Star.
London, England, 1828-10-30 00:00:00

BANN V. DALVILL.

, This was an•action on a Algotent obtained in the
Court of Eichequer, Ireland, amounting to 811. inch:.
live of costs of suit, which had 'not been satisfied. and
the plaintiff now sought to recover an additional sum
for interest since 1817. *The original Action was for
goods sold and delivered by the plaintiff, a partner in
. the firm of Bann and Bond. boot-makers in BondAstreet,
to the defendant. who is son of the Earl of Varnwath,
:and, who, since the judgment, had acquired the title of
Ls,•rd Dalsell. The sum of 811. had been paid into Court.
Mr.-Pot.Loca stated thecase. It was the province
of the Jui y to determine whether any damages should
be given in this case beyond the original debt and costs.
The circumstances were these—The defendant became
indebted to Messrs. Bann and Bond between 301. and
401. for boots And shoes. He went over to Ireland, and
the plaintiff, being unable to obtain the debt, sued the
'defendant, then Mr. Mizell, in the Court of the Exche.
vier in Ireland, where a verdict was given for the for.
neer, and a judgniert issued for debts and cost, amount-
ing to 811. Nevertheless, up to the present time, not a
peony has been paid.
, A copy of the judgment in the Irish Court of Ek-
.
chequer was produced.
_Julip Wall. the plaintiff s attorney, proved taking out
a wait on the judgmeet in Yorkshire, but the defendant
WI returned to Ireland.
Robert Thomas, in the employment of the plaintiff,
proved that inquiries had been made after the defendant
without success till the present year.
Mr. &GUARDS. who was with Mr. Eastcttts, for the
defendant, submitted that interest could not be seeoiered
on a judgment for a debt for goods sold and delivered,
which would not itself carry interest. If such was the
Me in this country, a fortiori. it must be so in Ireland.
Alter some discussion; Lord TENTERDEN overruled
tilis objection, holding. upon the suengvi of several re.
cent decisions, that a claim for interest in such a CAW
was good.
Mr. RICIMARDS would then show that Mr. Dalsell
sft the jadr

• bad been alernys ro be found, subsequently to the ju
2ment, in Sakerastteot. Portman-.square, and the I,itfen-
dant. could at t be permitted to let his claim lay by, in
order that it might accumulate' interest. No demand
bad been made; the delendant now paid into Court thr
*meant ,?fthejudgmenr. and the plaintiff had no right
to benefit by hi:await/Ghee.' The Learned Counsel called
The Counteu of Carnwath (who sat on the Bench)
. r—Tier Ladyship was mothxr of the defendant, who was
September. 1797. He re.ided in Baer street
• host 1822;0.18'26. Lie lived openly, and went about
like other Ge.ntletnen. No ;application had been made
4by.the plaintiff; it any had been made, the judginent
Would have been tatified. In 1817 and 1818 the dta
, fenclort was ir. Jieland; in 1818 and 1819 he was if
&why, in Yorkshile.
• Ors tromagainination het Ladyship said, that in 1815

the defer.da .t went to France, ahem he remained 6114
1821, when he returned home, and resided in Baker
street, except occasionally going to •ateeing places. In
1815 and 1816 he was clerk irl the War office.
Colonel Brown had known Lord Dalzell sines 1622.
when witness returned from India. He then resided at
66, Baker-street. Witness had associated with his since
1822, walking out with him frrsuently. They bad
passed Bann's shop, in Bond•street, often, and as early
as 1822. Lord arlaell is lame, and walks with two
sticks, owing to an accident when a chart In 1823 his
name appeared in the Court Guide, as owner of the
house, 59, Baker-street.

. .
George Henri Standen had known Lord Da!sell for
twenty yews, and been frequently seen and bean with
him since 1821.

Mr. Pou.ocK, in reply, observed that it was a pity
the defendant did not take the trouble to walk into the
plaintiff's shop, and satisfy his demand. If the plaintiff
had been in the habit of moving about bhp the defen-
dant, there might be some pretence for omitting to pay
the debt.

Lord TENTIRDIDI told the Jury that the questior. for 11
them to decide was, not whether the defendant ought
or ought not to pay the money, but whether the plain-
tiff had used proper diligence to get his debt ? In the
latter case, the plaintiff had a right to claim interest
upon the amount of the judgment ; he ought not to
have been put to the trouble of further process.
The Jury, after a Ann consideration, found for the
plaintiff, damages 324 in addition to the sum paid into
Court.

COURT OF COMMON PLEAS, Ocr. 21P.
Sittings before the Cam Jansen and a Common Jary.
70WLER W. DIA.

This was an action of assault and battery. The
plaintiff was a surgeon and apothecary, and the defend-
ant a butcher. It appeared that the former had become
indebted to the latter, and not basing settled bis ac-
count, the defendant went to his house to demand pay-
ment. A dispute arose, and, as the plaintiff alleged,
the defendant became •err abusive and committed an
assault on him in his own shop. For the defendant it
was urged, that be had been first assaulted, and that all
he had done was in his own defence.

The Cuter %fiance left it to the Jury to say to which
of these statements they save credit, and said, that if
they thought the plaintiff entitled to a verdict, they
would give him such moderate damages as they thought
a man in his situation in life wasentitled to receive from
a person who had assaulted him in his own shop.
The Jury returned a verdict for the plaintiff, da-
mages 1 Oi.