Star.
London, England, 1809-12-19 00:00:00

LAW INTL* IGENCE•

COURT OF KING'S BENCH, DEC. 15.

ROSE V. BRYANT.
ppeisro, for the plaintiff, stated this to be an
a bond debt dated in the year 1785, for the
I of .€5OO to be void, on paymentol.£26o and
me year after date. The defendant, Mr.
Bryant, an attorney, was the ohliger in this
the obligee was Mr. Richard Rose deceas-
tom the plaintiffs were the executors. The
up by the defendant were, first, that it was
pond; second, that it was paid when it be-
; and thirdly, that it was paid at some pe-
, it was due. The trial had tbrmerly been
,tt, on an affidavit, stating the absence of a Noble
.arl, who, it was then alledged, was a material wit-
ness to prove the payment of the b-prid. The Learn-
ed Counsel did not now observe that Noble Earl in
Court, from which he presumed that, this defence
would not now be insisted in.

The execution of the bond was proved, and the in-
dorsements on it in the hand writing of the defen-
dant himself, shewcd that the interest had been paid
up to the year 1793, carrying the bond within the
period at which the presumption of its being satisfied
is to be inferred. To meet any inference deducible
from the circumstance of no interest having been
since paid, a witness was also adduced to shew, that
the defendant had, during the greater period of the
time, from the year 1793, to this day, been within the
Rules of the King's Bench, or Fleet prisons.
Mr. GARROW, for the defendant, did not wish to
throw out injurious reflections against any of the
persons who had taken on themselves the manage-
ment of the defendant's affairs. lie did not see any
necessity, however, which could call on the plaintiff
in this case to inquire into the defendant's situation in
life, as if he had been so obscure a man that it was
net known he was an attorney ; or as if he had lived
within the rules of the Fleet for the purposes of im-
posture. On the contrary, the Learned Counsel was
in,structed from his brief to state, that at the time of
the defendant's affairs becoming embarrassed, he was
a man of very considerable landed property, and that
those to whom his affairs were entrusted had sold one
estate which cost him £30,000 for £13,000. He re-
gretted, indeed, the absence this day of the Noble I
Earl ( Romney) who had net yet returned from
Scotland, though he had been expected to lie present
at this trial. 3y documents in that Noble Lord's

possession, will had condescended to become one of
the defendant's trustees, he should have been able
,satisfactorily to establish the defence he was instruc-
ted to make ; and even in the Noble Earl's absence,
be trusted he should be able to establish it beyond a
doubt. He should adduce a Gentleman to prove,
not from his own recollection, but from a reference
to his banker's book, the payment to the testator,
Mr. Rose, of a sum, on Mr.- Bryant's account, ex-
actly corresponding with the sum in the bond in
question. This again he should corroborate, by an
entry in a schedule to the defendant's trust deed, con-
taining various sums paid on his account by the same
gentleman, in which this very sum is takien credit
for, as p lid on the defendant's account. The Counsel
for the plaintiff' had been at pains to represent the de-
fendant as a ruined man ; but, unquestionably, if any
thing could be wanting to complete the ruin of a
man in desperate circumtances, it was an action by
executors, who, however they might fail in any claim
they might bring forward, could never be subjected
in payment of costs ; and against whom, if a bill of
discovery were filed in a Court of Equity, it would be
sufficient for them to say, that they knew nothing of
the matter, and only acted in their capacity of execu-
tors, from the evidence which the document before
them afforded. To prove the payment of the debt in
question, the Learned Counsel assured the Jury that
he should have to adduce a gentleman who did not
feel any interest in the defendant's cause, Every
syllable, therefore, that fell from him, which could at
all promote the interest of the defendant, they might
implicitly rely on. He trusted, however, with confi-
dence on their verdict.

Mr. Leake, Attorney, was then adduced. On re-
ference to his banker's book, he found that in 1791.,
a draft had been passed by him to Mr. Rose, on Mr.
Bryant's account, which completely corresponded
with a statement of the debt in question now handed
to him, as due at that date. There was also a corres-
ponding entry in the schedule annexed to the defen-
dant's trust deed, containing an enumeration of pay-
ments made by the witness on account of the Defen-
dant.

There was also given in evidence a letter from Mr-
Rose, the testator, to the defendant, dated in the year
1801, in which, after stating his own poverty, he re-
quests the defendant's assistance.
Mr. TOPPING, in reply, argued strongly on the im-
probability of any professional man, like Mr. Leake,
paying a debt secured by bond, without, at the same
time, having the voucher delivered up to him. Mr.
L.'s memory did not enable him to state the payment
svhi, h appeared in his bank book was in extinction of
the bond in question. It might have been on account of
sr y other transaction between the parties ; and as to
lie letter in 1601, it did not seem at all inconsistent
ith the existence of the debt at that moment.

Lord ELLExisonotgat was proceeding to express
his opinion to the Jury, on the evidence before them,
which he seemed to consider as preponderating in fa-
vour of die defendant, when
Mr. TOPPING said, that, for the sake of trying
whether some farther light might not yet be thrown
on the subject, he was content to be nonsuited.
The plaintiff was, accordingly—Nonsuitcd.
Mr. GARROW then stated, that the defendant had
originally ta'on out a rule fora Special Jury, but bad
afterwards declined summoning them. The plaintiffs,
though Executors, and therefore not liable in payment
of costs, had themselves summoned the Jury, and
nJw wished to throw the expences of it on the defen-
dant, who was latterly content with a Common Jury,
which, but for the act of the plaintiffs, the Learned
Judge would have appointed to try the case.
Lord ELLENaottumu said he could not interfere.
We believe the Jury were not paid.
MANNING V. ROBSON.

The ATTORNOV-GENERAL stated this to be an ac-
tion by which the plaintiff sought to recover from'
the defendant the difference in value, arising on a
cargo of cotton, which the plaintiff entrusted to the
. defendant, to be conveyed by him in a vessel of

which he was owner, from Surinam to thilicennet.
disposed of by the defendant at Barbadoes for an in-
ferior price to that which it would have brought in
Great Britain. The plaintiff employed the define-
dant to convey home the cotton in question, in the !
mouth of November 1802. The vessel sailed from
Surinam on the Ist of December, and arrived at
Barbadoes on the 16th of the same month. For
what reason, the Learned Counsel could not conjec-
ture, the vessel remained at Barbadoes till the month
of July. The island of Surinam had in the mean
time been restored to the Dutch, and hostilities had
again broken out. When the vessel, therefore, was
about to leave Barbadoes, she was detained on suspi-
cion of having Dutch property on board. Part of
the cargo was accordingly condemned, but the cot-
ton belonging to the plaintiff, and some other of the
property on board, was given up. The defendant,
, however, instead of proceeding with the plaintiff's
I cotton to this country, as he had engaged to do,
sold it in Barbadoes. The price which it there
brought had been handed to the plaintiff, but this
was greatly short of what it must have yielded in this
country, and for the difference between the two
prices the defendant was liable to the plaintiff, in
consequence of the contract, by which he engaged,
within a reasonable time, to convey the cotton to this
country. It would be for the Jury to say, what was
a reasonable time for that purpose, and the plaintiff
should be at no loss to shew the difference between
the two sums, after deducting all charges.
Mr. GAnnow could not dispute the plaintiff's right
to recover ; but his client was not to this day ac-
quainted with the actual amount of the difference.
The matter was accordingly referred.

WATSON V. SNUTLT.

This was an issue directed from the Court of Chan-
cery to try the validity of a policy of insurance for
esooo by the Albion Insurance Company, on certain
stores belonging to the plaintiffs, under the firm of
Gray and Co. in the Island of Trinidad. The ori-
ginal offer for completing the insurance was for
£5OOO from 9th January. This was accepted of by
the Company, to the extent of £3OOO, at 425. per
Cent. It was again proposed by the plaintiff's agents,
that the risks should commence on the third Febru-
ary, and the policy was not finally underwritten till
the 11th of May, when the premium Was paid. A
fire took place in the month of April, and at the
time this calamity was knowd in England, the policy
underwritten on account of the plaintiffs had not been
delivered. On inspecting the policy it was discover-
ed that it carried the risk only from the day the pre-
mium was paid ; on which a bill in equity was filed,
charging that the agreement was either from the 9th
January or 3d February preceding. On this point
the issue was directed.

The evidence was exactly similar to that which has
already been given in Chancery. It appeared, be-
sides, that even down to the period when the intelli-
gence of the fire at Trinidad had reached this coun-
try, the exact terms of the insurance were not com-
pletely adjusted. On this
Lord ELLENBOROUGH turned to the Jury, and ask-
ed, if they could esteem this a complete and finished
transaction ?—Verdict for the Defendants.

cc
Mr. TV
action on
renal sum.
interest, of
William
• bond, and
ed, of who
pleas set t
not his be
came due ;
• rind after
put off, on
who.