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

If AAAAA V. HARVEY.

This eaufo had been tried before Mr. Baron
THOMPSON, at the affizes, when the Jury found a
cerdid for the 'plaintiff. Mr. Bat.our. in the
courfe of the laft term, obtained a rule to (hew
caufe why there (hould not be a new trial.
Mr. Serjeant VAUGH•II and Mr. RVADIER (hew.
ed caufe. This alion was brought on two pro.
mifrory notes, amounting together to tool. The
plaintiff's cafe was this:—The maker of thefe pro-
miffory notes, being a relation of the plaintiff, a
day or two before his death, expreffed a with to
leave him 'a legacy of one hundred pounds. But
no Attorney could be found, and therefore he
drery theft two promiffory notesin his favour, and
.at the fame time obferved, as the realms of his In
doin.g that the plaintiff had conduced himfelf
more kindly to him than his other relations. and
that he had done fervices for him, for which he
had received no recompence. A rule for a new
trial had been obtained on an affidavit, acting.
that they had been taken by furprife at the trial,
and that had they been aware the plaintiff was
going to prove fervices performed as the confider-
.anon of theft rotes, they could have difproved
thole fervices. But the affidavit on which the rule
Plifi was granted, admitted that there was harveft
work done by him and his team for ene day, and
one farthing was a firfficient confideration in law
for thefe notes. It was not neceffary to (hew that
the work was commenfurate with the value of the
notes. They, on the part of the defendants, ought
to have proved want of confideration. Prima facie
the notes themfelves imported a confideration, and
it was fufficient to prove the handwriting of the
party, in the abfence of all evidence on their fide.
They laid, if they had known the plaintiff was
going to prove labour (lone, they could have dif.
proved it. They did not bring a tingle witnefs.—
Suppole the action had been brought again& the
tellator himfelf, it would have been impoffible for
him to have been defended on that evidence, be-
caufe Mr. Atkins, the wiinels for the plaintiff,
Oates an ruination oat of the teltator's own mouth,
that theft notes were not given as Ao gift, but for
fervices performed ; and if what that witnefs Paid
was believed, it would have been impoffible for
the tellator to have defended himfelf againfl an
aelion brought nn thrift notes. The defendant's
own affidavit :remitted a confideration, though
not exa6ly commeaurate with the value of thole
notes. Nur was that neceffary, as any confidera-
lion whattvcr was fufficient to fupport them;
and, therefore, they' hoped this rule would be
ddcharged.

Mr. Bsi.cuy and Mr. Ct.*tii fuppnrted the
I rule. They fuhmitted there was abundant ground
(di thefe affidavits to grant a new trial. ft was
truly fluted, that the notes thendelves imported a
confederation ; Lot that confideration might he by
the payment of money, and the defendant could
have proved that no money had been paid. But
it was Etid theft: notes wee. grounded on a coat.
dcratinn of la vicc which the plaintiff had done to

the cleceated ; and if there cervices were real, and
they were in fait the foundation of thee notes, the
verdkl was right, according to the direaions of
the very Learned lodge. The defendant u•as fus -
plated at having Bich a confideration put on him,
becaufe he was not at all aware of it ; and, in
las% it was not true, becaufe it was fworn th ,t
the plaintiff, as the fervant of his father, had onl;
done harveft work for the deceafed for one day,
and that the deceafed had done much more for
his father. This old man, bereaved of all his fenfcs,
two or three days before his death, for this fup
poled confideration, gives thefe two promiffory
notes for tool.

Mr. Juftice LAWIENCE afked the Learned Coun
fel, if he moved it on the ground that the deceafed
at the time he made thefe notes, was not in his
fenfes ?—Mr. flacc us. replied, that he did. This
man, he faid, had arrived at an extreme old age.
Mr. Serjeant VAUGHAN faid he was never more
fenfible in his life than he was at the time he made
thefe notes.

Mr. Jutlice LAWRENCE silted the Learned Coon-
fel for the defendant, who is the executor, if they
would be content to take this iffue on a new trial—
Whether the tetlator was in his fenfes, or not, at
the time hegave the plaintiff there notes, and rcy
to infill that there was a want of confideration, and
that this was only a Indium pawn.
It was agreed to confine themfelves to this iffue.
Mr. jUitICC LAWILENCE--."the pnly quellion
will be, whether the tellator, at the time he fign-
ed thefe two notes, was (ova: nuntit--was in the
poffeffion of his underllanding—or whether he was
impofed upon If the tellator meant to make his
relation a prefent of tool. the executor (hall not
defeat it. If it was a mere gratuity for civilities, it
fhall not be laid it is a nudum patium. The iffue,
therefore, will be, whether this tool. was really in-
tended as a gift, or whether this man, from his
age, was not impoftd upon ?"
Rule for a new trial abfolute, the defendant un•
dertaking, at the time of that trial, not to fet up
the want of confideration as a defence in law.

The colts are to abide the event. His Lord()tip
obferved, that if this was a fair tranfaßion, the de.
fondant ought to pay the coils. On the other
hand, if the deceafed had been impofed upon, it
was right that the plaintiff fhould pay them.

iE B. 8.-JOHNSON v. S-14 EDDOW•

When Mr. Ea sat we eked the learned Judge,
whether the Court would go into the Special Pa-
per to morrow ? his Lordthip pointed out two or
three cafes that he thought would not be attend-
ed with very great difficulty, and which he wifhed
to be argued to-morr,:w. He faid, as to the cafe
of johnton u. Sheddon, which was a fpecial vet-
dift, he might deliver judgment proforma then, as
it had been as much confidered ,by that Court as
it could be, and as it was intended to be carried
to the Houfe of Lords.--judgment for the De.
tendon.

The (maple queßion to be decided in this cafe is,
how an average Lofs on a Policy of Infurance
ought to be calculated ?
Mr. MILL', in behalf of a defendant, obtained
a Rule to thew cabfe, why William Taylor, Efq.
the plaintiff in this cauib thuuld out give fccurity
for eons ? This application was founded on an
affidavit, Rating, that Mr. Taylor was formerly
a Manager of the Opera-hottfe, but was at pre
fent in France. The anion was brought on the ad
Geo. 11. c. 34, entitled as Ail for the more ef-
feetual preventing Bribery and Corruption in the
EleCtion of Members to terve in Parliament.