Star.
London, England, 1808-11-11 00:00:00

PAYTOZ v. WZNTE AND HAY.

This was an action brought to recover the amount of
a bill of exchange, which had been altered, when left
for acceptance, from one to two months after date, by
which the Plaintiff was disabled from recovering from
the maker, upon account of the alteration.

Mr. Serjeant RUNNINGTON contended, that, by law,
the acceptors were warranted to accept under what
terms they pleased ; and tier this purpose quoted two
cases, the one from Strange, where the time of pay.
ment was altered, as in thv present instance, the other
from Burrough, where the alteration was in the sum.
The Court was of the same ()pinion, and rcfuszd to
grant the Rule for setting aside the verdictlor the
Defendants.

BANWELL v. HARRIS..

This action had becn brought to recover the sum
of 271. 10s. deposit, in the hands of the Defendant,
as auctioneer, upon the sale of a house, which was
sold, subject to a ground-rent of tw•o guineas, for want
of title.—At the trial it was proved, for the Plaintiff;
that the house in question was part of a large lot of
ground and houses, the ground-rent of which, having
never been divided by any deed of the head-landlord,
this house,\-ir any other part, was liable to the entire of
the ren:, and, consequently, that the seller had no good
title.

The Defendant proved, that the landlord had ac-
cepted two guineas a year for this house, for upwards
of twenty years; and Sir JAMES MANSFIELD, before
whom the action had been tried, left it to the Jury,
whether this acceptance of rent, for so long a period,
was not such a severance, as to discharge the house
from liability to any further rent.
There was a verdict for the Plaintiff, with liberty to
enter a nonsuit, subject to this point.

WILSON V JOHNSON, and WILSON V. TURNER.

These were two actions to recover compensation in
damages for malicious arrests, and verdicts in both,
for the Plaintiff, in the sums of A:1000 and .€l5OO.
In the action with Turner, it was proved, for the
Plaintiff, that the attorney for the Defendant had of-
fered to release the Plaintiff out of custody, upon his
discharging the other Defendant, Johnson, the noted
smuggler, from a demand made against him, and for
which he had held him to bail ; but this was denied
by Johnson to be authorised by him, and therefore it
was now contended, upon motion for a new trial,
that the evidence was not admissible.

The Rule to spew cause was granted.
WOOLLEN V. LARENIONT AND OTHERS.

This action was brought by the Plaintiff, a baker,
against the Defendants, contractors with Government,
for the supply of the troops at Sheffield with bread,
for the amount of bread alleged to have been so sup-
plied by him on their c: edit and account. The de.
fence at the trial was, that the bread in question was
not supplied on. their credit, but on that of a person
of the name of Mast, (since a bankrupt) who was a
sub-contractor under them, and they called a witness
to that fact. The Jury understanding that such sub-
contract was contrary to the terms between Govern-
ment and contractors, found for the Plaintiff 1401.
damages. It was now Moved to set aside this verdict
on the above evidence, and also on the deed of agree-
ment between the Plaintiff and Mast, which was not
forthcoming at the trial. Rule to chew cause granted.