The Statesman.
London, England, 1812-07-01 00:00:00

rr TE STATESMAN.

mill should not hare attended its execution, although
in the house at the time.

Mr. TOPPING, who conducted the Plaintiff's.case,
said, he should be able. to prove, that at the time of
executing the codicil in the presence of the landlady,
Mr. Warrand, junior, and Rachael • Colman, the
nurse, both the will and it were read over to the tes-
tator, and the latter recognized the contents of the
former.
Lord ar.Exuoaocon held this not enough ' • and
it WAS agreed that an application should be made to
the Lord Chancellor for another issue, in which Mr.
Warrand might not be made Plaintiff, so that he
might be examined as a witness ' • and in thernean time
a verdict was taken for the DAentlant, subject to a
power to enter a nonsuit, provided, in point of law,
a-Plaintiff can be nonsuited on an issue from Chan-

The Somerton-Gl:sea At, (Mr. Garrow) conducted
the Defendant's case.

THE KING V. REIN ESQ.

In this indictment against an Officer in the East
India Company's service, for au assault with intent
to commit a rape upon his servant; that count failed
in proof, and it was agreed to take a verdict for a
Common assault.

COURT OF COMION I'LIB.;S, JUNE 27.
CAMPBELL V. TAYLOR..

This was an action of Troyer, brought by one of
the assignee; of the Estate of Gosling and Co. to
recover a Bond for 5001. in the possession of the
Defendants.

William. Tradgly said, that on the 13th of June,
1811, he applied to the Defendant to deliver up a
certain bond, on an order from the assignees. IN
offered, at the same time, to pay whatever costs
might be upon the bond. Taylor informed him that
he knew the nature of the notice. very well, and
would retain the bond in his hands until such a time
as he should make out his bill, and when that was
paid he would deliver it up. No such bill was ever
delivered.

On the part of the Defendant, Mr. Serjeant Br.se
said, that his Client was an attorney and solicitor for
the estate of the Goslings, and had a right to have
his account of general claim paid upon whatever bu-
siness he should have happened to transact for them.
To prove the existence of this account, he calli-d
James Gosling, one of the persons for whose estate
the Plaintiff was an assignee, who proved. that the
Defendant had been employed in the transaction of
business for the Firm to a considerable amenut,
which was yet unpaid. Jones and Powell, two of
Taylor's clerks; proved that their mister had been
frequently employed by Gosling and Co. for which
he was yet unpaid.
Mr. Serjeant Lois maintained, that to prove an
account unpaid, was no answer to the action; he
should have specified his demand at the time, accord.
to the notice he received.

Mr. Justice Gums said this was an action brought
by assignees to recover a bond, which they wished
to employ in discharging the debts of the estate of
the persons for whom they were appointed. Taylor
certainly had a right to hold the bond until his claims
were satisfied; and in order to fix a conversion of
the property, the Jury must be of opinion that he
had retained the bill for something beyond what he
had a right to retain_it for. If ho detained it upon
his legal claims he was not guilty of conversion.
The Jury returned a verdict for the Plaintiff,—
Damages 500.
Mr. JuStice Gilles remarked, that the strict jus-
tice of the case was, in his opinion. that the bond
should be given up, on paying the Defendant's de-
mand, which was assented to by the Counsel for the