The Statesman.
London, England, 1818-08-18 00:00:00

Messrs. Serjeata thrhhoca. and TINDALL were
Counsel for the Plaintiff; Messrs. SCAIILETT and
Panic, for the Defendant.
Mr. Serkortit fluhhncit opened the case. In the
year 1815, en action was brought against the Plain-
tiff, by Miss Appleton, for an assault (Miss Apple.
ton had got a serious per/tonal injury in an effray),
the cause was tried at York, and damages were given
!oldie amount of 2001. The expetices amounted to
more than 1001. more. Mr. Hutchinson was then
attorney for Miss Appleton, got an esecutioo against
Mr. Rinks, and sold very considerable portions of
his effects. But as goods are generally in such cases
brought to a bad market, the debt was not satisfied.
A second 'esecution was brought, and with the same
result ; 1801. were still doe. Mr. Binks's personal
effects having heen thus wasted, his person was next
arrested, and he was committedta Newcastle jail.—
At the same time the Defendant happened to be com-
milled to Durham Jail. Similarity of situation pros
duced sympathy of feeling, and the Plaintiff got him-
self liberated by giving his promissory note to the
Mendint for the sum due. At the same time, how.
ever, he give him a power of attorney, for uplifting
the rents of three farms, the properly of the Plain.
tiff and his wife, in the North Riding of Yorkshire.'
This last was expressly for the use of the Plaintiff, and
was considered by him as a security for his promis-
sory note. This was in February, 1817. In the. April
following the Defendant applied to the tenants of the
Plaintiff for their half year's rent; and they refusing
to pay in consequence of the Plaintiff's desire, dis-
trained for it. The Wme proceedings were repeated
in the October following. The Defendant received
in this manner 1061. Not withsta tiding ais, he
brought his action in the Court of King's Bench for
the payment of the foil amount of the promissarynote,
and obtained a verdict in Guildhall. Upon this vet.
dirt he was proceeding to exr,ution, *bet. the Plain-
tiff, feeling, as he did, the ruinous effects of execu-
tions, paid him 2651., the full amount of the note and
costs of action. The Defendant had thus paid him-
self large proportion of the sum due by the rents of
the tenants, and yet had recovered the entire sum
I afterwards without accounting for the previous pay.'
meta. This action was therefore brought to recover
the money' overpaid to the Defendant. :Two of the
tenants of Mr. Births proved the distress by the De.
tendantt and the payment to him of 701. and 6d.
Rem the Case for the Plaintiff seemed to be closed.
Mr. SCatthErrtiaid, that he should show this to be
one of the Most oppressive cases that ever came before
a Jury. The conduct of the Plaintiff had been cha-
racterized liy more trick, chicanery, fruad, and folly,
than he had ever know I. in any other instance. lie
was a lover of law, but that being a most expensive
pleasure, he naturally found biniself at last driven by
necessity to the tricks w hich be had at first practised
for the lose of the game—
M r. Justice BATLEY.—Brother Hullock, you have
not proied the payment of the 2651.
Here the Plaintiff's case was opened a fresh, and
'pip'sl witnesses were called and cross-esamined at
great length. The points which were attempted to
be 'made in defence, were, that the power of attorney '
was generally For all claims of the Defendant, and
that the Plaintiff had agreed to let the Metalatit set
off the rapanceh of an ectioto of replevin brought un-
successfully by the Plaiotiff, and „oleo a suit of
equity equally .unsoccessful, fur an, injunction to
restrain the Defendara from proceeding to -recoverl
payment upon the promissory note. In support of
the first, several letters were written by the Plaintiff
from Newcastle jail .to the Defendant in Dutharn
jail. The ,letters were very. friendly, expressive of
regard and gratitude, and moat complitnentery to the
Defendant, but they wergiodged to make no alter.
olden in 'the Clpress pint:444m of tlie,puwe4 Aif