Court Of Common Pleas, Gu...
The Times, 1824-07-29T00:00:00

(Before Lord Ctief.rustice BEST and a Comrunin .htrit.- This was an action to recover the amountof two bills ofexchange. One for 491. ls., and the other for 5i01., drawn bv defendant, ac- ceptedl by a perssn named John Thomnpssn, at the Philanthropic So- dety's }IOU8C, and endorsed over to the plaintiff. Thompson, the acceptor, not being found, the action was brought against the draw- er. The defence was the general issue, and alsc a seetofl'agains: the bill for 491.15Ss. hlr. Sergeant PELL. stated the plaintiff's case to the jury, and called witnesses, who proved, that after the first bill became due, defendant called an plaintiff, and offered to settle it. Ile then ten- dered and gA.ve 131., and on plaintiff observing that this was not enough, defendant admitted it was not, but he had Yeturned three pockets of hops (which had been bought for the bill). The plaintiff at first said he was not satisfied ; but afterwards said he would retain the first bill, the money, and the hops, until the second (meaning the one for 501. which was coming due, should be paid, and asked whether it wou d be.settled: to which defendant answered "Certain- ly," or something to that effect. The second bill became due, was presented at the Philanthropic house, and was dishonoured; Thomp- son not appeariRg. This was the case for the plaintiff. Mr. Sergeant TADDY, for the defendant, here submitted that there was not sufficient evidence of the acceptance of Thompson, to entitle the plaintiff to recover. The LoistD CHlIEF JUSTICE.-I think, brother Taddy, that there is sufficient evidence. Air. Sergeant TADDY.-_y Lord, I submit that there is not. All that is in evidence is, that when the defendant called about one bill. the plaintiff spoke to him about some other which was becoming due; but there is not a tittle of evidence to show whether that bill was accepted by Tbompson or not. The LotnD Cn:vr JusTircE.-I thinlh thereis ; and 1 shall read it to tlejury by and by. M;r. Sergeant TADDY.-I must hkow to yeour Lordship. The learned sergeant then addressed the jury, and observed, that the situaton of greatest difflculty in which an advocate could be placed was that of viewing a rafter as clearly proved which other persons could not see at all. Ele would, with great respect, contend before hemn, that there was no evidence to show that those bills were ac- cepted by Thomlon; but there was evidence that one bill was satisfied by the payment of the 131. and the return of the hops. The LorD CtIEJusTIcE -There isevidence,brother Taddy, as to one bill at least, accorling to your own account. Air. Sergeant TADDY.-Then, gentlemen, I am right as to one bill: I will come to the other presently. The LORD CHIEF JUSTicz.-I did not say you were right, brother Taddy: I only observed, that upon one biU there was evi- dence according to your own statement. Alr. Sergeant TADDY.-Well, gentlemen of the jury, I am right on the point, or I am wrong; I don't care, for the present, which. The LORD CHIEF JUSTicE.-Brother Taddy- ir. Sergeant TADDY.-I must beg leave to address the jury with- out interruption. Gentlemen- The LORD CHIEF JUsTscE.-I did not wish to interrupt you, brother. Pray go on. Mr. Sergeant TADDY.-Mly Lord, I wish to go on; but I wish to do so without being thus interrupted. It is inpossible to get through business in this court while one is subjected to such inter- raptLon. in his address to the jury. The LOBD CHIEr JUSTIcE.-I beg that this may not be mis- understood. You were addressing the jurv as if there was no evi- dence for the plaintiff; and sitting here, it is my duty to set you right when you mis- Alr. Sergeant TADDY.-My Lord- The LORD CHItEF J srSTic.-Do not be angry, brodtre TAIDY; I have said notling to make you so. 1- Mlfr. Sergeant TAnDY--Mv Lord, I assure you I ami not angry; I am discharging my duty to*my client, and I must beg with defer- ence to state, that great difflculties are thrown in the way of sdvo. cates, if, when addressing the jury, they are to be interrupted by the Judge with ans expresSiOn of an opinion. The LOBD CEIEF .JUSTICE.-Pray go on, brotlher Taddy, and don't be angry. Alr. Sergeant TADDY.-I assure you, my Lord I am not angry. The LOILD CHIEF JUSTICE (good humoetrely.)-Well, tnen, don't look so. Go oni. Mr. Sergeant TADDY then proceeded with his comments on the case, and afterwards called witnesses, for the parpose of shsoing that the first bill had been-settled by the payment of 131. and the return of the hops. In answer to a question from a jaror, one witness (son of the de- fendant) stated, that the hops were not returned as not good until the bill became daue. In answer to a question by the Court, another witness proved the signature of Thompson to the bill of 601. Mr. Sergeant PELL replied to this case, and The LORD CHIEF JUSTICE summed up, leaving it to the jury to say whether the hops were returned as part payment of the first 'bill. The Jury gav a verdict for the plaintiff for 861., giving the de. fqndant credit for the 131. paid, but not for the hops which were re- turned. Some other common jury causes came on, but they were of noin. terest. COURT OF COMMON PLEAS. GUILDEALL. JULY 28. EAGLE V. PAUITDEN.