Star.
London, England, 1817-03-10 00:00:00

!lOW:LAKE AND OT?ERS V. VIPOND.

This Was an action by the plaintiffs, bankers, at
Cambridge, nainst the defendant, as one of five
makers of a promissory note for 81000. The case
appeared to be this s—ln the year 1810, a person
named Dc,ckra having become indebted to the plait,.
tiffs in a considerable sum of money, the defendant,
and four other Gentlemen, became his securities, and.
gave a joint and several promissory note for the pay-
ment of 41000 to the plaintiffs. It was agreed that
this note was to be given as a mere matter of form.
until a bond should be prepared for better securing
eve money. A bond for a larger sum was afterwards
prepared, but the defendant refused 'to 'become a
_patty to it. The other co-securittes who executed
tie bond bad since paid some money on account
thereof, and the present action was brought against
the defendant, neon the promissory note,-to recover
the sum of 8765. 4s. Td. credit being given him for
the remainder-ot the &MOO.
Mr. GURNaIf endeavoured to relieve the defendant
from his liability, by contending, that this security
merged in the higher one of the bond, which had been
executed to the plaintiffiby theoilter co-securities. But,

Lord ELLEND %ROUGH Ikld, that, as the defendant
had refused to become a party to the bond, he was
liable upon the pron►i%sory note. The plaintiffs, there.
tore. bad a verdict for £765. 45..7d. the defendant
being kft to his remedy in equity.
CORIUM V. BRUNE AND JORDAN.

This was a special action upon the case, under the
following circumstances:—The de' 'ants were fo.
reign merchants, carrying on business in this town,
and being desirous of racing money upon a bill oil
exchange, the defendant Jordan. prevailed upon the
plaintiff to indorse the bill, and send it to his own
bakes, for the purpose of getting it discounted, for
his, Jordan's accommodation. The plaintiff accord.
ingly indorsed if, and'sent their clerk to their bankers,
to get it discounted, but the bankers refusing so to do,
the clerk returned with the bill, but before he-could
deliver it to his master, Jordan took it out of his
hands, told the plaintiff he might make himself easy
about the indorsement, took away the bill, and after.
wards Rot. it discounted at a bill broker's, to whom the
plaintiff was subsequently obliged to pay the amount.
This action was therefore brought under the special
circumstances of the case. The declaration *Hedged
that the defendant bad undertaken to erase the plain.
tiriname from the bill, in case the bankers refused-

to discount it; but. it appeared in evidence, that he
had only told the plaintiff to make himself easy about
any improper use being made of his iodorsement.=.
Under these circumstances,,
Lord Eu.saisnaountk thought the averment in the
declaration was not nude out, and therefore advised
the plaintiff to be nonsuited, in order to bring another
action. which he thought might he sustained by the
e vidence.—Nonsuited.

On the sth inst. the house of Mr. JOSH 1M GAL;
-Nu. 6, Norman-street, St. Luke's, was entered by a
gan of thieves, who forced ern the shutters with
an won crow, and robbed it of a quantity of plate
and d 5 in Bank antes. _
The house of Mr. WHITIENIUD, hat manufacturer,
47, Chiswell.street, was Woke into the Same night,
and roblied sis dozen of hats, shine of them in an
unfinished suit.
sibtoidap night the hots.' of Mr. J. -Eawassaa,
Fashion-street, §pital-6el4h, was burglariously eater.
and robbed of a great itftantity of wearing apparel
:sod other prverty.