Star.
London, England, 1829-03-05 00:00:00

Pratt, a drysalter, committed an act of ...roptcy .
March, 1827. In the April following he bought a
quantity of leather, for which he gave 741. He ism-
ersediately took the goods with the invoice to the defen
dant, a leather dealer in Whitechapel-road, and; having
• shown him the invoice, he agreed to give him 4ffl.
Tor the leather. Pratt afterwards became a bankrupt,
and his assignees broughi the present action to recover
the full value of the goods. The defence set op was
.that the goods were not worth more than the defendant
gave for them, and several witnesses
swore called with
a view to establish that fact, but they completely failed.
On the other hand the plaintiff had preyed, not only
that the goods were worth 741. but that the defendant
bad said that be bad got a great bargain.
The Jury found a verdict for the plaintiff—damages
_ severity-four pounds.
' 111*CM W. TSB EARL OF LIiZREOOL.. •
Mr.Csurre opened the pleadings.
- Mr. GORR', stated the case to the Jury. The plaintiff
was a coach-builder, and the defendant was theezecutor
of the late Dowager Countess of Liverpool. The cause
of action was this—The lite Countess of Liverpool
hired her carriages of the plaintiff for a term of years.
In 1825, their former agreement expiring, a new one
was made to this effect—A carriage was to be built for
the Countess, on yrhich her arms were to be emblazoned,
• and she was to have the use of it for I term of years, at
the rate of 941. 10.. per annum, the payments to be
made in advance. The carriage was sent home on the
Ist of June, 1825, when the first payment was made; in
• June, 1826, the second payment was made; and in June,
18:".1, a this d payment was made. In the Aagust follow.
.ing the Countess died, leaving the defendant her executor.
The defendant, thee wishing to put an end to the agree-
ment, went to Mr. Bich, and inquired oo what terms
it cnuld be done? Mr. Birch replied, that the custom
. in the trade was to pay a year more in advance. To
this the defendant said that his own coachman had
told him the same, and that he would pay the money.
,The carriage was returned to Mr. Birch in October;
,but the-cleendant had since declined to pay the 941. and
bad tendered 701. which had not been accepted. The
Learned Gentleman was then proceeding to call wit-
, nesse% to establish his case, when
Sir J. SCA MATT submitted that the plaintiff most be
' nonsuited, as the action was brought against the defen-
;.dent personally, and not in his character of executor,
which it ought to have been, as the conversation he had
bad with Mr. Birch was a mere continuation of the de-
ceased's contract, and not the formation of a new one.
Lord TENTERDEN thotight the objection valid, and
,dir cued a nousuit to be entered, with leave to move to
Inore•it set aside, and a verdict entered for the plaintiff.
A nonsuit was eptesed accordingly.
COURT OF COMMON PLEAS. MAACK 4.
AMBLER 9. WHITMORE AND CO. .
This was an action brought to recover the sum of 601.
alleged to have been paid into the house of the &tend-
ant', as bankers, but the receipt of which was denied.
The plaintiff is a hay salesman in Smithfield minket,
who kept a cash account with the defendants, who are
bankers in Lombard-street. It is usual for those who
lteepcAsit at a banker's to have a pass book, into which
' Monies paid inty the banker's are ent• red at the time
-Making the payments, if the book is sent with the
; but ii the book is not sent with the money, the
•eiwries-are tub,equently made by tie banker's clerks
• fic m the ledger. On August 19, the defendants
ceived the sum 44'601. consisting of a fifty pound Bank
• viose and ten sovereigns, ' from one of their cus-,1
tomer:, named James Arnold, who -did not bring his
.pass-b sok, but the money was regularly en ered in the
liaer's waste book. Tt e payment was afterwards
mitered by another clerk into the receipt cash book,
.1,,t instead of putting it to the credit of the account of
• -.joint Ambler, the plaintiff, he put it to that of John
..Arnold, who paid the money in. The mistake was
Copied by the nest clerk in the ledger, and when the
plaintiff sent for his pass beak on the 21st of August,
t3he false credit was copied into his pass book. The
error then went on undiscovered till the Bth of October,
. when Mr. Arnold discovered that his'anount was 601.
Short on the credit side, and claimed the money. The
bankers then looked into the books, and found that the
:error had been first made in the receipt cash book, and
'that thire was no original entry of any money paid in
by the plaintiff on that day. Upon this they informed
Mr. Ambler of the mistake, and requested him to give
them a check for the 601. over-credited. The plain-
tiff, however, refused to give the check, and the defen-
dents took the money out of his account.
. • The plaintiff's son, a ycung man of nineteen years of
age, was now called, and swore that he paid 601. into
the bank• which he' received from his father 'on the
day in question. He could not recollect what clerk he
paid it to, but he saw an entry made in some book
when he paid it ; nor could he give any account of
*sv—het mania his father received on that day, nor in
what notes the 601.tonsisted ; but he produced a book!
In which was entered the sum as received by him from
his father. There had been two mistakes m' he book
brfore. On the past t f the defence, however, all Messrs.
Wbtmore's clerks were called, and each of them swore!
be received no money from the plaintiff on the day in
• question, but that the mistake originated in the way
above de-cribed. There was no entry's& any other 601.'
in the book •but that received of Mr. As nold.
The LORD Crater Justice charged the Juiy, that this
writs a most Important case, and that perjury must he
Imputed to one side or the other, which it was for
them to decide upon.
The Jury withdrew from the Court, and shortly after-
- yards returned with a verdict for `the plaintiff of 601.
CONSISTORY COURT, Macs 4.
MAC CLEAN V. brAdscticAN.
This was a AUit for a divot ce, on sectrunt of adttltesy.
promoted by Major Mac -Clean against his wire. 110
appeared foam the depositions of *the-witnesses, that
the pasties were mat tied at Bombay in 1822. They re-
turned to England early in 1827, and•in the November I
of that year toot lodgings at Taunton. Shortly after tlits..l
Mrs. Mac Clean became disconsolate and resile-s, and'
urged her husband, with great impottuaity, 'to come
up to London, decfaung that she would rather be' int
London than in Heaven, nay, to such lengths did
411 go to make her toisbaild comply with her wisest 1.1
that she actually refused to dress or eat. About this
title she received a letter, a hich'was 'addressed to ter
norsery maid, baying previoutly told the maid that
the letter alas to come, and that it 'Was to be given to
bet without Major MacCleales being's'offevedto know
airy thiag of it. The hosband at length yielded to the
Wit Ices of Mrs.MacClean, and suffered her to come on
Lotsts toLoodon, to her grandknisther,Mrs. %Wiring- '
tilts, wish the istontion of following het 'Cron after. Mts.
Mastitis% was scarcely a *reek with the bid Lida hilrin'
sky +outfit atuanidoiimieieftiveßnaretuireiquittet

Diteount
PA;I'N,
o;i* ...........4%,2„
i
i..f J ro ....V.I 6,1
'''
''''l ' 'l'l 'OlO W 1 INTELLIGENCE.
,:.
.-i it
~
• , 1-* —4-
i - Jo* CPS BENCH. Gotavaat.t., Kizer 4.
• 4.e. 11 V
' • • •1i •rd Tztermvut and COIIIIIIOO JUIIIIO
.41/°3A
. SAINONRE OP PRATT, V. WREZI.
The facts of the case were these—The bankrupt
• Pratt. a drvaalter. committed an act of bankruptcy in