Star.
London, England, 1809-11-25 00:00:00

Mr. Serjeant. Best theitfore argued, that if this -s
the fact, df AtlchlY hAd no the rillintikf w..,
fully justified in his ictiori.
Sir JAIIFS MANSFIELD was of opinion, that if the
bill alluded to had really been tendered to the phintitt
for value received fin- the debts alled7ed to be due
Marsh, most certainly he had a legal 'right to deman,l
payment thereof; but if on the contrary, as stated by
Marsh, do such offer or proposition had been made,
And value had not been received for the bill, th..-n
the defendant was not bound to pay it Is hen preserm,.
The decision on the justice of the case, however, I.s:
should leave to the Jury.
His Lordship then summed up the evidence, arut
the Jury having considered a short tete, returned 4
verdict for the defendant.

111.7 NT V. LYONS.
Mr. Setjeant BesT for the plaintiff, stated,that this
was an action to recover A:10) due to the plaintiff for
work done br hirnselland his wife. Hunt was brewer
to the defendant, at A salary of 60 guineas a-year:
but requiring an increase of wages, the delendair
agreed to give him 70 guineas, which he afterwar,-.
refused to comply with. Mr. Lyons and his wife
had gone down to Margate, and left their hous2 un
town to the care of the plaintiff's wife, and she was
in it for 16 weeks, for which her demand was half-a-
guinea aweek ; the remainder of the 410 claimed by
the plaintiff being the balance of his own wages.
Rachael Watt proved that Mrs. Hunt was sixteen
Meeks in the defendant's house, taking care of it, but
she could not prove any agreement for wages between
her and the defendant.

Sir J. MA NSFIELD—.." Brother Best, rat have by
no means made out your case in this instance, for
unless you can prove an actual agreement for wag_•s,
between the parties, I must conclude that no wages
-were meant to be given, but rather that the defendant
considered it as an accommodation to the plaintiff
and his wife, to allow him to occupy his house in his
absence.

Robert Leveridge, clerk to the defendant, proved,
that the plaintiff had directed him, in August, I Stk,
to alter his salary in the book from GO guineas to 70;
that the defendant flew in a passion when told of it,
and sent for Hunt, who told him that he had promis-
ed him that advance; this the defendant denied, but
said that he would pay it.
J. Bluk, the present clerk to the defendant, Was
called by Mr. Serieant Shepherd, for the defendant,
who proved, that in April last, when the plaintiff
quitted Mr. Lyon's employment, he had been paid
by him the balance of his wages, at the rate of 70
guineas a-year ; and being asked if he had any other
demands on Mr. Lyons, he owned he had none.—+
Nonsuit.

ROBERTS v. WYATT.

Mr. Serjeant LENNS stated this to be an action of
trover, to recover the abstract of the title deeds of
an estate which Mr. Roberts had purchased of a Mrs.
and Miss Piers. The abstract had been received by
the plaintiff's attorney, who, thinking there was oc-
casion for further advice relative to its correctness,
delivered it to Mr. Humphries, an eminent convey..
ancer of Lincoln's Inn, in order that he might clear
away the difficulties. Mr. Humphries did find con-
siderable objections to the abstract, and having writ-
ten them on the margin, returned it to the plaintiff's
attorney, who immediately delivered it to defendant,
who was the attorney fur the ladies. The plaintiff,
through his attorney, had made frequent applications
for it, even although the objections were not remov-
ed ; but they had been evasively answered by the de-
fendant, with a view, no doubt, to obstruct the pro-
ceetngs which were going on in the Court of Chan-
cery, with regard to the estate.
Thomas Fidmas, attorney for the plaintiff, proved
that he was a subscribing witness to the agreement cf
purchase for an estate near Elverton, in Warwick-
shire, between Mr. Roberts and Mrs. and Miss Piers.
He also proved the delivery of the abstract by him-
self to Mr. Humphries, his receiving it with Mr. H.'s
marginal objections, and his delivering it to Mr.
Wyatt, that these objections might be removed. He
had frequently asked for it back, but could not get it,
at length, after some months had elapsed, he formally
demanded it on behalf of his client ; but Mr. Wyatt
replied, that he had been able to answer Mr. Hum-
' phries' objections, consequently it could be of no use
to them. They wished, however, to get it with ay
its imperfections, and even offered to take it so.
Mr. Humphries proved his making the objections
to the abstract.

Mr. Sejeant Strapnann, for the defendant, conten.
ded, that the abstract as well as the title deeds wet,
the property of the seller, until the whole agreement •
of purchase was completed.
The Jury, hnwever, under the direction of the
Court, four.o a verdict of one shilling damages it the
abstract was returned, with forty shillings costs; and
if not, of i.:50 damages..