Star.
London, England, 1827-06-11 00:00:00

LAW INTELLIGENCE.

COURT OF KING'S BENCH, Julie 9.

RICKETS V. J. P. J DRILL, ESQ.
This was an action for goods sold, and work done,
for the Athenaion institution, in Regent-street, by the
plaintiff, who was an it mmonger.
The ATTORNEY GENERAL said. that the defendant.
who was a highly respectable Gentleman, was Presi-
dent of the Athenaion Institution. The plaintiff's de-
mand was for lamps supplied to the Institution, and for
iron work. The defendant had, as President, signed
the resolution ordering the goods and work.
William Young proved, that the defendant was the
President of the Institution, and had signed the re-
solution.
Thomas Anderson proved that the lamps had been
delivered, and chat work had been done to the amount
of 971.55. 6d. The defendant told him he would take
care the plaintiff should be paid.
Mr. GURNEY admitted, that the defendant, who was
a Gentleman of fortune, was liable. He was in his 90th
year, and had been persuaded to become President of
the Society by some designing persons, with a view to
make him responsible beyond any thing he had ever
contemplated.
Verdict for the plaintiff—Damages, 371. ss. 6d.
THOMAS •. NEWTON.

This was an action by the endorsee of a bill of ex-
change dated the 2d of September, drawn by John
Tucker, for 501. payable three months after date, and
accepted by the defendant.
Mr. MARRYAT, for the plaintiff, called Mr. Wilson,
who proved the handwriting of the defendant and of
Tucker.
Mr. GURNEY, for the defendant, said the bill arose
out of stock exchange transactions, and was given for
differences. Mr. Tucker, the drawer, was a stock-
broker, and had had several time bargains with the
defendant. On the settling day there was a balance of
501. due from the defendant, for which he accepted
this bill, and they then agreed to continue the same
account until the next settling day. When that day
arrived, the price of stocks had varied so much, that
the defendant, instead of being a loser by the account,
found himself a gainer of nearly 2001. and he applied
for the nv,ney, but Tucker refuted to pay him. Tucker
had endorsed the bill to a Mr. Bambridge, and he had
endorsed to the plaintiff. This was to enable the plain-
tiff to recover, which it was clear Tucker could not, as
the consideration for the acceptance was illegal. No
consideration had been proved, although the plaintiff
had been served with notice to prove it, and he (Mr.
Gurney) should call Tucker and Bambridge to shew
aceptance was for an illegal-consideration.
Mr. Tucker—The accounts by which the balance of
501. from the defendant had arisen, were shewn to the
witness, and he was asked if they were not stock trans-
actions, but he declined answering the question, as his
answer might subject him to a gui fare action, for
5001. Witness passed the bill to Bambridge, and re-
ceived value for it. He had had many transactions with
Bambridge. He could not say whether he had received
cash for it, or whether it was given in balance of an
account. Bambridge and he had had stock transactions,
and he would not swear that those transactions did not
form part of the account.
Mr. Henry Jacobs proved set vice of notice for the
plaintiff to prove the consideration.
Mr. MARRYAT, in reply, regretted that evidence of
the consideration could not be obtained from Mr.
Tucker, but contended that nothing had been adduced
to impeach the plaintiff's title to the bill. He would
call Bambridge, whom Mr. Gurney had declinerkalling,
to prove the plaintiff had given consideration.
Mr. Bambridge was called, but did not answer.
Lord TENTERDEN said, there was no evidence that
the plaintiff gave value, and it seems to me, as between
Tucker and Newton, there was no consideration.—
Whether any consideration passed between Bambridge
and Tucker depends upon the testimony of Tucker.—
If you think Bambridge did give value for the bill to
Tucker, then you ought to find for the plaintiff ; if you
think no legal consideration passed between them, the
defendant is entitled to your verdict.
While the Jury were deliberating, Mr. MARRYAT and
Mr. GURNEY were conferring together, and the Jury
found a verdict for the defendant, at the same time that
they said they had agreed to withdraw a juror. Lord
Tenterden said both voices reached his ear at the same
moment. We understand the verdict was to stand.