Star.
London, England, 1802-11-20 00:00:00

lA* IN? BLLIGINIth.

COURT OF COMMON PLEAS;NOV. x 6.
Rooks V. LLOYD.
This was an action for board and lodging, pro-
vided to defendant's coachman.

Mr. Serjeant SKEPHIRD faid, that the debt de-
manded was exceedingly (mall, only 21. t 2S. and
yet he fhould find tome difficulty in proving it,
unlefs the trialwas fufpended till the arrival of a
material witnefs.

Mr. Serjeant BAIL!? replied, there was no oc-
cafion to poapone the trial, as he was ready to
admit the debt, as his defence was that of infancy;
and he meant to Phew that the defendant was under
age at the time he contrafted the debt; and as the
plaintiff had not Rated in the declaration that it
was for neceffaries, by the law of the land it could
not be recovered.
Mr. Serjeant SHEPHERD obferved, that if infancy
was meant to be fet up in defence, he did not
know where to find language to exprefs his in-
dignation: The defendant was a young man juft
returned from College, the fon of a man of confi-
derable wealth, who was alfo a Reprefentative in
Parliament, and of the firft repute in the county
of Stafford. The young gentleman, who had
pleaded infancy to avoid the payment of 21. r as.
though it had been expended in fupport of his
coachman, did not mine. giving a thoufand pounds
for a race-horfe.
The Learned Counfel was proceeding, when
Lord ALVANLIT remarked, that whatever were
the merits of the cafe, the queftion before the Court
was a dry queftion of fait ; was the defendant an
infant at the time the debt was contraaed, or was
he not it was only neceffary to prove that. There
was no occafion to Rate matters for the fake of
filling the Newfpapers ; they could not alter the
law. Let the public attend to this.
Mr. Serjeant SHEPHERD bowed to the Judge,
and the proof of the defendant being under age,
devolved on the mother of Mr. Lloyd, who Rated,
that the was brought to bed of her fon Francis, the
defendant in the prefent aaion, the r ith of June,
1781 ; that the lay in at the houfe of Sir John'
Wrottefley, at Shiffnal, in Staffordfhire, and that
the defendant was baptifed at the Rarith ofPirton,'
in s the fame county. Another wrinef was ltexa-
mined, who depofed as to her bung prefent at the
birth.
Tb,e debt was then proved to have been contrac-
ted in the month 9f February in the prefent year,
five months before the defendant came of age,
confequently a nonfuit was entered. •
way. 19.•-mILINT 9. MUSEUM/.
This was an aaion brought by the plaintiff to
recover the fun of 751. being the value of goods
tranfmitted to the Defendant.
Kent, the plaintiff in this aaion, is a wholefale
fpunge dealer in the city. Hulkinfon, the defen-
dant, a fadler and retailer of fpunge in the coun-
try. It appeared from the evidence, that the de-
fendant, on the 15th of Oaober 1801, had given
a verbal order to the plaintiff for a quantity of
fpunge to the value of feventy-five pounds fterling,
which the plaintiff tranfmitted accordingly. The
price of the heft fpunge was then, and is Rill, t is,
per pound, and the evidefice adduced by the plain-
tiff went to prove that this was an equitable and
fair price for the fpunge in queftion. The defen-
dant received the fpunge, and having kept it for
fame days, fent it back again to the plaintiff, with
a letter, Rating that the article was not of the
quality he had ordered, that he had requefted two
friends of his, who were in every refpeft compe-
tent judges, to examine it, and that they had de-
clared, that it was not worth more than fix fhil-
lings per pound ; that the goods did not therefore
fait his purpofe ; and that confequently he had ,
returned them to the plaintiff. It was contended,
on the part of the defendant, that as there was no .
written contra&or engagement between the parties,
nor any evidence that the goods had been accept-
ed by the buyer, the bargain 4, by the Statute of
Frauds" could not be valid in law. On the other
hand, the Counfel for the plaintiff contended, that
the goods having been received and kept for fome
days in the houfe of the defendant, was a proof of
acceptance on his part. The Learned Judge re-
plied, that the defendant's letter was a proof, that
though he had received the goods he had not m-
elted them. The Court therefore nonfuited the
plaintiff.—Verdia for defendant.
THOMSON V. HARDING.
This was an aaion for the recovery of a debt
due to the plaintiff from the defendant, who had
become bail for one of the plaintiff's debtors. The
defendant had agreed that, nnlefs the Paid debtor
rendered himfelf up to the cuttody before or at a
particular time fpecified, he, the defendant, would
become liable for the debt. It appeared in evi-
dence, that the debtor had delivered himfelf up to
cuftody within the limited time, but that no regu-
lar notice of this circumftance had been fent to the
plaintiff, who, on this account, thought himfelf
authorifed to proceed againft the defendant, as if
no fuch delivery had been made en the part of the
debtor. It was proved that the plaintiff in fad
did know from converfation with the Sheriff and
his Officers, that his debtor had rendered himfelf
up to cultody ; but he contended that, in a Court
of Law, this ought to be confidered as nothing,
whatever it might be in a Court of Equity.
The Court were of opinion, that the defendant
was liable for the debt ; for though the plaintiff
knew that his debtor was in cuftocly, no regular
notice in writing was ferved. Were it once ad-
mitted, that in a cafe of this kind, a mere curfory
converfation was fufficient notice, a door would
be opened for innumerable frauds and perjuries
about what was and what was not proper informa-
tion. The Court accordingly allowed the validity
of the plaintiff's plea, and nonfuited the defen-
dant. This decifiun is of confiderable importance,
as it confirms the rule, that, in the event of a
debtor rendering himfelf to cultody, it is not
enough that the creditor may have fome acci-
dental information of this circutaaace; that
lefs regular notice in writing be given to the cre- ,
ditor, be may proceed aria the bail, as if the'
debtor had not been in cuftody.—Verdia for the
plaintiff.

rr

--►-a,

. . .
COURT OP EXCHEQUER, GUILDHALL, WEST-
MINSTER, NOVEMBER 20.
This day the long-conteiled caure, Patton v.
Parton, was decided before the Loan CHIEF
Baton, when verdicts were takes by content, al-
lowing the Defendant 600 guineas, and each party
pay their own coils.

COURT OF KING's BENCH, NOV. s 9.

OUTRAN V. JdOORE.

This was a demurrer on a plea. The action
was originally in trefpafs, and the circumftances
were as follow :—The plaintiff was owner of cer-
tain lands lin Derbyfhire, upon which there were
confiderable coal-mines ; the defendant claimed
the property of thofe coal-mines from the original
conveyances. It appeared that in the reign of,
Queen
Elizabeth, the land and the mines belonged
to Sir John Zouch : he firft conveyed the land to
thofe, under whom the plaintiff claims (exprefsly,
referring to himfelf and his heirs, the mines and
minerals which might be thereon). This referva-
lion was very natural in a country like Derbyfhire,
which abounded in mines and minerals ; after-
wards he conveyed to other perfons (from whom
the defendant claims) all the mines and minerals
fo referred. The defendant had enjoyed under
this title for Tome confiderable time, when the
plaintiff brought an action of trefpafs againft him,
and bad a verdiCt. The defendant HI enjoyed
the ufe of thefe coal-mines, till a fecond action of
trefpafs was brought. He then pleadat his title
under the conveyance of Sir John Zouch (in
Queen Elizabeth's time) to thofe mines and mi-
nerals, fo exprefsly referred by Sir John Zouch in
his firft conveyance of the land. To this plea the
plaintiff demurred, on the ground that it was not
competent to the defendant, after verdiet againft
him, to plead upon the record a title which had
been difproved by the finding of a Jury.
Mr. ERSKINE fupported the plea on the follow-
ing ground :—He admitted, that in poffeffory or
perfonal actions for the recovery of a chattel, the
finding of a jury might either be given as conclu-
five evidence in a fecond trial, or might be pleaded
as an ffloppal • for it had been for a long time the
fettled law, that in perfonal Aims, the finding of
a Jury put an end to the controvert), ; but he con-
tended, that in actions like this (which affected the
realty and the molt valuable incidents of the free-
hold) the law would not !Wier a verdidt in a mere
poffeffory action to bar the right. An action for
trefpafs was merely a poffeffory action. If, the
verdict could operate as an jloppal, there was an
end of that favour which the law profeft to fhew
to actions which favoured of the realty; there was
no form of real action to which his client could
have recourfe, in which it would not be neceffary
to fet forth his title in the pleadings: he had no
other title but that which was fo derived from the
conveyance of Sir John Zouch • if then it was de-
termined that he muff not fet forth that title, be-
caufe a Jury had once found againft it, it followed
that he had no defence left, nor could he fopport
any form of action, real or otherwife, for he had
no other title but what he had fet out in his firft
plea, namely, the exprefs refervation of the mines
by Sir John Zouch.
In the trial of the ACtion of Trefpafs, the Jury
had found againft his title ; but Willis finding was
judged conclufive, it would put an end to that fa- I
vourable diftinCtion which had hitherto been made
between a mere perfonal chattel and that which
favoured of the realty. The Learned Connfel then
cited the opinion of Lord Coke, Bth Reports, where
that Learned Judge exprefsly mentions, that pof-
glory -actions determine nothing reOntling the
[reality, and never have an end. Mr. Erfkine here
obferved, that on this poffeffory a&ion, he faw the
end before he faw the beginning, if it should be
held that averdiet againft him on the title eaopped
him from ever again fetting forth that title. He
then Rated the opinion delivered by Lord Chief
Juftice Holt in the cafe of Ingledon againft Bur-
gets. Lord Holt lived in a time when the doctrine
of Eftoppels was much more familiar than it is at
prefent, and yet in R'xafe, exactly refembling the
prefent, he hall much doubt, and chofe to deter-
mine on another point of the cafe, and leave the
queftion of Eftoppel, undecided.
Mr. Easztas, from thofe authorities, and alfo
from an opinion delivered by Lord Mansfield, fub-
witted to the Court, that although the verdiCt
againft him might be given in evidence on the
other fide, petit could not of itfelf deftroy the fuit
by afting as an Eftoppel, and therefore that the
Demurrer was bad.
Mr. Glans, on the other fide, entered at great
length into all the cafes which had been hitherto
determined on the fubjea : he confeffed that it
was a fubjeCt, which, in modern times, Courts had
been feldom called upon to decide ; but when they
were called upon, they have no other guides but
the determinations of Judges who had- preceded
them ; he then read a number of cafes, Tome of
them bearing date is far back as the reign of Ed-
ward 111. (reported in the most barbarous Nor
man French) to prove, that it has been at all
times the fettled law, that a party may not al-
ledge in his pleadings any fact which has been dif-
proved by a Jury.
Mr. Dumas fpoke in reply.
Lord ELLENBOROUGH faid, that thofe queftions
had feldom occurred in modern times, and when
the Court was called upon to pronounce the law,
they mutt take it frop fources of great antiquity.
Whatever might be the impreffion then on the
mind of the Court, yet, in a cafe where Lord
Holt expreffed a doubt on the law as it flood in
his day, the Judges of the prefent time (being
farther removed from the age when thofe queftions
were much debated) would take Tome time for
confideration.

SCOTT V. SOAMES.

This was an ation upon promifes. To the de-
claration the Defendant demurred, aligning fpr
caufe that he was ftyled Jonathan, othcrwife John
Soames, whereas by the Law of the Land no man
can hare two Chriftian names at the fame time.
—Joinder in Demurrer.
Mr. Wave noir argued in fupport of the ob-
jefftion, and cited a cafe from Willes's Reports.
I where thaptantsi Judge had held a declaration.,