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/ssactsengr0564 and id is 1 raw text is: PEAKE W. LEE V. HUSON 137
notice or by any other name, it was still a letter, and must be proved as any
other written paper. The defendant's counsel then consented that the cause should
proceed, with liberty for the defendant to move to enter a nonsuit in case the plaintiffs
should be entitled to a verdict on the merits.
It appeared that Thomas having compounded with his creditors, he assigned
his effects to the plaintiffs for their benefit ; and it was agreed that Thomas should
retain the fixtures and stock in trade in consideration of which he gave these notes,
and the defendant indorsed them as his surety. This was done under the hope and
expectation that Thomas was to be made a new man by this deed, but some of his
creditors, to the amount of about £1000, refusing to come in under the deed, a
commission of bankrupt was sued out, and the very fixtures and stock which Thomas
was to have had, seized under that commission.
On this evidence the plaintiffs were nonsuited.
[223] Thursday, December 20th.
LEE V. HUSON.
(In an action for a libel, other papers which are themselves libels on the
plaintiff may be given in evidence to increase the danages.)
This was an action for a libel. After the libel had been read, the plaintiff's
counsel offered in evidence other letters and papers which also amounted to libels.
Shepherd, for the defendant, objected to this evidence, contending that the
plaintiff could not give in evidence anything which was itself cause for a distinct
action. If the other papers might be given in evidence in this cause, the libel for
which this action is brought would also be evidence in any action which might be
brought for the other libels, and the plaintiff would have damages several times
over the same libel.
Lord Kenyon said, he thought these letters might be received in evidence, though
they contained matter which was a ground for another action. His Lordship
observed, that in actions for words it was the practice to admit evidence of other
words besides those charged in the declaration, and therefore he should receive this
evidence (a)'.
The papers were therefore read, and the jury found a verdict for the plaintiff,
and £300 damages.
[224] WHITWELL AND OTHERS, ASSIGNEES, &c. V. DIMSDALE AND OTHERS.
(An agreement not stamped cannot be received as evidence for any purpose whatever,
not even to shew tha't the party meant to commit a fraud by that agreement.)
Detinue for the bill of sale of a ship delivered by the bankrupt to the defendants.
Amongst other pleas, the defendants pleaded one, putting the bankruptcy in issue.
The plaintiffs offered a paper writing, purporting to be an agreement made
between the bankrupt and his sons, by which the former agreed to assign his effects
to the latter. It was not stamped.
Erskine contended that though not evidence of an agreement, yet this paper
might be read to prove that the bankrupt was in a falling state, and had an intention
of defrauding his creditors, and said there had been a case in which a man was
convicted of forging an instrument not stamped (a)2.
Lord Kenyon said he was of opinion that this paper writing could not be given
in evidence, for any purpose whatever, either to e.tablish or defeat it ; nor did he
agree with the case cited as to the forgery (b).
[225] The plaintiffs produced other evidence, and obtained a verdict.
(a)' Sed vide Mead v. Daubigny, ante, 168, and cases cited in the note there.
And Charlter v. Barret, ante, 32.
(a)2 Hawkeswood's case, Leach, 221.
(b) The point in Hawkeswood's case was again discussed in the case of Gilison,
argued in the Exchequer Chamber, Michaelmas, 48 Geo. III., and this doctrine of
my Lord Kenyon cited for the purpose of affecting its authority.-The Court,
however, held, that the case of Hawkeswood was rightly decided, and Mr. J. Lawrence
mentioned that Lord Kenyon himself, in the case of Colin Reculist, 2 Leach, Cro.
Cas. 811, and in other subsequent cases, approved of the decision in Hawkeswood's
case. V7ide 1 Taunton, 97. Unstamped instruments have frequently been admitted
N. P. 1.-5*](ViewImageLocal?handle=hein.slavery/ssactsengr0564&div=1&collection=&method=preview&ext=.png&size=3)