Saturday 28 Aug 1819 (p. 2, col. 5 – p. 3, col. 5) Cumberland Assizes, 1819. [continued] NISI PRIUS BAR. QUESTION OF GUARANTEE. ROUTLEDGE v. BOWMAN.—The parties in this cause, both reside in Carlisle—the former is a currier and leather cutter, the latter a retired tradesman living upon his means. The object of the action was the recovery of the sum of £100, the amount of goods delivered to Robert MULLEN, the defendant's nephew, a clog and patten maker in Carlisle, Mr. BOWMAN having promised to be answerable for that amount. The defendant pleaded non-liability. Mr. RAINE addressed the Jury in a pointed manner for the Plaintiff and called several witnesses. John LATTIMER, was employed by Mr. ROUTLEDGE in 1816. Robert MULLEN frequently had goods, but being irregular in his payments, Mr. ROUTLEDGE was shy of him, and at last declined supplying him any longer. Mr. BOWMAN then called to know the reason why Mr. ROUTLEDGE "doubted MULLEN"? and on another occassion [sic], he passed his word in presence of LATTIMER, for £100 but no further. On the faith of this, goods were furnished to the amount of £102 odd shillings, when MULLEN failed, and the defendant, on being applied to for the money, refused payment. Mr. GILKERSON, innkeeper; Mr. Peter WILSON, butcher; one of Mr. ROUTLEDGE's workmen; and J. DAVIDSON, at that time a clerk with Mr. BLOW, proved that the defendant had made frequent admissions of his verbal promise to be answerable to the amount of £100. To one of them he said, he should not mind paying had his nephew failed fairly but as he had acted dishonestly, he would not pay unless the law compelled him. This was the substance of the evidence for the plaintiff. Mr. SCARLETT for the defendant began by putting in the shop-book, containing a running account from the commencement of Robert MULLEN's concerns with the plaintiff down to the time of his failure, which one of the witnesses, a journeyman in the employment of the plaintiff, had admitted to be in the hand writing of Mr. ROUTLEDGE himself, and of his book keeper, LATTIMER. I believe, said Mr. SCARLETT, that this action is founded in error or design to deceive his Lordship and the jury. It appears by the book which I have just put in, that MULLEN paid regularly enough up to June 1816, the period when BOWMAN is said to have passed his word, therefore there could be no pretence for demanding a guarantee. I will also prove that MULLEN left off dealing with the plaintiff for a considerable time, and that he went and solicited his business again. He afterwards went to MULLEN, when he was likely to fail, demanded leather, and finally offered to make composition with him of seven shillings in the pound. Moreover, when MULLEN was about to be discharged by the insolvent act, the plaintiff opposed his liberation. I shall show all this, and, gentlemen, I feel assured, it will entitle me to your verdict. Robert MULLEN was then sworn. As goods were had, they were entered into the book produced, either by the plaintiff or his people—the payments were entered into it also. He left off dealing in December 1813, and Mr. ROUTLEDGE came and asked him to renew his custom. In February 1817, he went to prison; but before this, in 1816, LATTIMER came to him and asked for money, * and Mr. ROUTLEDGE himself afterwards came and required money, which witness said he was unable to pay at that time. When he was in prison, plaintiff came there to him, and asked what composition he intended to make—would he not give seven shillings in the pound? Witness replied he could not do any thing of the kind. He remained in gaol till the midsummer sessions following, and then obtained his discharge, which was opposed by CHANCE, GRAY and Co., nail-makers, of Birmingham, and Mr. ROUTLEDGE's name was also called upon in court. He was, however, discharged. On his cross-examination, he said that his uncle never told him that he had passed his word for goods. Francis GALLIFER was an apprentice with MULLEN when he failed. The plaintiff called upon him at Mr. DALTON's shop at Midsummer 1817, and examined him to ascertain what had become of the goods which MULLEN had obtained. Witness told him that they were all used, except a few clog soles. Plaintiff then ordered him to attend the Court to see if he were wanted, when MULLEN was about to be discharged. ROUTLEDGE said he would keep MULLEN prisoner for five years. Witness did attend—ROUTLEDGE's name was called upon in Court, and witness ran to fetch him: he afterwards gave witness 1s. 6d. for his trouble. Mr. RAINE contended that no answer had been given to the plaintiff's case—there was no pretence for saying that the discharge had been opposed by Mr. ROUTLEDGE. The jet of the evidence hung upon MULLEN—and would the jury believe him, an interested person, and one of whom the jury had heard his own uncle's opinion, in opposition to so respectable and unconcerned a witness as LATTIMER, who was not now even employed by the plaintiff? No, he was sure they would do no such thing. Mr. Justice BAYLEY said, the question for the consideration of the jury was—whether BOWMAN had in reality pledged himself to pay to the amount of £100. If a tradesman supplies goods on the word of another, and makes him debtor who receives them, the person who passes his word is not liable unless there be a written article of guarantee—and, therefore, if MULLEN was liable, of a certainty BOWMAN was not. From the experience he had had in courts, he felt how difficult it was for witnesses to recollect the precise terms of conversations held at some time prior, without the aid of a memorandum made immediately afterwards. What was said in regard to BOWMAN's promises and admissions, were all recollections of this sort. But for his part, he pinned his faith principally upon the book—that was a guide which could not well mislead. The account had been going on sometime before the stated promise was given, and yet there was not the slightest alteration in the book—MULLEN was still charged. It should also be noticed, that the first payment made after the promise, was by MULLEN, which not only covered the old account, but part of what was now claimed. These were strong facts—but the province of decision was the jury's—they must discriminate between the evidence. The Jury retired, and, being late in the evening, the Judge and Counsel left the Associate to take the verdict, which, in a short time, was given for the plaintiff—damages £100. It was hailed with loud clapping. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- * LATTIMER in his evidence deposed, that he merely asked MULLEN to come and speak with his master. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- [to be continued]