Court Of King's Bench, Mo...
- ' -' 'LAPE]7RPORT. .urJorC USC Lord aUh.ef ;firstlS Amo1T,' Cnd a common Juru. -,Lis.was an acOn'nDtonglit by th plaintiff, who is an accomptant in-the city, aganust, the defndanr, who is proprietor of the vrell- known horse-repositbry'i,n Btrbican, to recover the sum of 1051. beiogLhe balaace of an account due te the plairtilfl for work and luboar done for the defendatt. lt appeared from the evidence offered on the part of the plaintiff, that in September last, a comminsfion of bankruptcy was issued, on the putition of. the defendant, against a horse-dcaler of the nam.e of Rtsseldon. At tiefiisttceetilgof his er'ediors, the accounts of the bankrupt were 4u4xmitted to tltair inspection, a-nd were found in a statc of sacheounflgiohn,s to'reqRire the services of an accomptant to arrange theirt. The defendant asked. the messenger under the comnimssion; whether he could recor.mnend'him a good accomptsatt; and the anoswer of-the messenger was, a recomlmendation of the plain- tiflr The plaintiffwvac'in conseiien-e'sent for, attd atter a: short time the books of'the bankrupt were intrusted to his care. It weasproved that the.plaintiffliad-had two of his. clerks employed for 48 days, and three of them for 10. days, in arranging the confused accounts of the bankrupt, thath te wages of'eath clerk were.21 2e. a week and that the sumIl he had charged f r their combined,servicex wa 13lS.6s., or about one guinea a day for-eath clerk. Several suis of money, ho,&ever, were paid to the plaintitt whiLst the business was tranaact- iig, ana the result wa- that the original debt was reduced to the sum . unov claimed, 1U0l. :Sevdral accomnntiLs were examined for the purpose of showink tbat?lie charges w ere neoderate. Twvo let- ters were also put in forthe pprpose-of fixing the defendant with the debt; from one of which it appeared that the defendant had ordered the plaintiffee retain Mr. ilontague forthwith, in supportof tle com- mission, as some nf'the'ereditts wvere ejdeaxvouringwo supersede it on the g.rdund of its hzviug. he'en concerted inz fraud. On ebepart of the defence',hich was conducted by lr. DEVErAN the bankrupt Ulesasehonws callcd, who positively swore that he had himself emplovedthe plaintif7 antd that he had given him se- veral suns in part payment of hils-c1aim. On his cross-examination he admitted thatthose sums weregiven him by the defendant, and that he was ~at this momnent an 'acertifleated bankrupt, living as servant to lilt. Dixon,at a salary of 21; a-week. It was also riwoni by two'or three.individaials;,that on different occasions the plaintiff had adritted to them that he was the uaccmptant of the bankrpt. * lr. SCAstwTT.wh;o wVas eoansel for the p:aintiff', rensarked up- on the ingrobabilitv of the Aefenre, and urged that it was not credi. ble that the plaintiff wouldhve undertaken so laborious a task rs t1e arrangement of flesseedon's COnfsed accoonts, If his only chance v~f repayment had depended upcn the resources of a ruined horse. dealer. --- The LoanD CHIEF J.SrT'rc told tde jury' that upon thi4evi- dence thev had two pointsto determine-first, did the detendant eru- ploy the plaintiff? and secondly, if he did, to what remuneradion was he entitled ? Tle jury retired for a quarter of an hour, and then returned with a verdict for the plaintff-Damages, 90L , COYRT GP 't:l*S AfAncn *. TiNso0; V; DIXON.