Star.
London, England, 1804-11-30 00:00:00

the goods to them. His cafe, therefore; he faid, was
that the Plaintiff. Mountjoy, was aaually one of the
party of Weft and Company. Upon whet authority
he made this obfervation, be contended, was the
evidence of the witneffes who had been, aed the
others who would be produced. The further de•
Inset he relied on was, that, in order to recover. a
joint coeval on the part of the Defendants molt be
proved, of which there was no evidence. He alto
underfforid it would ne ptoved, that one of 'the De.
fetidants, Mr. Baker the younger, was a minor. not
yet twenty•otte years old, and bad no mare whateier
in die bufinefs. except necafinnally tranfaaing it for
his father ; but he did nut mean to make this the
grounds of his defence, as his clients were honoura-
ble men, and above filch. their only objea being to
I get and keep poffellion of the goods, in order to have
r it determined by law, to whom they faitly belonged.
Lord Et.t.smaoaovcst fuggeffed to Mr. GARROW,
that if he could bring evidence to prove this latter
part of hi. Ilatement, there snuff be an end of the cafe.
Mr. Giles Hanwell was then called : be Rated,
that he was brother-in-law to the Defendant, Mr.
Baker the elder, who was a refpeitable and extenfive
fail-maker ; he knew his fon, the other Defendant.
perfealy well ; he was not of age, nor was he a
partner or (barer in the bufinefs in any way what-
ever. except fornetimes ailing his father, and he
never knew of any firm of Baker and Boa. The
Plaintiff was accordingly Nonfaited. . .
LORD NORTDWICZ O. NARY ITANWAT.
This. was an sakes on the cafe, to recover a fine
upon theadmifflots of a tenant to a part of the an-
tient copyhold premifes of the manor of Harrow.
The Defendant had occupied a honk and premifes
on Harrow Wcild Common, formerly known by the
name of the Old Nag's Head, which had been a
public houle, but is now called HarrovrWcild Lodge.
and is a private dwelling.
Sonic few years back, there premifes were greatly
improved and extended, fu as to take in a (mill part
of the Common, which was included us the old en-
pyhold effete. According to the cuftom of the tug-
nor, a Jury was empannaled to teas a fine to be
paid to the Plaintiff, as Lord of the Manor, and
they- found a verdia for twenty pounds only. when
theimproved rent was ROL and the Lord of the Ma-
nor was entitled to a fine of double the amount of the
improved rent.
Nt queltion, therefore, for the Jury was. whether
that or any ether tun was a fulficient fine for that
part of the copyhold premifes, nn which the Defen-
dant had encroached, and on which the improved

rent. had been addled ?.
A Aft deal of evidence was gone into on both
fides, which is @nap:di:try to lay before our readers.
Melirs. Galsow, Galas, and M , on
the part of the Plaintiff, contended, that the value
was pl. per annum, though the fine acted was but
twenty pounds.
Mart. Easstas and Wirmay firll took feveral
legal objeaions to the claim of the Plaintiff. They
ftated, that a diaindion Ibould be admitted petwcen a
wallehold and a copyhold, and this property belong-
ed to the former elafs ; and they doubted, If the va-
kration by the Jury of the Manorial Court, could be
deemed equal to an affeliment to the Lord. In the
fequel, the objetions in point of law were over-ruled
by the Lord Chief Jultice, and the :aufe was firopli.
fied to the mere quellion, whether the annual rental
of the premifes could be taken at twenty pounds ?
and this involved a fecund enquiry, whether the efiate
Ihould be eftimated for this putpufe, in its original
or in its improved condition ?
Lord ELI. ENIIOI,OVGH explained to he Jury, that
the tine was referved on the copyhold, with all the
improvements attached to it at the time of the ad-
miQi of the Defendant ; and the Jury immediately
brought in their vcrdia fur the Plaintiff, damages
forty pounds.

CLARK[ V. COURT,' IV.
This was an aftion upon a bill of exchange, the
indorfer againtl the drawer.
Mr. Gloss, in dating the Plaintiff's cafe, Paid, that
the Defendant was an Officer in his Majefty's na-
vy, and as he had frequently admitted the bill, and
promifed payment, he lhould not take up the time of
the Court, in making any obfervations„but proceed
to prove the adiniffian and promife of payment by the
Defendant.
Mr. Lyons was then called who proved there fads.
He was erofs examined by Mr. GAIROW. He flat-
ed, that he followed no hulinefs at prefent : he had
been a linen-draper at Portfmooth, but had retired
fronurade, or, more properly (peaking, trade had
retired from him. This was firft notified to the pub-
lic, by a gukrral againlt him, and he was made a
bankrupt. He knew the Defendant very well; and
had many money and bill tranfaftions with him. He
did not receive the bill in queftion from the Defen-
dant, for the purpofe of getting it difeatinted. He
did not ?celled having written upon the fubjefl to
any one. His ideas might have been perplexed at
the time ; he never wrote or Paid that he would get
it difcounted for a large premium, or that he got no
value for it. He believed be might have correfpond-
ed with (ism one elfe about it ; he knew Aaron, and
believed he did write to him, but was not quite fore.
Mr. Garrow then turned down a letter, and fltewed
him the fignattire, which he acknowledged to he his
writing. He then laid, he had not the leaft doubt
but that he had written to Aaron on the fubjel.—
He received the bill from the Defendant in part
payment of a debt which he owed him, confining oh
bills paid for hiiu, goods, and money lent. This bill
he afterwards gave to the Plaintiff, who celled it for
him without charging any difeount. He did fay,
'that if he were esainined as a witnefs for the Defen-
dant. the Plaintiff could not recover ; he laid fo fee-
qttently ; avd the reafon was, that at that time he
thought the Plaintiff wag in his debt ; but after-
wards, mon a lettlement, there was a balance againa
him.
The letter to Aaron was then read, which purport-
ed to be a fort of cafe or natenierit of the tranfoc-
iron, where Lyons tars, he may be called as a wa-
nds by his own affignees, or f.r Clarke ; and,
in fhnrt, appearing to offer bimfelfas a witnefs for or
againft any of the parties concerned, fayiag, that if
he gave a receipt in full, in the names of his affignees,
it might bar Plaintiff's demand, or, if he flould be
examined on the part of the Defendant, the Plaintiff
could not fueceed.
Mr. GAllittiW, in his defence, contended, that
Clarke, the Plaintiff, bad no right to recover this
debt araialt Igr, Courtney, as it plainly appeared he