Star.
London, England, 1825-12-08 00:00:00

!OWNER V. COLLARD.

This cause, and six others brought by the same
plaintiff against other defendants, came on to heard.
They were all for the same object, and were brought
to recover from each of the detendants the amounts die
from them respectively for the tithes of lands held bf
them in the parishes of Monckton and Monckton Marsh,
in the Isle of Mallet, by means of an account to be
taken before the Master. It appeared to be agreed
between the parties that a decree in one cause should
decide all of them, the defendants having combined to
make a joint defence.
Mr. HEALD, with whom was Mr. ROUPELL, stated
the case of the plaintiff, by which it appeased that his
title to the tithes was not denied, but that the peiiod at
which the account ought to commence was alone in
dispute. The plaintiff claimed that the account should
be taken from the year 1809, and although the time
limited by the Act of Parliament bad elapsed, it was
contended that certain negotiations which had taken
place between the parties took the case out of the st4tute.
The defendants had agreed that a fair and equitable
adjustment should be made, and although no sum was
actually named, it was obvious that this stipulation
referred not to the time mentioned by the statute, but
to the amount really due in respect of tithes. V
therefore, it was subsequently attempted by the de-
fendants to limit the account to the six years, the plain-
tiff resisted it, and these bills were filed to procule an
account before the Master, and a report from him to
the time which that account should include.
Mr. HART, for the defendant, said, that he had no
objection to an account, but insisted that tLe statute of
the 53d Geo. 111. was conclusive with respect to tie
time within which that account should be taken.. It
stipulated expressly that all actions to recover pen:litle'
for not setting out tithes should be brought s ithio s's
years; and unless the Court was prepared to repeal that.
Act of Parliament, it could not extend that period.

Mr. Maui relied upon the intermediate arrangement.
The Vums-Cseaticm.Loathooght that the Coat could only direct
an account for the six years immediately preceding the filing of tee
bill in ligg.
A diAussion then arose as to the costs, the Counctl
for the defendant urging that suits like these ought not
to be encouraged. The plaintiff was an attorney, and
.nothing could be mote easy than for =conies, findiag
parsons in debt, to get a demise of their tithes, and then
to commence as many actions as they could find persons
in the parish with whom the patron was on b..d term.
The rica-Citaticagion said, that the question accosts Mould
in
a great measure depend upon the report. He should, 'bete'
reserve it for the present.
COURT OF KING'S BENCH, WESTMINSTER, DO:'

MATIMW V. ASH* AND OVUM.
This was an action by the endorsee against the de'
'fendants, Ashby, Shaw, and, Ito wlAnd, as mint `t
of a bill of exchange for 1381.145. bearing date the
14th of September, 1821, drawn by John Paw, U'
and accepted by, Samuel Fletcher, payable three months
after date. The defendant Rowland suffereJ jodg•
meat to go by default, the other defendants pleAt•c,l the
general issue.
It appeared that the three defendants had bee"
partnership as engravers, in Lombard-street, 'Antler
firm of Ashby and Rowland, but on the 2l ,t of
tember in last year, Ashby and Shaw Ot4LolveJ

fhltoilbriohit:sailrho:tTigrioiw.tdbietnib,ai-hciae:y4l3;ll

thr.q 1€
Rowlat

of Sept

firm;
defends
To p
dis.oloi

tiff, cal
was in
Was adi
ie quasi
came it

S
clay, at t 1
Jus'ice F
ItEconni
sent Ala)
111 stair t

ltisCha
charging
the dwell
St. Luke'
1 is grope
the prowl
to the pi
Mr. Ju
Jury, wh

There ar
there are
aud one for

LOb

Testers
bets of a
lastitotin
Dr. Birk
christ, on

The R
14bt qua,
gratit)inj
During t
added, a
to the sti
been sect
from the
proposed
each ; on
by any n
member
class. A
Messrs. •
Truman,
books ha
quarter ;
mechanic
lette
guested to

The Vic
that they e
the motion
and the Lc
A ♦ote c
Presented
Mr. ikkwi
had deliver
interests of
Thanks

11 the Cbai
The Dot
felt the hig
" his poive
*panted.

Upwai
TOlamoi
PIaOPA
a Public
cinity,
purpose
Propaga•
%vas filled
was taker

conform„
,14, Mad *4
Liuebec,
At 1-14
richer fro

lint at(
'vane if

atereq a
twelve pt
the risk s
,r,41 Par
howpe
tliatt
"11.1 its f;
Places so
W iatexes

orwrei;p as to Rowland. The endorsement of the
„j, by virtue of which they were now sued, was in the
band•wriiing of Rowland, and the words " Ashby and
gowland." Mr. Mayhew, the plaintiff, an attorney,
who had been consulted as to the liability of parties to
the ;lilt, purchased it, through the medium of a man
raffled Gorton, for half its amount. An investigation
had taken place at the Mansion-house, on a charge of
ty against Rowland, which was dismissed ; And
the q ,estien was, whether the endorsement made by
powland was placed on the bill before or after the 21st
ct sqtemher, when he ceased toy' be a partner in the
f.m; ,n before that time lie could charge the other
eeendants,.but not afterwards?
To prove that the endorsement was made before the
d:,,ol.oiott of partnership, Mr. SCARLETT, fOr the plain-
t•ff, called Gorton, who positively swore that the bill
was his possession a few days before the dissolution
t,r,s advertised, and bore at that time the endorsement
is question. Tl.is witness had been in difficulties, and
(Arne from prison.
F,,r the defendants, Mr. GURNEY, Offer a speech
s:•ongly denouncing the conduct of the plaintiff as
2lready apparent, called a man named Rimmer, who
swore, that being in the habil of discounting bills, this
I,jll was offered to him in October, and that it then had
ts,tt theendorsement of the defendants, and if it had borne
th:ir endorsements he would have discounted it instead
of refusing. This witness, on cross-exam nation, ad-
orned that he was examined at the Maaston house, and
there stated that he had seen the bill in November,
when the endorsement was upon it, without mentioning
that he had seen it previously; but accounted for this
by saying, that he did not recollect the circumstance
till it tti as brought to his mind by a letter from his
friend Mr. Kinnear, with whom heihad transacted gilt*
business, and whom he considered, whatever the wt.rirl.,
right say, as a man of honour. It was I uriber proved,.
tl.at Mr. Mayhew did not apply for payment of the bill
crtil several days after it was due, and then d d not
minion %. hearer he applied on his own behalf or that
of a client.
The LOAD Cam Jesrice left the case to the Jury, on the single
ve:tieu, whether they could give credit to Gorton's evidence?
The Jury almost immediately returned a verdict for the defend-
Poliby and Sbaw.
The Lose Cuter Justice.—l forbore to express my opinion of
!Ir. 31iyhew's conduct until now, lest it should influence the
'alba ; but I cannot allow this cause to go out of this public
Coen, without publicly observing, that I highly disapprove of the
oruhict of any attorney who buys a bill, on which suspicion has
ken cast, for half price.