Star.
London, England, 1824-07-23 00:00:00

PRIME V. SULLEN, GICNT.

This was an action to recover damages from an at-
torney for negligently conducting a &fence intrusted
to him by the I:1 tintiff. It appeared that in the year
1822, the plaintiff being then under age, and newly mar-
ried, took part of a house at Southend from a person of
the name of Fay, for the purpose of carrying on the
business of a baker. After occupying the premises
three months he quitted, and the landlord made a de-
mand of six months' rent, which he refused to pay.—
The landlord brought an action against him for the
rent, and he employed Mr. Bullen to defend the action,
upon the ground of his minority at the time the cause
of action arose. The cause was set down for hearing,
and on the Ist of March it was in the paper for that
day. The briefs for the defendant had not been deli-
vered, nor were his witnesses in town, and in conse-
quence Mr. Spur, Mr. Bullen's town agent, who was in
attendance, got the cause postponed, on affidavit of the
absence of material witnesses, and the validity of the de-
fence, paying 13/. 10s. the costs of the day. Mr. Spur
wrote down without delay to Mr. Bullets, informing
him of the state of the cause, and desiring him to be in
town early on the Monday morning with his briefs and
witnesses. Mr. Bullen attended with some of the wit-
nesses on Monday, but in consequence of the absence of
Price's father, who was to prove his minority, the ver-
dict was or the plaintiff. The principal question was,
whether r. Mien or Mr. Price, jun. was responsible
for the ab nce of the elder Price? From the evidence
it appeared, that no subpoena had been given to him,
under the impression that it was unnecessary to serve a
subpmna on so near a relative; it appeared also that
Price the younger, told Mr. Bullen on the Sunday, that
his father would not come. It was shewn on the other
side, that the judgment obtained against Price was still
unsatisfied, that the 131. 10s. hither to remained unpaid,
and that the present action, though nominally Price's,
was in reality the action of Mr. Pearce, a rival attorney,
at Southend.

The LORD CHIEZ JUSTICE told the Jury, that even if
the whole of Price's witnesses had been in attendance
upon the trial, his defence of minority would not have
saved him from the charge for use and occupation, for
as he was married, it was a matter of necessity for him
to have a place for himself and his wife. A verdict,
therefore, would have been given against him upon that
point. But with respect to the day's expenses of
131. 10s for putting off the trial to the 3d from the Ist
of March, that was a question which he should leave en-
tirely to the Jury to decide.
The Jury consulted for a few minutes, and found for
'the defendant.
COURT OF COMMON PLEAS, JULY ,22.
DAVIS AND OTHERS V. MORLAND.

This was an action brought by the assignees of John
Lea, a bankrupt, against the respectable firm of Messrs.
Worland and Company, bankers, to recover the pro-
ceeds of bills of exchange to the amount of 6,0001.
Messrs. 11Iorland and Company had, among others, a
banking account with the Orrell and Pemberton Coal
Company, also with John Lee, the bankrupt, and Mr.
Thomas Lee, Member of Parliament for Newton. Mr.
Thomas Lee was in the habit of rendering assistance to
this concern, in communication with the defendants,
the bankers of the concern. In 1822, the concern had
occasion for relief from their bankers, and upon that oc-
casion they discounted, at the request of the bankrupt,
for the Orrell and Pemberton Coal Company, three
bills, amounting to something more than 3,0001. But
the bankers, not being disposed to advance the money
on the credit of these bills alone, six bills, amounting to
6,0001. were deposited with them as a security, for the
proceeds of which this action was brought. The bills
which had been discounted were dishonoured, and, not-
withstanding those lodged as a security were duly paid,
the bankrupt was left a debtor to the bankers. The
plaintiff'', however, contended that, subsequent to the
time when the bankrupt was debited, Messrs. Morland
and Company had received, on account of the Orrell
stud Pemberton Coal Company, money more than suffi-
cient to pay what had been advanced. The defendants
contended that applying the money they had received
to the payment of some old account, there was not
sufficient to liquidate the debt. Messrs. Morland and
Company did not so much contest the question on their
own account, as on the account of Mr. Thomas Lee,
who had made himself liable for the Orrell and Peru-
,berton Coil Company.

The Cum Armee told the Jury that the rule ()flaw
was perfectly clear in this case, being the rule of com-
mon sense, as he hoped he should always find a rule of
law to be. By the Civil Law, whence our Court of
Chancery had borrowed this rule, money received was
applicable to the payment of the oldest debts. The Eng-
lish law varied from this, and if there were separate
debts, and payments were made, and nothing was said
AS to which account the payments were to be applied,
the creditor had a right to apply it to which he pleased;
nut, in the case of bankers' accounts, it is now settled
law that payments are to be applied to the oldest ite:n
in the account. The Jury would therefore 1,,0k at the
state of the account after the bankrupt was debited, and
,ee whether sufficient had been paid to extingui.h hi.
debt, accruing from the pres nt accommodation, or
from some pi evious transactions.
The Jul y were absent an hoar, and at five o'clock re-
turned a verdict for the plaintiff for %Mi.