HeinOnline is a subscription-based resource containing thousands of academic and legal journals from inception; complete coverage of government documents such as U.S. Statutes at Large, U.S. Code, Federal Register, Code of Federal Regulations, U.S. Reports, and much more. Documents are image-based, fully searchable PDFs with the authority of print combined with the accessibility of a user-friendly and powerful database. For more information, request a quote or trial for your organization below.
![handle is hein.slavery/ssactsengr0560 and id is 1 raw text is: 1 CAM. 415. GREGSON V. M'TAGGART 1005
[415] Wednesday, July 27, 1808.
GREGSON, GENT. ONE, &c. v. M'TAGGART, ESQ.
(It is no bar to an action against A. for criminal conversation with the plaintiff's
wife, that the plaintiff had brought another action of the same kind against B.
and, having obtained a verdict and judgment, had charged B. in execution,
although the cause of action in both suits accrued during the same period.)
[Considered, Stocker v. Stocker, Brice & Patterson, [1917] P. 264.]
This was an action for criminal conversation with the plaintiff's wife, per quod
consortium amisit.
The plaintiff had brought a similar action against one Theaker, his coachman,
which was tried at the sittings after last Hilary Term; and in which, having re-
covered £200 damages, he afterwards entered up judgment, and took the defendant
in execution.
Thc illicit intercourse appeared to have been carried ol by both defendants
during the same period. But, though the former action was now alluded to by the
defendant's counsel, and by the Court, it was not considered as any bar to the
present.
'l'he plaintiff had a verdict.*
The Attorney-General, Garrow, and Marryat for the plaintiff.
Dallas and Gurney for the defendant.
[Attornies, Gregson and Crowder and Co.]
[416] Same day.
BAYLEY AND OTHERS, ASSIGNEES OF PEARS, A BANKRUPT, V. BALLARD
AND OTHERS.
(A trader in contemplation of bankruptcy, and without solicitation, put three
checks into the hands of his clerk, to be delivered to a creditor at the counting-
house of the latter ; but before they were delivered the creditor called upon
the trader, and demanded payment of his debt. Held, that the intention to
give a voluntary preference not being consummated, this was a valid payment.)
Trover for three checks for the sum of £1139, 15s.
The case opened on the part of the plaintiffs was, that Pears in contemplation of
bankruptcy had, without solicitation of legal process, paid these checks to the
defendants, and had thus given them a voluntary preference.
Pears carried on the business of a warehouseman and factor in this city, and the
defendants were bill-brokers, with whom he had been in the habit of dealing. On
Saturday, the 10th of October, 1807, Pears being pressed for money to answer his
acceptances, applied to the defendants for a loan; who accommodated him with
tie sum of £1400, to be repaid in a day or two, and received from him, by way of
security, a bill on Fisher and Atkinson for £270, 10s., and another on Hudson,
Storr and Co. for £1200. On Tuesday the 13th Pears's affairs became desperate,
and he stopped payment. About three o'clock in the afternoon of the same day,
lie sent his clerk to the defendants' counting-house with the three checks in question.
The clerk delivered them accordingly, saying, this is probably the last transaction
the execution can only be proved by his testimony, that an acknowledgment of the
party to the deed has been held insufficient, whether offered as evidence against
himself or against a third. person ; and even an- admission of the execution of a
bond in an answer to a bill in Chancery, filed for the express purpose of obtaining
such admission, was considered by the Court of K. B. to be insufficient, without
proof that the subscribing witness had been searched for, and could not be found.
Johiison v. Mason, I Esp. N. P. Cas. 89 ; Laing v. Raine, I B. and P. 85 ; Call v.
Dtomnig, 4 East, 53; Abbot v. Plumbe, Doug. 216.
* There being evidence in Gregson v. Theaker, that the plaintiff's wife had not
been criminally eonnected with the defendant alone, Lord Ehlenborouigh directed
the jury to award damages proportioned barely to so much of the plaintiff's loss of
comfort as the defendant's misconduct might be suplosed to have occasioned,
not to the whole of the injury the plaintiff had suffered, which there seemed reason
to suspect might be implited to others ini a superior conditioni of life, much more
than the solicited coachman. Vide Bird v. Randall, 3 Burr. 1345 ; I BI. Rep.
373, S. C.](ViewImageLocal?handle=hein.slavery/ssactsengr0560&div=1&collection=&method=preview&ext=.png&size=3)