This section contains the nature of the case and procedural background.

Veale (P) sued Warner (D) to collect a £2,000 debt. P used the required form of pleading; D was in the custody of the marshal, and there were pledges of prosecution (John Doe and Richard Roe). P alleged that he lent D £2,000, payable on demand. P alleged that he demanded repayment from D and that D refused to repay the money. D claimed that the writing containing the obligation was submitted to arbitrators who ruled that D owed P £3,169 and that he had paid the full amount and that P shouldn't be allowed to bring this action because he had already discharged the debt. P claimed that he hadn't been paid and should be allowed to bring the action. D responded that he had a writing in which P had acknowledged that D had paid him. Each party demurred to the pleadings of the other party.

The legal issues presented in this case will be displayed here.

The court's holding and decision will be displayed here.

Legal analysis from Dean's Law Dictionary will be displayed here.