Star.
London, England, 1804-12-28 00:00:00

INTELLIGENCE.

COURT' 07 ICING% BENCH, DECEMBER 14,
SOLOMON LI7IN ISAACS O• HARRIS.
Mr. Glass laid. that the l'iatntiff was a merchant
at Coningibury, the Defendant was in the fame oc-
cupation In London, and was introduced by Mars.
Dav:d Samuel and Son to correpondence with the
Defendant. In confequence of this introdation, the
If:v.4l6ff fent a quantity of linen goods to the De-
fesdant. who. inltead of accepting the Bill drawn
for the amount, fent a letter to the Plaintiff. dated
At 35th September, in what is called the Hebrew
German
onech, by the tranflation of Bernard
Wan-Sendon. of the witneffes, appeared to be as
fellows 4

Ire reetlyed your dimmed &veer of the r7th of July,
leitlralMsofyr and hilt of lading of two bales of linen, arneunt-
FrliM riet-tos. I am ferry to fay Metres. David Samutl and
hare r
atidwd sour property In my hands cache caster of it 'A. 4%.
rue, ball be obliged to pay dim uncle; legal mixers. Mari.
amok Uwe fent we a demmeot to this effeet, and tliey appear
=emended to all due regularity in the affair. Fur the final!
showy the amount of tied. aa rail may draw at fight, and
ime4 In wet am awoor. (Signed)
i. Rituals,
nl6ll Learned Counfel raid he did not underhand
tielmeatrGerman.but he fhould produce anlfraelitith
*lnk who was competent to explain the language
to.tbe jury. He Paid it was entirely a colluli n be-
tween Samuel and the Defendant, to defraud the
Plaintiff, which would in a moment appear by a
comparifirn of dates, the letter read being of the
25th of September, and, the .affidavit on which the
sunbeam* was founded, being on the soh of °e-
mber. Mr. Gibbs Paid, be did not difpote that if the
Defendant's debt, being within the jurifdiftion of the
citr,isad been attached according to the ellablithed
and at the proper time, the Plaintiff would
have Ss riglitof union.
• , Mr. Gaaeow Paid the Defendant was a refpe &able
Inweltant, and that be had afted to the be of his
trt fierier the circumflances. He did not con-
t;uks:t the attachment was regular; eighteen gni,
erme.had been paid Mao Court, and . die Jury mull
difpufe of the reft as they thou proper.—Vcrdia
for the Plaintiff, 961. sae.
is SMITH O. G. Cats.
die. Ga mow.. for the Plaintiff, fisted, that hit
idlest was a hop-faitor ; and that the Defendant, after
many viciffitudes of fortune, had, in partnerthip with
a idr. Gatkin, entered into the fame line of bufinefs,
hoe this claim was wholly unconneaed with his new
oreaweinent. The Defendant, in conjanftion with
Mr- Lillian and Mr. Stone, had made large pur-
r darks of tobacco of a Mr. Brandon. The patient
Silfion originated ins bill, dated the 2401% of March,
slot, at two months, for sox al. xs. of which Edward
beat= was the drawer, William Stone the acceptor,
sad she Defendant an indorfee. The bill was not
loused at its maturity. The Defendant, from this
deed (peculation, retired to the condition of pri-
weee clerk m Meffrs. Price and Smith. While he was
ip this filtration. Brandon peeled the Defendant for
the payment ofthis large bill. Cafe was wholly in-
anallpetem to Satisfy it, and the Plaintiff, is the Frio
oppioneflis imare. paid Brandon one hundred and fifty
'anus, fur which the latter agreed to relinquillr all
dieneants on She Defendant for this bill. Cafe, al-
thouh cow perfectly competent to return the money,
Wed the demand, and therefore this attain was
Vl't• . Solomon Davis depored to the receipt of Mr.
ressitb's check for 1571. los.
Mr. Richard Green, the book-keeper of the Plain-
are tellimonv to the fum of 1571. toss having
bees paid, and paled to the private account of Mr.
Smith, in conkquence oldie iffue of fuch check ; and
the tellimony for the Plaintiff further ellablithcd, that
the 1571. toe. was given in fatisfarition 64 the bill in.
dorfed by the Defendant.
Mr. Easels!, on the other tide, Paid, he (hould
'Drew on the clearcll evidence, that the tso guineas
were paid for beta of that amount, in which the Plain-
tiff was a Infer to Mr. William Stone, and that Stone,
and not the Plaintiff, is die gostrAy of his heart. ap-
plied this fum to exonerate the Defendant from any'
further profecution on account of this bill.
Mr. V.'rllitm Stone was then called.
Q..„" On whom was this bill drawn ?"—A. u I was
the acceptor, and ought to have provided fur ir."
Q._" Had yotf any tranfaaions with the Plaintiff r
A. o. I made different bets with him, and the fum
due trs me from thefe, was 1571. los."
a Were you under any misfortunes ?"—A. " I
became bankrupt in sBOl, and on that account the
Plaintiff would not pay me the produce of the bet." "
you know why the check of 1571. los.
wax given t' the Plaintiff r —A. " Yes : I had the
memorandum rf the PI rintiff, for the bets due to me
of guineas ; and I apreed t' deliver up me-
pancandums, if the Plaiirtiff would pay the fame sum,
sot to put it into my own pocket, but to aptly it to
the diftreffe. of Cal's ; to this he contented, and Mr.
Brendan agreed to exonerate Cali, in conic quence of
receiving this amount, from all liability, under his in-I
dorfewicnt, to the bill of 10511 as.
The wins& ants-examined by Mr. Gas cow.
So, Sir, this was a gamblirl aff.tir ; how
many bets had you ?"—A. " Two, 1 belies:: one
kw one hundred guinea, the other fur fifty."
Q_" Pray, Sir, how many times have you become
banklupt r—A. " Never but once, and that is
earangh for you."
" That is not enorryls for me. There gamSling
matters make little itnpretfion upon Gentlemen of a
certain defetipti in ; fa tee 4101 r urfelt. Sir, and tell
oh it you were more than once irculvent ; or, in
other word'. cir, Low many perfnns, whether in the
form of bankrn.ey, or ftibleq it tt encv, you
have ruined ?"—A. " I have ruined none under my
irsfolvency ; no tiau. towd. acd as you ir.tt•
mate, the iinpreillon was so tritlay, I .1u r.at
lea the &fiance of time between my bat.it:u:tey and
my infrrlvency, upon my :ionour"
Your honour m..y do very well vs;t:t your
gamlslin7 debt.. but aIA not pal, here ; t<•.; me /h•
time r —A• " I cannot i..y the pat titi.lAr
11 had only fi.e or or cred:•••ns ; •ind ,li•
was tlivolous, that it di zs n',: p: el. t, i n:y tscr 1-
lee: in."

Wan y",IT
4. I 21`;`(..11 to io;
Carr[ t 0 iffier
Q": 441,4 •

.r!e a v.t.r.,:fb.
tbr..

cvndecy.r..l to a

o
:.i_.

and Btnad were my Attornies before I failed, were
Attornies to the Comcniffion, and to the deed of corn-
potition."
Mr. GAIIROW, in reply, commented with much fe-
verity on the manner in which the lafi witnefs had
given his evidence, and fait', that no credit at all ought
to be given to his depotition.
Lord E LLLLL OSOUGN laid, that the cafe was com-
pletely Made out, on the part of the Plaintiff, if the
teffimony of Mr. Stone had not been introduced.—
The docifion of the Jury would, therefore, wholly
depend upon the credence they gave to the lan wit•
nefs ; and by this they would determine whether the
payment of tso guineas by the Plaintiff, were to
Stone, or to. the Defendant ? There was a fort of,
Ilippacy in the manner in which this witnefs (poke of
'the mieforrones in which numerous per fons mutt have
been material fufferers, that•in Come degree moil be
confidered to affea his taitnony. If the Jury thought
him correft in his memory, and faithful in his narra-
tive, they would live their verdia for the Defendant ;
if deficient either in accuracy or integrity, they would
find for the Plaintiff.—Verdi& for the Defendant.
DICEEISSI 15.
GODWIN V. SANCTI'S. STOWS, MOD TOO?.
This was an ili'ue direded from tlroCourt of Chan-
cery. on a fecurity in the nature of a mortgage, for
sooel. on an elate, the property of Meths. Gevers •
land Villa) ke,'at Bet bite.
Mr. ERIK I E 'laid, it appeared to the Lord Chan-
cellor, that the evidence refpeaing this etlate, merely
on affidavits, was not fufficiently fatisfatiory p.—he
had; therefore, direlted the matter to be tried in a
Court of Law (by the depofition of winches public-
ly etamlned), whether this elate was alienated to the
Defendant., by Mars Gevers and Vandyke, (or a
fpeciie loan, or if it were a fertility in the hands of
the Defendants, on the general floating account ?
Meas. Martin and Co. were bankers to Gems and
Vandyke. Gevers and Vandyke had faded, and Mr.
,Godwin Rood to them in the relation of aflignee.—
'On the sill of November, 18c. r._ or thereabouts, this
[m arsurky was depolited with M. Martin and Co.
and in confcquence, thefe bark's" advanced to their
endomers, Mars. Gevers and Vandyke, the fum
Rated. The Learned 'Counfel Paid, be had'to con-
l'tasel for Molts. Martin and Co. that this was not ex-
' elufively a depofit for the soool. fo advanced, but fat
:a the fnhfeepsent revolutions in the account: On the
other fide it was argnel, that the depofit was maga-
' tory with refpelt to all the Itffifequent tranfaaions,
and even all anterior ones, and alone was to be ap-
plicable to a particular advance of school made
mediately after the depofir. The lath were theft :
Previous to the bankruptcy adverted to, this most-
gage had been depofited with' the bankers by Mars.
Gevers and Vandyke, and pool. was advanced upon
it, which fum was paid off by Gevers and Vandyke,
in thre!: iCIRAIMSDIS. After this return of the loan,
the papers refpeaing the mortgage continued with
Me fps. Martin and Co. At the time of the failure,
the bankrupts were indebted to their bankers between
3 and accol. and the true quetlion was, whether this
'fecurity remained by accident, not being returned
Ifrom fome carclefs minion, or whether rt Rill cau-
-1 tinned a depofit or warranty in the general account
between the parties ? The refult mull depend on
the sanderdanding between them, and to refolve this
doubt, a very ftngular provifion was made in the or-
der from the Conn of Equity ; that the parties
themfelvea, Meffrs. Martin and Stone, fhould be per-
mitted to be examined in their own carafe. (Mr.
Et fkine laid, in a fucceeding caufe, that fo (insular
was this direCtion, that no intiance hadoccurred o ith •
in his long experience at the bar, or within that of
any of hi. brethren prefent, nor' he might add, with-
in the recolledion of his Lordfhip.) He lhould,
therefore, calf Mars. Martin and Stone, from whom
the jury would coital fufficient materials for their
detn mination.
(We are ferry our limits will not permit us to give
the long and ditilna evidence by Meffis. Martin and
Stone, on this occafion.)
Mr. GARIOW, in his reply, contended, that the
elate was alone applicable to the &ft loan, paid off
by three infialments ; and although he felt the high-
eft refpea for the witnaes, and received in petfea
confidence their depofitions, yet Rill he 'Tufted the
Jury would fee, that it was exclufively referable to
that fpecific loan ; but if they did not agree with
him in this, he hoped they would at leall find, that
it could not be confidered as a fecurity for any fum
exiling in the accounts between the parties, prior to
November, IRot, when the depofit was made.
Lord E LLLLL °ROUGH commented on all the pro-
minent features of the evidence, and in the conclu-
Ron fubmitted to the judgment of the Jury, the ver-
dict in the following form : " The intirument was
depofited as a collateral fecurity for the Mtn of five
thonfand pounds, and was afterwards famed, by
the content of both parties, to become a several fe-
eurity on the exiling account." The Jury fignified
their immediate concurrence, and the verdia was
entered accordingly.
WADDINGTON V. FRANCIS.
Mr. ERSKIIIR Rated that this was an Orion to re-
cover from the defendant the difference in value be-
tween the price agreed by the plaintiff to be given for
a qumtity of hops, the produce of 33 acres of
ground, in the Canterbury division of the county of
Kent, which, in December, 1799, the Defendant
had by c, ntraa fold to the plaintiff, for the following
crop, and the price which thole hops had *dually

broog'it.
He flyiuld prove the contraft,and that the produce
was cat. which fold far 171. t as. per cwt. being
an Cure., (,i 'l. c:•. more than the fun) ftipulated in
the plaintid's con.rita. For thi, fum, therefore,
amounting, on the whole croduces to about 7501. the
iaintiff would fall to have a verdia. The Learned
Loirofel fail, 'liar his client hasingjime years ago,
made corif.sleraiuz purchafes of hops, both c n his own
ae-miint and t.ir r t:..:7 ha,l had the misfortune to be
ind;:t-...1 be:iae C ,t.rt of finch, for a con-
fpiracy to m0n•ip,,h....: and eril.sti.ce the price of that
!L st a m 4 now at liberty in fry that
intuiceo: of that charge. for he hest
1:y by •:re v:rdia of a Jury, and had
t the Court. But he was
hit eff.:6l that circuity-
By the old

~1.1n44;

If c;icrt w

keen cn
• ...c1 tLe
rti; :it a 1

prektit cAte

etc inipofeil on

t.:. ; but lie Ap-
ptertitt J..y it ...mid b,edly be

rurcl-itc a growing
CUT n, &L. I,,re fold va Ll4e

acr.Al

mow
~Mr.
swab
itimer
teas. h
*fed
aiket
- for th•
many
a Mr.
bt4 d
or O.
Ms. i
, theta
Wass
• slot,
Rao
wd ti
boo
. soak
log
thi
time
serif
Bete
dew
thee
bees
. M
bees
Smii
the I
the
dlrf
*thee
!ter'
tiff
and
fi
los
the
(
A.
due
bee
Pia
wa
me
of
Pn
sot
i the
ik
Tee
do
Sal
I' •
ec
of
et
hg
in
IT
le
to
, •
ti
I,t lg
7