The Statesman.
London, England, 1821-12-10 00:00:00

HUGHES V. FAIRY.

This was an action on a bill of exchange for 1001.
accepted by the defendant, and endorsed over to the
plaintiff by a person named Hudson. The hand-
writing of the parties to the bill, and its dishonour,
were proved.
Mr. Boasts; for the defendant, said he believed he
had a good answer to this action. The fact was, as
he believed. that Mr. Hughes was not the person really
interested In this bill ; but as the real party had put
himself in a situation in which be was not entitled to
recover, Mr. Hughes was set up as his agent. Mr.
Hudson was the real plaintiff. Mr. Hudson was a
tobacconist, but be was also a good natured person,
who furnished young men in want of money with that
necessary commodity on their bills. The only objec-
tion to this dealing was, that he sometimes requested
them to take goods in part of the amount of their
bill, by which mode the trouble of calculating dis-
count was avoided. In the present case the defendant
received a gold snuff-box, charged 88 guineas, a gilt
watch at 65, and a tortoise-shell box, charged 28
guineas. as part of the amount of the bill in question,
and another accepted by the same party for 97!. He I
would call Mr. Hudson, and expected to be able to
prove, by his testimony, that the articles were notl
worth h.ilf the sum charged for them.
Mr. Hudson was then called.—Witness is tobacco-
nist to his Majesty—deals occasionally in snuff-boxes
and gold-watches, but not in pigtail tobacco, or any
thing so vulgar--sells more gold snuff-boxes than any
jeweller in town—defendant never applied to him to
raise money for him. The consideration fee the bill
in question, and another of 971. being overdee, and
which never had beets paid, and most likely never
would, was a gold watch and two gold boxes, and some
other articles. The value of the boxes and watch
was what be had charged for them—would swear
they bad cost him three parts of what he hail charged
fur them—defendant came repeatedly to witness, and
asked him to let him have the articles ; lie tras
intro-
duced to witness by Mr. Lowndes. who said be was a
safe man—witness did not tell defendant the best way
of raising money was eo buy boxes and watches.—
(The watch was handed to him)--..0n his oath he did
not believe it could be bought in any shop in London
by a bill at nine months, for less than 65 guineas—
there was a great difference between nine months bills
and ready money. The bill was out of his hands long
before it became due.
The Cam JUST!' S said the defence was not made
out, and the Jury found for the plaintiff, for the
amount of bill and interest, 104/.

COURT OF COMMON PLEAS, Dec. 8.

HEIR ♦ND OTHERS V. WARD.

The Court resnuirl its consideration of this case at
ten o'clock, when a few witnesses were called on the j
part of the defendant to prove the words written on
the envelope containing the certificate, to be the hand
writing of William Cotton, sen. The plaintiffs then
produced evidence in reply, which went to shew .that.
the signatures to the affidavit fur the license and to
the bond of indemnity, as well as the writing on the
envelope.
Mr. SCARLITT then addressed the Jury for the de-
fendant. He observed that the evidence which had
just been adduced, was brought forward Dot tp satisfy