Star.
London, England, 1803-02-09 00:00:00

BREACH OT PROMISE OF MARRIJIGII.

A young lady, being a minor, by her guardian
rued a gentleman for a breach of promife of mar-
riage. The caufe came on at the Mires fur Brif.
col, when it was agreed to be referred. The at-
bitrator. awarded that the gentleman flinuld pay
to the lady pl. at one time, tool. at another, &c.
The gentleman, however, before the time arrived
for the payment of any of there fums, contrived
to (educe away this young lady from her friends
and prevailed on her, the having then attained
the age of 2 r, to release him hum the payment
~f ilvie ki i Ire rent rums cf money, and from the
coils, iac. Jn confequence t‘f this dexterity of the
).40 ties, the to irdian had Intl the money he had
exp-nd•td in ti:e and the .cto:r.cy his colts.
Mr. I)..nip•ere made An ani;cation to the Court
to have 'lf!'L?!.l A I:: [IC e:11: neat d.

rims.

'l".:s car-: tvA% arg::7.l (11 SAtunidy, and his
..i)i" rve,i, 4 y 114(4 occurred
a p,t ••!' tht f;on) an is:t4 that Mr
4'.; $1.6 ass.trd svas siitfcrent fain what iu

fan it was, and they had talked it over together,
and he ;110,0,1 deliver-the judgment of the Court.
application to fet afide an award
that been made by Mr. Bovitoucn, who de-
termined it in favour of the PlantifF. _ _ _

The fish of the cafe were fpecially flated, fo
tbat the ninion of the Court could be taken on •
'll.ey were there: A trader of the name
of Lewii I. t:es, having committed a fecret ad of
bavkrop•ey, COa the sth of Odober, 5805 ; and a
commitliial of bankruptcy illued out againft him
on the 1:i December t flowing. After he had
commit:el tics~ fecret ad of bankruptcy, and be-
fore a.e of the commiffion, he prevailed on
the 1),111(1-ti..t, Mr. Watkins, to accept a bill of
in i•idt:r to enable him to raite money upon
it. 1:e not being indebted to Jones at the time,
Tanes gave hint a leafe of a houfe in Bernard-
:tree:, which lie promifed to aflign to him by way
of mialgage, for the purpofe of indemnifying him
again t lits acceptance. On the very day the De-
fendant accepted the bill in favour of Jones, he
(Jones) applied to the Plaintiff, who paid the
foil value for it, and had no knowledge of the ad
of Bankruptcy committed by Jones, nor of the
agreement between Jones and tht Defendant. A
commifGon having iiTiled againfl Jones on the 35 ft
of December, the Aflignees required the Defen-
dant to deliver up the leafe which the Bankrupt
had pledged with him, acd he did deliver it up.
For the Defendant it was contended (by Mr.
Gibbs) that that property palled into the hands of
his Aflignees, unlefs it was troll property, which
this Bill was not ; and it was the fame thing as if
Jonen had paid to the Defendant 'so'. of the
money of his Affignees,on his undertaking to pay
that money to the Bankrupt's order : and as fuch
order could give no authority, the Plaintiff can-
not recover in this Adion.

His Lordfhip laid, the Court did not agree to
that 11.1;,: of the tranraftion. Lewis Jones having
no money in the Defendant's hands, prevailed on
him to accept a bill, and to indanuify him againft
that acceptance, dcpolits a leafe, which was the
property of the Afltgnees. As between Jones and
the Defendant, there was no confederation to en-
able Jones to fue the Defendant on that bill. it
WAS never intended he fliould be liable to Jones,
and that leafe was not depolitett with the Defen•
dant, as a thing to be paid for the bill, but merely
as an indemnity in cafe he fhould fail to repay the
amount of that acceptance ; and therefore, is
Junts could not fue on the bill, the Ailignees can-
not. 'l'o make the delivery of this leafe to the
Defendant the fame thing as paying him tsol. the
engagement of the Defendant fhould have been
to deliver up the leak to the Bankrupt's order.—
The cafe i.. no more than this : lithe Defendant
would accept a bill of Lewis Jones, he was to
have the Alignment of a leafe as a fecurity; the
confequence is, it becomes an acceptance without
confideration:—an acceptance on which, as the
Bankrupt could not fue, the Aflignees bad no in-
tereft in it ; and the want of confederation fur.
,nifhes no defence againit the man who has ad-
vanced the money upon it ; and therefore, laid
Tkis Lordfhip, we are of opinion the Arbitrator has
decided right, and that this rule fhould be dif-
charged. Judgment fur Plaintiff, and Rule dif-
charged.