The Sun.
London, England, 1842-02-02 00:00:00

SCOBELL B. PA U MIER-JUDGMENT.

Lord DENMAN said that this was a rule which had been ob-
tained to set aside the award of an arbitrator on various
grounds, none of which were in the opinion of the Court suffi-
cient, and therefore the rule must be discharged with costs.
The Coug.T was occupied the greater part of the day in hear•
ing cases in the Special Paper, none of which were of any
public interest.

COURT OF EXCHEQUER, Feb. 1:
3IACDOWAL V. BICKLEY.

The declaration in this case was upon a bill of ex-.
change for the amount of 401., endorsed by the defendant,
and made payable to Mr. William Walker.
It appeared from the statement of Mr. Crompton, who
appeared for the plaintiff, that the bill, which was dated
in the year 1840, had passed from the hands of
Mr. Walker into those of a gentleman of the
name of Platter, who afterwards endorsed it

to the plaintiff. Mr. Walker, who was an attorney, had
received the'bill under the following circumstances :
A gentleman of the name of Banks was indebted to him
in the sum of 1251., and was in the custody of the
sheriff's officer at his suit. The defendant, Bickley, who
was also an attorney, came also to Mr. Walker, repre-
senting himself as the agent of Mr. Banks, and offering
to effect a compromise of the debt. It was then agreed
between them that 201. should be paid out of the
sum due, that 201. should be forgiven, and that
two bills should be given, the one of 401. and
the other of 451. in payment of the remainder. The
401. bill was guaranteed by Mr. Bickley ; and this was
the bill of which the payment was now sought.
Three pleas were put in for the defendant ; first, that
that he had not endorsed the bill ; secondly, that he had
not due notice of non-payment ; and, thirdly, that the
bill was endorsed by the defendant in payment of a debt
incurred by him previously to his having been discharged
under the Insolvent Debtor's Act.

Mr. Walker deposed to his having received the b:
under the circumstances we have mentioned above.

Mr. Frederick Platter deposed to his having left a
notice of the dishonour of the bill at the office of the
defendant.

Mr. PLATT, who appeared for the defendant, con-
tended that, according to a recent decision of the Court
of Queen's Bench, the notice was insufficient, inasmuch
as it did not contain a distinct notification that the party
to whom it was addressed should be held liable. There
was nothing of the kind, however, in the notice produced.
Lord ABINGER said the notice • appeared to him to be
sufficient, it called upon the party to pay, and he could
not attend to a mere declaration that a certain decision
had been given in the Court of Queen's Bench.
It was next shown that the bill was endorsed in 1840,
while the defendant had been discharged under the In-
solvent Debtors' Act in the year 1839.
Lord ABINGER having briefly addressed the Jury,
The Jury immediately returned a verdict for the plain-
tiff.

BISHOP v. 'WILLIAMS.
This was an action brought by the plaintiff for the re-
covery of the sum of 281.
Mr. LEE stated the case for the plaintiff. It appeared
that the plaintiff, who was a person of some fortune, re-
sided in the year 1839 at the house of the defendant, a
saddler, at Sawbridgeworth. The plaintiff had advanced
the defendant 201. in the course of that year, which de-
fendant's wife received, he being himself at the time in a
very delicate state of health. The plaintiff afterwards
paid 8/. for a carpet to be used in his room ; and the
debt of 281. was thus made out.
A clerk of the Messrs. Shoolbred, in Tottenham-
court-road, proved the payment of the price of the
carpet by the plaintiff.
Caroline Cross stated that she was the niece of the
defendant. Witness saw a letter in the year 1839 from
Mr. Bishop to her uncle, the present defendant, enclos-
ing a 20/. note, which was taken up to her uncle, who
was at the time sick in bed. Her uncle accepted the

money.
Cross-examined by Mr. TRESIGER—Mr. Bishop was
understood at the time to have been paying his addresses
to a sister of mine, who was also living at the house of
witness's uncle. In July last witness's sister eloped
with Mr. Bishop, and they had since lived together ; but
they were not married. Between June, 1840, and
July, 1841, Mr. Bishop, who had previously left
the house, had been there very frequently, and used
to remain there for days. lie often invited persons to
plaintifff
sfißhprii
sjems thn.
Cross-examined dtfc poi tiahastensoet,i evening
hddtreAuelptsi
dsatsaetyhtf:emendrbe
odnylssvatets
ictwfotoahr,
of
rdhchtTelhieamneoti
hadmisilnen:ogGttihheaEletikeßhisyen—enrs
bAtti the
f
the sum now in dispute. The defendant gave no answer the
Bishop himself. '
e pßiins hg o apt,
pub-
lican. He was formerly a train-groom to Lord Egerton. Mr.
his house. Mr. Williams told witness, when he applied to
that he would pay Mr. Bishop himself. He did not say he
would settle with him. Witness might have told the solicitor
for the defendant that Mr. Williams said he would settle with
Bishop
pWwiatns eassgehnadtlemseanenwillor.
wßasis
4whopowinn Court that tthuartf, day.
and
the plaintiff; but he used the word in order to mislead the
Asolrii.cißtoirsh.
who kept horses of his-own.
This being the case for the plaintiff.
Mr. THESWER proceeded to address the Jury for the de-
fence. The Learned Gentleman commented, in the severest
terms, on the conduct of the plaintiff in this suit. He had
never known a more impudent attempt to obtain the verdict of
claimed
theaWp viatdwyin mhtohlaeeebnswistbt lettersoyooiusffndsit
sleeping
ef.wper oadamye
a Jury, or the protection of a Court of Justice. The de-
fendant, after breaking the heart of one who had
trusted in his honour, did not blush to come before
them, claiming the payment of a sum of money which
he had advanced, under very suspicious circumstances, and
had the effrontery to produce as a witness in his favour the
sister of his victim, to bear testimony to her dishonour. Since
the seduction of the niece of the plaintiff he had lived with
her in a state of shameful and abandoned concubinage ; and
now, finding probably his affairs utterly ruined, he hoped to
extract from the family he had irreparably injured a sum to
which he never had a claim. But the Learned Counsel trusted
that he should be able to defeat the heartless attempt. It would
be made apparent that the plaintiff was indebted to the defendant
in more than the stun now in dispute. The plaintiff had used
the rooms of the defendant from June,lB4o, to July, 1841, and
had made no compensation to him on that account. There
he
eis
would debt.
had
Those himselfecircumstances
renouncedtan see would all claim
bew 13 also a letter in the handwriting of the plaintiff, in which he
then confidently leave the case in their hands.
Several witnesses were then produced for the defence,
deposed that in the course of the years 1840 and 1841, who
Mr.
Bishop had frequently called at the house of the defendant, and
that he had stopped there, and slept there, from time to time.
Mrs. Robinson, the sister of the defendant, stated that the
to
provedthtoe the Jury, t
and of his
rent of. the rooms thus occupied, from time to time, during
twelve months by the plaintiff, was U. a-week. She men-
tioned to the plaintiff, on one occasion, that she wished' the
rooms might be let ; upon which he said, " No, I would rather
take them myself—in fact, 1 shall take them."
Mr. Robinson, the husband of the preceding witness, stated
that lie had known the witness to have %lilted the rooms of the
defendant—to have kept his books and his wine there, and to
have invited his friends to the house.
A letter from the plaintiff to the defendant was then put in
and read, in which the plaintiff stated the great embarrassment
in which he was placed, and his determination to leave this
country for America until his affairs were improved.
He also
mentioned in the letter that he- wisiied that the 201. he had
lent the plaintiff's wife might be made over to their niece,
Mary Ann Cross.
Lord ABINGER observed that he did not see how the plain-
tiff could now come into Court after he had himself, as appear-
ed by that letter, renounced his claim to the debt.
Mr. LEE submitted that he had renounced his claim on con-
dition that the money was paid to the young woman; but there
was no evidence that the condition had been fulfilled. The
Learned Gentleman then proceeded to address the Jury at some
lengthillontending that they had not to pronounce their judg-
ment upon the conduct of the plaintiff, but upon the simple
fact whether the debt had been incurred by the defendant
or not.