The Sun.
London, England, 1829-09-05 00:00:00

ASSIZES.-(RECEIVED THIS DAY.)

WESTERN CIRCUIT—BRISTOL, SEPT- 4.
Ms. RICKETS V. TOLEMAN.
Serjeant WILDE (with whom were Mr. MANNING,
rotLETT, and Mr. W. P. TAUNTON), stated that
this Was a case of considerable commercial importance.—
tbe plaintiffs (Messrs. Rickets and Co.) some time since
'were partners in a banking establishment in this city, but
Which they discontinued in 1826. The defendant was a
builder in Bristol ; and this action was brought to recover
the sum of 1.500/., - the balance on promissory notes,
nutounting to 4,4001., to which the defendant was an in-
dorser. The facts of the case, which were detailed at very
great length by the Learned Counsel, are shortly as follow :
7-The defendant (Toleman), who had a banking account
With the plaintiffs, was engaged in mercantile transactions
to a considerable extent with a person named Tibbets, who
also kept an account with Messrs. Rickets. Tib-
bets tired to pay the defendant in his own pro-
Ibis"rY notes, at long dates, and these notes
were endorsed by the defendant, and discounted by the
plaintiffs, In the year 1825, Tibbets, the drawer of the
bits died in insolvent circumstances, and the whole of the
bills not then due, eleven in number, amounting to 4,400/.
were
of course dishonoured. Toleman, fearful of the con-
ate
en, obtained a meeting with the executors of Tib-
and and one of the partners in the bank. What then
transpired did not appear ; but from the frequent commu-
nications that passed there could be no doubt that an ar-
rangement had been made for the hankers to hold the bills till
suchtime as they bad seen what Tibheta' estates would pay.
The Learned Counsel said it was not attempted to be de--
"d that Toleman had received the money for the bil!s
of the plaintiff; but what did the Jury think was the de-
fen
to this action? Why, that the plaintiffs had ne-
Rlected to give him notice of their being dishonoured.
-4e would, however, prove that Toleman had given
authority to the executors of Tibbets to pay the
discharge of those very bills which he in that authority
calls " my debt," but now turns round and says, oh I
nwe you nothing, you have no claim upon me, for you
ever gave me notice of the hills not being paid. The
Plaintiffs received the dividends under the estate of Tib-
betts, according to the arrangement, and therefore consi-
dered it was not necessary to give the defendant notice of
the hills not being paid as they became due, as he must
havef been perfectly aware that such would be the case. He
"11*- Serjeant Wilde) understood another defence, most
outrageous to the feelings of men of business, was to be set
up; there had been a trifling mistake of a few shillings in -
e°lllputing the interest, and that was to be tortured into a
Charge of usury.
Serjeant MYREWEATHER..-.We do not rely on
USury for our defence. You may, therefore, spare your
observations on that head.
Air. Seijeant WILDE continued.—He was happy to
hear his Learned Friend disavow such a vexatious course.
The Jury were most probably aware that this case had
been tried before, and a new trial had been obtained on
the ground that the verdict of the Jury was not delivered
in a formal manner by the foreman. But the Learned
Judge who tried it, observed " that unless a man was a
Tom fool, he could have no doubt of the justice of the
plaintiffs' claim."

Witnesses were called to prove the defendant's hand-
writing to the bills, and the authority he gave to the exe-
cutors of Tibbets to pay the dividends to the plaintiffs,
to part discharge •of the account. No proof was ad-
'Teed that any notice of the bills not being paid was
Oren to the defendant.
xr Mr. Serjeant Mtraxwasanxit, (with whom was
Serjeant Burdens) addressed the Jury at great
length for the defendant. The real question in the
sac's was, did the defendant ever receive notice
°I the bills being dishonoured, if he did not, his giving
authority to the executors of Tibbets to pay the
Plaintiffs any dividends they might be enabled to make,
did not, as his Learned Friend Mr. Serjeant Wilde stated,
amount to a waiver of his legal right to avail himself of
their neglect. That authority was only given as secut ity
to the executors, that if they so paid the money, he
Would not call upon them at any future time to account
for
it. It did not do away with the necessity of the plain-
tiffs to give notice, and that they had done so remained
With them to prove, or otherwise they could not support
the present action. There were eleven different bills, and
the law imperatively demanded that eleven different notices
should be given. But he hoped to convince the Jury
from the plaintiffs' own books, that they considered and
these bills as their own, for they received
the dividends from Tibbets' es,ate in 1825, end never
role him credit for them until the year 1827, after they
had discontinued business, and commenced an action
against him for the recovery of the balance. That cir-
414"tance clearly showed they all along bad treated the bills
a 4 their own ; and if the authority of Toleman to the exe-
!t!tors did not satisfy the Jury that it was an admission on
4'll Part that he was aware the bills were dishonoured, the
plaintiffs had no case. And what, gentlemen (said the
;hey
Counsel) could more clearly prove the great doubt
;leg entertained on the question than the fact of the decla-
14ion consisting of no less than forty-eight counts, and the
reed for an action on promissory notes was such an one
I ',ever before was seen in a British Court of Justice. His
Zearned Friend was wrong in saying the Court granted a
et'? trial on the ground of the verdict in the last
Bade, not having been given in a formal manner. The Court
iivere of opinion the case had not been fully investigated.
tle Would contend that unless the plaintiffs had proved
"'Y received the dividends for and on account of the de-
:1'14"; they had made the bills their own ; and their
h°ithaving done so, he relied confidently of a verdict in
• RIYOUr.
kr. Serjeant WILDE replied.
The Lord Cnixe JusTicE summed up. His Lordship
abid, the Legislature had wisely ordered that every party to
4 'lli except the one th whom it originated, should have
:ire of its dishonour; but the question for the Jury to
asider in this case was, whether the defendant had not
411'ed his right to notice, by giving an authority to the
tite:l4ora of Tibbets to pay certain monies to the plain-
', la liquidation of those bills, which he called his debt.
rer° such a circumstance the law would infer that he had
b
"°tice of their dishonour.
thlbe.Jury, after a short consultation, found a verdict for
e plaintiff—Damages, 1,2941.
' The ease occupied upwards of six hours.