I agree that special leave should be refused, notwithstanding that I am unable to agree with the decision appealed from and that the question cannot be said to be without some general importance. The money accepted by the now defendant in the former action in which it was plaintiff was paid in, with a denial of liability, in respect of all the causes of action, including that for the price of the articles in question in the present proceedings. When it took the money out of Court, the acceptance operated as a complete satisfaction of all the causes of action in respect of which it had been paid in. (See Beadon v. Capital Syndicate (Ltd.)[1].) But, although I think the decision of the majority of the Court was erroneous, the intervention of this Court is not justified by the nature of the case. As between the parties, the dispute is trivial. It involves less than £20, and, in mercy to them, I think the litigation should be brought to an end.