Star.
London, England, 1824-11-17 00:00:00

BYRNII V. PARKINS.

This action was brought by James Byrne against the
Es-Sheriff Parkins, to recover the balance of certain
subscriptions received by Mr. Parkins on Byrne's ac-
count, and for his use. Upon the trial the Jury found
for the plaintiff 1914. damages. in the last Term the
deleudant, in person, moved for a rule to set aside that
verdict, and for a new trial 4 it reduction of damages,
upon which he obtained a rule to chew cause.
Mu. C. PHILLIPS and Mr. PATTISON now sliewed
:ause against the rule. The former contended that the
Matter v,as a subject entirely for the Jury, and that the
Jury having decided it, the verdict ought not to be dis•
Itui bed. OA the trial it was provt2d, by the evidence of
Scott, that the defend.int u.id admitted to him, that mo:t

thin 3601 had coma to his hands, an 4 that the Jury
having given credit for certain expenses in the shape of
a set off, tendered by Mr. Parkins; Amounting to 1001
had found a verdict fir 1941. and this verdict he sub-
mitted must stand. On the trial, a witness was called to
irtipugn the character of Scott, and to swear he was un-
worthy of credit, but the Court would recollect who
this witness was; upon his crois-etamination, being
asked who and what he was? the witness replied that
he should decline answering that question, but upon
being told by the Court that he was bound to answer it,
he replied that his name was Taylor, and that he was
by trade and profession a philosopher—( A laugh ) ;
upon being further *pressed, he said he wrote for
sciences, and it eventually appeared that he once received
two guineas for some article that he had written.for
some publicatinn ; this was the man who was to im-
pugn the testimony of Scott, but the cause certainly was
made up of grievances, and ninst undoubtedly the ap:
pearance of the witness (Taylor) bespoke that he had
just come fresh from the gtiovaisce-office. Another
witness, called to give similar testimony to the last, was
Mr. Pat kins's brother-in law, who admitted that he
was filling a menial situation in Mr. Parkins's service.
The case for the plaintiff was strengthened by the evi-
dence of Mr. Bell and Mr. Cobbett, both of whom spoke
to Mr. Parkins's own admission of the amount of sub-
scriptions he had received. There was also another
action against Mr. Pat kins, brought by Byrne, for de-
faming his character. That cause was certainly tone of
a most delicate nature, and he (Mr. Phillips) now referred
to it with great pain; he at the time, after great reluc-
tance, prevailed upon his client to take a verdict in that
cause,with nominal damages oily, but if the present ver-
dict was distutbed,this other delicate question must be
agitated, and he did, therefore, hope that the Court, by
refusing to make the present Rule absolute, would for
ever bury in oblivion the unhappy and delicate subject
which had given rise to the two causes.
Mr. Parriscor followcd,on the same side.— Amongst the items
contained in the defendant's set-off were the following For wax
to seal the dinner tickets at the Horns Tavern, 4s. 2d. Item—Paid
you at the Shades, 2id."
Mr. FRENCH and Mr. Lancscox were heard in support of the
Rule ; after which

The LnED CHIEF JUSTICE, on consulting with the
odic Judges, said, the utmost the Court could do would
be to make the Rule for a new trial absolute, upon
payment of costs.

The Cower directed that the defendant should pay
601. into Court, and that the last verdict should stand
as a security fur the payment of any sum beyond the
601. recovered on any trial.