Coles v Barrow and Another, Assignees of Coles

giving of the bond ; and Pearson, being called as a witness, said, that he believed the Defendant Jubb bad never been consulted on the point. To prove the assent of Jubb to the transaction, the Plaintiff proposed to call the Defendant William Brown ; whereupon it was objected, that he was not admissible. The Plaintiff in behalf of his admissibility cited Doe on demise of Harrop v. Green, 4 Espin. 198. Bayley J. held that. the witness was inadmissible, and a verdict passed for the Defendant, with leave to move to enter a verdict for the Plaintiff, for 5131., if the Court should think the evidence was admissible. Lens Serjt. in Michaelmas term 1812, moved accordingly to enter a verdict for the Plaintiff, or to have a new trial. He contended that the witness was admissible, because he was called to speak against his own interest, [753] for a judgment against one of two on a joint contract, he said, could not be supported, judgment must be obtained against both. The Court granted a rule nisi. Cause was afterwards shewn by Best Serjt. ; Lens in support of the rule. MANSFIELD C. J. now delivered the opinion of the Court. The question here was on the admissibility of William Brown, whom Bayley .1. did not receive as a witness ; and we are of opinion that he was right in his rejection. It appears this witness was interested in the event of the suit, and interested certainly in respect of that very evidence which he was called to give, because he came to prove that the other Defenslant was equally liable with himself, which would give him a right of contribution from Jubb, if the Plaintiff succeeded ; but if the action failed against Jubb, then the consequence would be, that William Brown alone would he responsible to the Plaintiff for the whole of his demand. [Here his lordship read the case of Chapman v. Graves and two others, 2 Camp. N. P. Cas. 333, ii.] Rule discharged. [754] COLES v. BARROW AND ANOTHER, Assignees of Coles. Feb. 12, 1813. [S. C. 2 Rose, 277. Questioned, Nias v. Adamson, 1819, 3 B. & Aid. 232.] If the assignees of a bankrupt manufacturer employ him in carrying on the manufacture for the benefit of the estate, and pay him money from time to time, this is evidence of such a contract between him and his assignees as will enable him to recover- from them a reasonable compensation for his work and labour. This was an action brought to recover a compensation for the Plaintiff's work and labour. Upon the trial of the cause before Graham B. at the Dorchester summer assizes 1811, it appeared that the Plaintiff had been the owner of a cloth manufactory, he had since become a bankrupt, and had not yet obtained his certificate ; after his bankruptcy the assignees deemed it beneficial to the bankrupt's estate, to continue the work, and they not only wrought up the old materials which had been purchased before the bankruptcy, but also purchased new ones and wrought them. They employed the bankrupt in superintending the work and also in working at the looms and other manual operations. The Plaintiff proved no contract for any specific salary, but one of the Defendants had paid him money from time to time, to the amount of 7s. per week, and had been heard to say that he ought to have much more ; some witnesses estimated the value of his labour at 14s. per week. The Plaintiff had delivered a demand to the amount of 141. and the Defendants had paid him money since that demand bad been delivered. On the occasion of some dispute which arose between the Plaintiff and the...