The Statesman.
London, England, 1823-01-17 00:00:00

PICNOIIMS V. OLUMN.

PBlx opened the pleadings.
' Mr. ScanLaTT stated that the plaintiff went formerl7
Ilty the nanse‘of Stackbonse, entering into partnership
WA others in the North Cornwall Bank—each partner
Was to supply a rennin quantit yof stock. 7he plaintiff
supplied his part, but the defendant and other partners,
felled to comply with a bold given for that purpose ;
and upon which this action was brought to recover the
penalty therein set forth of 12,4961., and advanees
*boosting to 5,1551., which was secured to the plaintiff
• by the bond in question.
Air. Thereon Collins, subscribing witness, proved de.
folodset's execution of the bond. Also hand writing of
ibe defendant to letters put is. The Ant in substance

NIS [tale
" Dear Staekhosse,
• " You may presume say sensations; but I mild not
believe those en who* I confided would have neglected
• ciao—that the nee given would sot have been provided
'Pr. Yon having t,l/9111., Lang Annuities, I pledge
iiitsrielf to ri•ptart any stock you way sell, and place
. fro *b hands'of oar agents Fry, to pt our credit."
-Crees-examined.—W itness was intimate with the par-
ties., eseh partner:had a separate note for 41X/01. endorsed
. kg el • se; the parties were. plaintiff, defendant, Brown.
mid Thomson. Brown left in Nov. 11H5, the notice was
-•• • toot given till-afterwards, witness tried to raise money
far the potpie of hiking up Brown's note, but did nut
alkfed. Witness des/lees! his agent, Mr. Young, to sp-
ry 19.51 r. Pensfy;rvis understood defendant's note was
tapes sap by Mr,Fendarris; witness was afterwards de-
firedprepare /be bond in question, and was desires)
t• appilv to the Winders* for the whole amount; the
flainiilf expressed a desire to have security, and desires)
witness.to procure security from defendant and Thom-
son ; written instructions were given to witnees; thinks
111 We. W rendasvis'spitneseembo witness believes was in

_

le •
the room doe re t e time these, r
I ?a.
lions were gepiritl dad gives. Prewhaced.reclipt
plaintiff to Mr. Brown, that the receipt was part.q
arrangement proposed by Mr. Glynn. Decendani.
apprised of the arrangement being carried into efftent-7:
bat witness does not know if he knew of the receipte-r.
The first thus witness applied to the defendant to exe-
cute the bond, be asked whether -he bad 40 beaeK of
that part of the stock which was applied to the payisseist
of Brown's note. Witness tpld him Le understood be
was to have credit for it with the North Cornwall Bank.
Witness did not press for the execution of the bond.—
Pendatvis and Glynn are magistrates of 'the Cornwall
Sessions. Wheo witness saw plaintiff at the Sessions,
told him defendant bad not esecnted the bond. Wit.
ores thinks he told defendant he either bad or should
have credit at the Beek rot Brown's money. and be tr
following day bad executed the bond. Thelond wea
livered as daunt. 1. 1
The bond was here put in,
The repayment of the Imperial and South Sea' Steele
admitted as lent by the plaintiff to his partners. In on-
swer to a question from the Lord Chief Justice. wit..
am said—Dividends have been paid op to April, 1821.
James Witnell proved the price of Long Annuities
yesterday from 20k to 9-16ths. Taken at 201 i. The
plaintiff's stock amounted to 4,1001.; 3001. was all the
dividends. Yesterday, the Reduced Annuities were 80.
That was 800/. ; upon which there will be 401. divi.
dends—total 5,187/.
Mr. Masatarr, for defendant, said, it WO wally
the defendant's misfortune to have been the patinas' of
these parties as the plaintiff, as Mr. Glynn had neverjuly
credit for the amount of Brown's note. the condition
upon which be executed the bond. For so mesh M Mr.
Glynn's owe note, the defendant considered Meanie re-
sponsible, but not so in respect of Brown's own note.
which Mr. Pendarvis had taken up without any autho-
rity from him. (The Learned Counsel here put in a re-
ceipt fur 4001. from Mr. Brown, dated August 1816.)—
The question was whether the Jury were to give plain-
tiff damages against defendant for the money which he
Chisintiff) had received from Brown. He submitted the
Jury could only assess the damages at 541. Long Annui-
ties, for which the defendant was liable.
The Loan Cuter Jvsnca observed, there was no
payment proved, either ae to the Reduced or Long
Annuities.
Mr. SCARIATT—Tbe defendant has paid the dividends
up to April, 1821.
The LORD Cater JOSTICR referred the parties to a
bill in Chancery, as all this Court could do, was to look
at the issues joined, by which it appeared that 5,2451.
tens unsatisfied, for which the plaintiff was entitled to a
verdict, accordion; to the tutor of the bond.
Verdict for the plaintiff-5.2451. and costs.
MARMIRS AND CO. V. ABBOTT AND co.
Mr. SCARLETT stated that this was an action against
the celebrated wine-merchants in Skinner Street. Snow
Hill, to recover the amount of two bills of exchange. A
letter of the defendants would be put in apologising fur
fvetting in a defence to this action and requesting
urther time for payment; they were ;hen in the jaws of
bankruptcy. and the action, in the first instance. was
undefended. The defendants had since applied for a
new trial, on the ground that they had a good defence,
for that the White were of a bad quality.—Messrs. Mar-
lines were considerable importers of wine. This was a
quantity of wine for which the bills in question were
drawn. Plaintiff, however, determined to keep eight
pipes in his hands until the first bill should be paid.
When applied to, Messrs. Abbot requested platatiff
would renew the first bill. They had sold part of
the wine received from the plaintiff and offered to
deliver it back.

A clerk of the pialistifili proved the handwriting of
drawers and acceptors.
Another witness proved the hand-writiag of Mr. Tho-
mos Abbott.
Crois-exasoined—Witoess knows nothing Of the trans-
action.

The defence being that there wee usury in retaining
the wines in question until the bills became due, as those
wines were sold at 12 months' credit.

The LORD Cater Jun.lce was of opinion the defend-
ants' pleas had failed as to usury.
Verdict for the plaintiffs-10501.
Mr. SCARLETT rsesoested his Lordship to certify that
there was no pretence for a Special Jury, upon the
defence of usury.