Sittings in London, after Trinity Term, 1825. BEFORE LORD CHIEF JUSTICE ABBOTT. June 23rd. en by the stage manager of a theatre "in satisfaction of all my claims for the last season," DIBDIN v. MORRIS. A receipt giv- ASSUMPSIT for work and labour. The services performed by the plaintiff, for which the action was brought, were the writing of a piece called the Laplanders, and the acting as stage-manager of the Haymarket theatre. Evidoes not require dence was given of the value of the services. For the defence, a receipt signed by the plaintiff was put in; it was for 521. 10s., "being the amount of a benefit at the Haymarket theatre; which sum, together with 1007. already received, is in satisfaction of all my claims for the last season." This receipt was only on a 1s. 6d. stamp. the stamp of a receipt in full of all demands. A receipt for 52. 10s. requires only a stamp for that amount, though it mentions 100%. paid before. Brougham, for the plaintiff, contended, that the words "in satisfaction of all my claims," made it equivalent to a receipt in full of all demands; and that therefore the stamp was wrong; or even if that were otherwise, it required at least a receipt stamp for 152/. 10s. ABBOTT, C. J.—This is not a receipt in full of all demands. It is only a receipt for 521. 10s.; and though it mentions the previous receipt of the other sum, it is not at all given as a receipt for that sum. Verdict for the defendant. Brougham and Evans, for the plaintiff. Scarlett and Comyn, for the defendant. [Attornies-Routledge, and Brooks & Co.] 1825. DIBDIN V. MORRIS. FENTON, Gent. one, &c. v. CORREIA. ASSUMPSIT for work and labour by the plaintiff, an attorney, for business done before the commissioners for Spanish claims. It appeared that the defendant employed the plaintiff to prepare and present memorials, and conduct his business before these commissioners; but the bill for this business was neither signed nor delivered a month before action brought. June 23rd. A charge for searching whe ther satisfaction of a judgment was entered, or whether an issue was entered, able bill, so as to make it necessary to deliver it signed before action Scarlett, for the defendant, contended, that the plaintiff brought. could not recover, because a signed bill was not delivered a month previously, the plaintiff's claim containing the following taxable items: 1824. Aug. 18. Attending and searching at the judgment office, to see if satisfaction of judg 1. s. d. ment was entered, and paid 3s. 4d.. . . . . . 0 13 4 Sept. 9. Attending again to search whether the 1825 FENTON V. CORREIA. 068 Sept. 9. Attending again to see if the issue was Now these being the regular charges of an attorney, they were taxable; for, although they were not for any step taken in a cause, yet they were for the business of an attorney respecting a cause then pending, and for which the plaintiff charges attorney's fees. ABBOTT, C. J.-As at present advised, I think these are not taxable items, as any one may do this kind of business who is not an attorney: indeed, I have no doubt about it. Rotch, on the same side, I submit, that the fee paid for such a search is a disbursement at law, which would make the bill taxable as much or more than drawing an affidavit, which any one may do, who is not an attorney. ABBOTT, C. J.-I think not. Verdict for the plaintiff. Gurney and F. Pollock, for the plaintiff. Scarlett and Rotch, for the defendant. [Attornies-Fenton, and Taylor.] July 13th In an action for a libel in a BUCKINGHAM v. MURRAY. ACTION for a libel in the Quarterly Review. There was a count in the declaration setting out that part of the inficient to set out dex of the review, which professed to relate to a work review, it is suf the contents of an index, (refer ring to an article in the body of the review), which is of itself a libel; and no reference need be made to the article itself, if the index contain, per se, prima facie libellous matter. 1825. published by the plaintiff, which was as follows: "Buckingham, J. S. Travels in Palestine, 394. Notice of an BUCKINGHAM egregious blunder in the title page of this work, ib. Specimens of his ignorance and book-making, 377, &c. &c." On the part of the defendant it was objected, that as the index was only a reference to the body of the work, it was not sufficient to state merely the contents of the index, but it was necessary that the count should contain a reference to the whole; otherwise that would appear to be unqualified, which was in fact subject to a material qualification. ABBOTT, C. J.-Suppose one part is stated which has a qualification, and there be another which has not, have you not a right to read that part which does not contain the qualification? If one part of a book cannot be understood without a reference to another, then you must set out both; but if it is intelligible without, then you need not. Suppose the matter referred to in the index had not been found in the volume. The index may contain a separate libel. I am of opinion there is no ground for the objection. The defendant afterwards submitted to a verdict for 1007. Scarlett, Brougham, and Hill, for the plaintiff. The Attorney-General, Gurney, and Park, for the defendant. [Attornies-Vizard & B., and Turner & Sons.] v. MURRAY. 1825. July 14th. If it be necessary to prove a good petitioning creditor's debt on the 20th May, it is not sufficient to shew that on the 29th of January previous, a sum of 700% was due, and that there were receipts and pay ments afterwards; but it must be proved that on the spe cific day as much as 100%. was owing. GRESLY and Others v. PRICE. ASSUMPSIT by the assignees of a bankrupt. To prove that there was a good petitioning creditor's debt on the 20th May, the ledger of the debtor was produced. The witness who produced it did not make the entries in it himself, but stated that he saw several entries in it before the 20th May; but the latest he could speak positively to were of the date of the 29th January; at which time there appeared to be due to the petitioning creditor a sum of 7001. On his cross examination he acknowledged that, subsequently to the 29th January, there had been receipts and payments; and he had no means of knowing, except from the books, in what way those receipts and payments altered the state of the account. Scarlett, upon this, submitted that the plaintiff must be nonsuited, there not being sufficient evidence of the petitioning creditor's debt. Campbell.-There is evidence to go to the jury, to shew that, on the 20th May, there was due to the petitioning creditor 1007.; when on the 29th January so large a sum as 7001. was due. It is for the other side to cut down that sum, and reduce it below the sum required. Scarlett.-The evidence must be legal evidence; the plaintiffs undertake to prove that on a specific day a specific sum was due; and their giving evidence, which shews that it is uncertain whether it was so or not, certainly cannot be sufficient. ABBOTT, C. J.-I think you have not gone far enough. You must prove a specific sum due on a specific day. After a period of nearly three months, there being continuing |