This historic book may have numerous typos and missing text. Purchasers can download a free scanned copy of the original book (without typos) from the publisher. Not indexed. Not illustrated. 1838 Excerpt: ... party suing in a superior court for the balance of an account, the original debt exceeding 57., but which has been re-duced to 30, is not liable to costs, under the Tower Hamlets Court of Requests Act. Green V. Bolton. Channell, on behalf of the plaintiff in this action, shewed cause against a rule which had been obtained by C. C. Jones, for entering a suggestion on the roll to deprive the plaintiff of his costs, and for the allowance of the defendant's costs to be paid by the plaintiff under the Tower Hamlets Court of Requests' Act, 2 Will. 4, c. 65, within the jurisdiction of which the defendant resided. The action, it appeared, was brought to recover the sum of 8/., the balance of an account, but on the trial before the sheriff, the jury returned a verdict with 30. damages only. A summons, having the same object as the present rule, was taken out before Park, J., but was dismissed on the ground that it was not shewn, in the affidavits, that the defendant was liable to be warned and summoned to the Court of Requests; but a subsequent summons being taken out before Vaughan, J., an order was drawn up for the stay of proceedings until the present application should be made. The statute of 2 Will. 4, c. 65, was passed to amend the previous act of 23 Geo. 2, by which the Court was originally established, and by section 10 of the new enactment, an increased jurisdiction was given, the amount recoverable in the Court being altered from 40. to 51., but it was provided that the commissioners should have no power to decide upon any debt, the balance of an account, if the original debt had exceeded 51. in amount. There was also a provision reserving a concurrent jurisdiction with the superior courts where the amount of the debt exceeded 40., but was less than...