spe;
cific purpose, which was clearly, maniftst, and there.
fare: Could not beltilNirted from that ,particular par-'
pose to which it waS applicable. Here, no assent
whativer had been giyen titthe defendant, in the
first instance, to. cpustitutethe demand, acrd there--
the Court was,;ol • opinion that the Rule to set',
aside•the nooseit should be discharged.--Aule.
charged..

. ~,~.,,~

THE XING V. otossor.

•
This' was a Rule for postponing the trial. of this
(which was a prosecution for. perjuiy) Open, the
grounds of indisposition in Mr. Hill, thedefandant's
Attorney. -
-Mr. 8.0 goiGti, shel.ved. cause against this Rola ;
be contended, that this was only an 'excuse to delay
the trial until after the' next 'Sittings ; it tid
,not
appear that Mr. Hill Was a- material.witness in the
dJuiie,, but merely the Attorney, and it was nothing
snore than att atten•pt to get over the Sittings.
The ATToatisY Ciat.:ettAr„, In support of the
ltutei.ob*tved, that this prosecution arose out of
• the pro,vedingts in the concerns of the Opera House,
which the. Court well knew were of a very intricate
liature Ole quct,ilign in this case ifoie'ollt of the'
evidence given before the drbitrator; undo a qtle6-
6611, whether property seized; under the outlawry
against. Mr. Think' was or was riot Taylor's pro-
perty. Mr. Hill was the person who onperintended
that business, and it WaS qu4e impossible. to get up
the
:cause witlidut his assistance. It WU' by no
'means a pretext to put off the trialt hat was by no
Weans the °hied but the fait was; that is was im•
possible,. without the .superintendence of Mr. Hill,
to get up. the cause. . . .
• Lord .4t.aisisohooon.--;" It mayudtbe the ob.
jeet, but it certainly will have that effect ; in the
present - case his superintendance is not wanting,
and we must see that- he is a witness material tolne
icauw,• otherwise we cannot grant the Rule."
The ArrOIiNEY.OHIS 133 L repeated, that it was im-
possible, to prepare thetanses without his assistance,
and as to his indispOsition; on which account the
trial was' before postponed, it was sworn that he
bad had p, relapse and way attended by. Dr. Latham
and another professional gentleman:--Rule dies.
charged. •

THR KING V. 30011URST.