The Sun. — London, England, 1801-07-17 00:00:00

ljeStY ls in the a board to he very after S MA!' seeiq Lodge,. ith tb ed dip; id til* J ESTY* CAP 6 ..D1D L. seback :ed on Repo- I took ay and, panie4 Orni ng rp. Royal , such the zza tinding .4 occa arithers RANG day the dingly!. D. C," next? in the iiteerS VALES anded )f - thq --sorps I' thq :ourti n e vr pene4 , than :tors, SUM!! y re : t oR of d be 111);‘ , r C SCI 4 11;ons noci44 ' But* ne 4 014. tiOrlp Dan f , He .5 do 5.~~ Pig nccio werS per Lo [Sp heir Jghq the bed, the /ay!. )art thee ree- n of the" I at ,pea .nn,. ;31, in the ItY ord. Non ;Ili imperium pclagi , tcevunique tridentem, Scd mitt/ .rorte datum. PLYMOUTH, Juty PORTSMOUTH, JULY 16. kL.Gt - - jVEWS. NAVAL w , ; r , 1. ti -2 SAILED the Majestic, of 74. guns, Captain D. GouLD., to join the Channel Fleet and Sirius, of 36 guns, Captain R. KING, on .a Cruize to the Westward. Arrived the Achilles, of 74 guns, Captain E. IiULLER, from the Channel Fleet. SAILED His Majesty's Ships Guelderland, Galatea and Amphitrite, on a Cruise ; Resolution, Gov E. Rius, for St. Übe's ; Magdalena, LE GROUND, for jersey, in b ; arid Conway Lugger, Pic oun, for Jersey. Arrived the Egyptiar, WENMAN, from. Water- This day has been very tempestuous ; a great deal of rain has falleo, accompanied with very vivid lightning and tremendous claps of thunder, with hail. The, Sir Sydney Smith, from Oporto, had her fore -topmast and, topgallant mast shivered in pieces, and her main beam and foremast damaged, and one man dangerously hurt. The Alfred Trans port, at Spithead, had her anchor forced from the ist°6o )Y the lightning. It is thought much more damage must have been sustained in parts adjacent. FALMOUTH, JULY 1.4.. SArLE 6 the Townshend Packet, Capt. DODD, tild Mary Packet, Capt.. THOMPVN, with the Mails of this month, the former for Jamaica, Bar- , badoes, and Martinique, and the latter for America; also the Prince Adolphus Packet, Capt. JONES, with the Mails of the 3oth ult. and 7th inst for Lisbon ; the American Ship Fotupte, Capt. WCFTCH EON, With tar s for London ; the Armed Schooner Betsy, Capt. LYIKBURNER, with tar, for Plymouth ; the Galliot nu)tege Broeders ) Capt. -, for St. Croix, and the Sheerness Transport., for Li*rpool.' Passengers by the Mary.—Commisioner Inglefield, Lieu %urn-Colonel Smith s and Mrs. Moor* ay the Prince Adolphus..-.Madre. Moss; M. de Lisle, 411 d a Portuguese Messenger. By the To wnshend.—.-Gep. MOntalembOrt, Major,M'Gor. grand, Captain Htibert, Captain Paper, Mr. M'Connell, Colonel" Beon, M and Madrn. le Barthe, Mr. Morgan, Mr. Almarie, Mr. Kellarmaine, Rev. Mr. Campbell, Soute, and Madl le. la Loup. YARMOUTH, JULY i 6. SAILED the Italy Gun-brig for Scotland; SA_ etdator, Lugger, for Admiral DicitsoN's Fleet ; the Pr;Prre of Widei Packet, Capt. HEARN, to Cux haven, with Mails and Passengers. Artived the Lyn.:r Sloop from the Baltic; Sfi , ted. well Brig from a Cruize ; and the Titer, THOME'. soN,, from Ipswich& SHEER4YESS ) JULY 16: Txts day sailed the Queenborough hired Cutter, Lieut. FABIAN, on a Cruize. Came into parbour His Majesty's Ships Ardent Unite from - the Nore, to be paid off, and re paired. Tbe Broederschap heaving down. Ship, has gone "t of Ha - rbour to the Nore, to assist in removing he a mbuscade. Captain DEVONSHIRE, of His Majesty's Ship Alcmene, arrived yesterday morning at the Admi ralty, with Dispatches from Admiral POLE, Com mander in Chief of the Baltic. Fleet. --- - The first division of the homeward bound Fleet from Pete rsburgh, consisting of the Ships so long detained there, sailed from thence on the 16th ult. A number of people are daily employed on the Ambuscade, lately lost at Sheerness, at low water. They have cut her masts away, got oiat most of her guns, and likewise saved a quantity of her stores. She is nearly righted, and her deck is clear at low Water ; but we are fearful she cannot be weighed, as she has bedded herself so much 'in the sand. It is now ascertained that twenty-th fee persons have un. fortunately perished in her ; among whom are a woman and her infant child. The new ship lately laurihed for the Honourable East India Company's ser',ice, called the Northamp ton, is consigned dire& tc, the Presidency of Bombay, and is to be commanded, by ROBERT BAaxER, Esq. She is appointed to 1 - ,e at Gravesend on the zoth inst. and to be in the Downs on the 26th ditto. 'On Saturday the ( aold Medal, given by the Hon. Edinburgh Compariy of Golfers, was played fur on Leith Links, anti won by Mr. OLIPHANT. On Wednesday/. the LORD MAYOR, Sheriff's, and several Aldermi :n, attended by the several City Officers, went i n procession from the Mansion house td St. Margare:t's Hill, and held a Court of Conser vancy for the ( :Ounty of Surrey. They afterwards Proceeded to i ;he Crown and Anchor Tavern in Strand, where his Lordship held -another Court -of C onservancy : , for the County of Middlesex. ,C ,11J REPORT. COURT OF KING's BENCH, GUILDHALL, JULY !6 SITTINGS BEFORE LORD KENNON AND A SPECIAL JURY LAWSO.N, EART. AND OTHERS, IV. WESTON AND OTHERS. Mr. GARROW said, that this was an A&ion upon a Bill,of Exchange, drawn by a Gentleman of the nathe of - Veazey, dated the 3oth of March, 18ot, fifty days after date, payable to order of Thomas Stoko, for cool. value received, indorsed by him, and accepted by the Defendants, which came into the hands of the Plaintiffs for a valuable considera tion, that is, they discounted it. Mr. GARRow said, that. the Plaintiff's in this Cause were persons of the first class of respeaability, and had long been known to be such, they constituting the Firm of the Richmond Bank, in Yorkshire.--- The Defendants were equally respetable, they forming the; Firm of the Southwark Bank:— There was no imputation whatever intended to be cast on the integrity of the Defendants in this Ac tion they resisted the payment of this Bill under the indeimity of the Gentleman for whose benefit their acceptance was made, for the purpose of agi tating this question : a question which, for many Rears, had been thought at Westminster-hall and Guildhall to have been at rest. It was decided in the year 1764, in the Case of Vaughan and Grant. That Case was in point with the present : the ques. tion there was preciSely the same. as the present He had looked at that Case, and he - would yen. cure to say, it was not in the least degree dis_ . tinguishable from the present. There were two Learned 'Gentlemen witbin the Bar (the ATToR NEY-GENERAL. and Mr. PARK) taking notes on this occasion, and. one Learned Gentleman with out the Bar (Mr. HoLito - vn) doing the same thing, but he would defy ail- their learning to make any distinction between this case, and the Case . of Vaughan and Grant. Even 1( the case of Vaughan and Grant had not been decided as it Was, and this were one of The first impression; he should con tend, it ought to 'be so decided ; "for, as had been aptly said 're: y lately from the, best authority (my Lord KENY ores), that we eat, and drink, and live on Paper Credit, we should make wild work of it, if there was to be any Question, Whether a bona fide Holder of a Bill of Exchange, or Negotiable Instrument, was to enforce payment of that Instrument from - the party who was bound to pay it, and who was the first . party who was bound to pay it, namely, the Acceptor.— This was a Bill dated, as he'had said already, on the 30th -of March, t . Bor, payable fifty days afterwards to the order of Mr. 'Thomas Stoko, indorsed by him and accepted .by the Defendants—lndorsed in blank, and put into the hands of a person of the name of Warren, whose name was signed " J. War ren, Esq." This Gentleman, thus possessed of this Bill for sool. found his way to the Banking_ house of the Plaintiffs, the Richmond Bank in York shire, and there he had it discounted in April last. The Plaintiffs seeing a Bill regularly accepted by this respedable Banking house in the 'Borough of Southwark, indorsed and put into a course of negotiation, carrying with it no mark of impropriety whatever, nothing to lead them to sus_ pelt that it was dishonestly 'obtained, did. that which was perfecctly legal for them to do , --they dis counted it, gave the'person who brought it a diaft upon their Bankers in. London, and the rest in small Notes of their own Country Bank, and now they called, as they had a right to call, on the Defend-, ants to pay this their acceptance ;and his Lordship. would tell the . Jury, if they needed to be told, that it was nothing , to the Plaintiffs,' provided they were Holders of this Bill for a valuable consideration, what had h.ippened to this Bill, whether it was lost, or whether any body had stolen it.. There, was a case to this effel, Peacock and Rhodes, in my Lord Glenbervie's. (Douglas) .'Reports. He was very well aware that, in this case, nothing more was re quited than what commo n 'sense and common nesty diaated. The whole depended upon this : .‘ Whether or not the Plaintiffs were the Holders of this Bill for. a fair consideration ?" In - the first part of the argument of the case of Grant and Vaughan, the Court was, struck with this objeaion--" If the holder is entitled to enforce payment, it would enable any body who found a Bill, or who stole it, to bring an lietion and'recover, upon it"—to which it was very fitly answered '" No such thing ; for .the person who brings the aaion must shew he came into possession of the bill fairly, for a full and valuable consideration."— Now in order to .do this, hewould prove, in the present case, that the Plaintiffs fairly and honour ably discounted this bill.—lndeed he thought he ought to make an apology for d speaking so long before . a Jury of 'Merchants in Guildhall on such a subjea as .this. To save trouble and expence, tile parties had come to the following admissions : That the Bill in question, was drawn by Mr. Veazey, to the order of Mr. Stoko ; indorsed by him ; accepted by the Defendants ; duly presented to them for Payment ; Payment refused by them ; that such refusal of Pay.. meta was in consequence of notice given to the Ac ceptors by the Payee, that the Bill had been stolen; that the Bill was afterwards noted for Non-payment, &c. These Admissions being read, Mr. GARROW wished to add a few words more : In the case of Grant and Vaughan, to which he had alluded, Lord MANSFIELD bad observed, " Here are two innocent persons, on one of whom a loss must fall. One of them has been guilty of negli gence, the other has not: the question is, on which of them the loss must fall ?—The person who has been guilty of negligence, to be sure." Who was guilty of negligence here ? The Payee, who had suffered this Bill to go into the world with his In dorsement on it. The Bill was then given in and read, and this, Mr. GARROW said, was case enough for the Plain tiffs, for the present. It was contended on the other side, that the Plaintiffs ought to prove the. Consideration they gave for this Bill. Mr. GARROW contended it lay on the other side to shew the. contrary, and if they should make out. any _case from which fraud might be' imputed to the Plaintiffs, it would then be time estough•for the Plaintiffs to go into proof of the Consideration. • Lord -KENydrir Was of this 'opinion, and held, that proof of the Bill on the Admissions which had been tease,, was a prima facie case for the Plaintiffs. ThC.ArTbkNEY GENERAL. said, he did not rise to dispute any of the general propositions which had been laid down as applicable, in general, to Bills of Exchange. It was no'part of the. Case he had to support to dO so ;- he was not_ going - to contest any of them. He admitted that a 'Bill of Ex - change, drawn, accepted, and'inciorsed, acquired a megotia_ hility of charader, and that a holder of such an instrument fairly, for a bona Ale, full, and valuable consideration, may maintain an Aftion against the. Acceptor ,)f such a Bill, although,. in the course of it, some other person may have acquired it by - fraud, .or et-en florn theft. That was a proposition • which lie did nor disPute ; but he contended • that this doarine was applicable only to those who took Bills in the fair and ordinary course .of trade and dealing, but did not applY:to the Case here. This. was the ca - se •in which a Bill -of a large amount, came to the house. of the Plaintiff#, not for payment, but for discount, at a.great distance from Town, -:Which was the ordinary place of "its negotiation and of payment ; in a place of circulation where it could not have been _expeaeti; . a long time before it be. came due ; its ordinary course of circulation was London ; its place of. payment; London ; the Par ' ties interested supposed to be- in London ; present ed by a stranger to a Banking-house in Yorkshire, for'discount. :These circumstances combining thus to make the matter at least snspicious, imposed upon -these Gentlemen of Richmond, the duty of. • inquiring into this Bill. They should have learnt some of the circumstances before they took such a Bill as this. They should have done as their neigh_. hours did, .to whom this . Bill was tendered;. they refused to discount .it. But . there was -an eag-erness in all these Country Banks to do every thing by which they could profit rapidly ; and this was done by getting so much cf their own Paper, into cir culation, for a great part of the discount of this 5001. Bill, was the Paper of,this Richmond Bank, that is . to say, they put into circulation, 2501.. worth of their oWn Paper; the 'rest they advanced by draft' on their Agent in Town ; this was the cause of the eagerness for th e p ra &i ce o f discounting, which the Country Banks manifested, upon good security in London.. Now, this was an improper.ptaClice, and ••could not be paid to• come, within the rules of deci sion upon Cases supposed to govern this. All the Cases proceeded upon the idea " that the Bills of Ex change were really taken in the way of trade,'' but in all of them there was adegree of prudence and caution in taking of these BillsL--'-so here, - it ,Was . reasonable to expert that the Plaintiffs had observed that . caution which one man expeas of - another in the way of trade. Now, if a' Bill is brought after it is due, there was a presumption that there was about it, something_ that was unfair: Under all.the circumstances of. this Bill, he confended, there was imposed on the Plaintiffs . a duty to inquire into this matter—here. for sool., a large sum, drawn on a'considerable House in. Town=--accepted by that House—got into: a Country circulation— discounted to a person who called himself" . Warren" discounted without question ; other Bankers, would not do so—they had refused do it ;---the truth of - the _matter was, that this "Bill was stolen after it had been accepted andindo'rsed. 'was advertised in three or four of the Public Papers in. .London, advising all who might have it offered to them, to stop it, &c. Other Bankers aced on this. caution, and had refused to discount it. The Plain tiffs might be suPposed to have seen this advertise__ ment, or to be aware of these circumstances as Well as their neighbours, A Bill of this amount was not like a thing which might Come .in' the ordinary course of trade. • • - • Lord KENYON wished to know, what the sum was, which required:caution more than was appli cable to another. The ATTORNEY GENERAL said, that this-was a matter for ordinary prudence.. If no amount was to call for. caution, it would then follow, that if a Bill for ro,oool. was stolen, and happened, after wards, to come into the hands of a person who had given consideration for it, he could enforce Pay ment against the Acceptor. This Bill ought to stag_ ger a person in the Country to whom it was offered, by a stranger, to be discounted.- He Would say of a Bill of ro,cool. that it was a Bill'of•a staggering magnitude. The Plaintiffs ought to have asked this Mr. Warren some questions, who and what he was, instead of discounting it at once. - Had they looked into the Papers, they would have found it adver , tised as a stolen Bill. Others did so, and refused to discount it. They should have paused before they discounted•such a Bill. They did not take it for a debt. It was discounted for the mere sake of profit, in a spirit, which, he was sorry to Say, too many of these Country Bankers indulged, for the purpose of putting into circulation their own Paper, from which a great deal of mischief-had arisen, and more was likely to arise. He quoted some cases - O . shew.that the Rule of Law was, that - a . Bill must be taken, in the fair way of trade, in order .to come within the rule laid down by which the holder . could maintain an Adion for payment, after the Bill had been stolen ; as this Bill had. LordKENYON observed, that this doCtrine would go to this. That if a man had a Bank Bill for s.ool. offered to him, he must not take it at a distance in the Country ,without. making inquiries.. If the ar gument was good upon • the 'Sum, his Lordship wished to know what the Suin was to be ? If 5001. made a rule of caution, why, not 4001. • He thought this very- dargerous doCtrine; to hold .to the Com mercial world. Suppose a Bill of a Noble Duke, to whose spirit of adventure the Public were indebt ed largely, (the - Duke of BRIDGEWATER), for too,oool. was in the bands of any one fora: valua ble consideration, was it to be said that it should not be negotiated until inquiry was made at Messrs. Childs the B . ankers ?--Certainly there was nothing in these oblations to this Bill. If the Defendants could chew any fraud,. or a t ny blameable „negli gence in the Plaintiffs in this ease, he , would hear the Evidence of that, -most readily. If they shew that this Mr. Warren, who had ob taiged the Discount of this Bill, was a Male Miss Rtitiertsett tan allusion to the •iwiriller Blackheath] it would be doing something, :but, he; could not encourage such ,a defence as this it would paralyse the' whole Trade of the Country; if such a • defence were successful in a Court of jusftc . e. If it applied to pool. it must apply to soh; for theye was, no drawing a-line of distinetion as to the sure —the rule mtlst be general, if there should be any. If there were any circumstances from which the Jury, could infer fraud, the Defendants had a case; other wise they bad, none culpable negligence might be something, but.that was a loose charge. As . to the Bill having been stolen, and its being advertised as such -in the London Newspaf;ers ; that advertise.: meat could not ,conclude the parties here, t i eing they might, or - they might not. have seen tit/t advertise: merit : he thought of orhers from hinkscif—he was by no means sure of . Seeing what was.advertised iii a Newspaper.: if he saw a thing of this 'kind, he should have paid attention to it if.he was in trade ; but. if he did not . see it, su;:h a publication could not be binding upon him. Ile.did not mean; by this, to say, that no than was ever hound by an advertisement in a „Newspaper unless it could. be distint - tly • proved that he had been concerned its-. sending it to the Paper ; or, on the other hand, that he had read his Lordshipstated, that while he waS young at the Bar, he was concerned in a cause, which was tried at lierefoid, which was an Action by a person who had been the means of re. storing to the owner a horse which he had lost, sup:. posed to have been stolen, for the recovery of Ur! Reward advertised for that event. There was n ) evidence that the Defendant, in that Atflion, hal aaually authorized the advertisement to be pub lished ; .but the Jury were left to infer, from all Old circumstances of the case, that it was published by his .authority ; and they-did infer it, and found a yerditt for the Plaintiff in that ACtion. But that was from circumstances, by which the jury con. eluded that the Defendant must have authorized the publication of the advertisement. The Jury would hardly infer, without a great deal of evidence, that the Plaintiffs in this cause, Bankers in Yorkshire, read this advertisement in the London Newspapers, Here two or three Witnesses were called on the part of the Defendants, to support the idea that this Bill was- in a very, ,suspicious.manner presented• to the Plaintiffs ; that the person who had it discOunt ed, was not o such an appear ance as warranted his having such a Bill as this' at such a distance from London, &c. : but this evidence fell very short of the point for which it, was offered. One witness, a Partner in, a Banking-house in the. neighbourhood of. Rictirnond, in Yorkshire, proved that the Bill was offered to their House, but refused ;by theirs ; he did not like the appearance of Mr. Warren, who presented it, ,&c. . Another person, who was Clerk at the -Northal.. . lerton Bank,'. where the Bill was offered, proved that- Mr.-Warren had much the, appearance• of a Gentleman; of being a man well,acquainted :with busiaess,.. very polite,. &c. ; .although . , their, liouse had.also refused to discount it... But this,Was realSy, nothing, ,for-there was no ,clePencling upon appear,: antes in such,cases ; it.lay with the:Defendants. to shew „fraud .or, culpable .rniscoadud in the Pia in tift , i: After this, by the extreme solicitude ofthe tiffs to support the.honourmf the ttimsa(rtion, K:ENYON allowed them to.prove that, the 'Bill ~was discounted. for a valuable consideration, which they did by one.: of. their Clerks, who proved, that •the. was discounted. fairly, .by giving to Mr,. ren zsoL in a.draft of the .Plain tilts' House ons.lieir Bankers in London, and the rest in . notes of their . , own. This was not,necess a ry, but was permitted on account of the anxiety of the Plaintiffs for tha honour of their charaAet . . The ATTORiiFY GENERAL took'oecasioff to OD; serve, that although 'there - was-no imputation -upOn the honour of the Plaintiffs in this Afflon, whom he only charged with that sort of 'negligence which might have forfeited their right of A6tion in this case, if he had been abie,to prove it,' which he was not,, took occasion to observe,.. that the speculations of Country Banks were such as 'to require, "some :cheek from the Legislature. . Lord KENY O N approved of this.observation, and said, he had of late seen. some Advertisements which were most alarming.\ Banks advertised to be established in Cheshire, Nottingham, arid various other Counties, by men on whose security' no' man who knew. them would advance a farthing. His Lordship • agreed with the ATTORNEY GENERAL, that this was a. subjea worthy of the attenti on of the Legislature. . In the case• now before the Juty, hoWever, there was nothing . to be said against the Plaintiffs. If any fraud' could be prOved to have mixed itself with the_ transaftion, his Lordship said,. he .would have listened with both ears "to •the proof of -it,. but that was a thing not to., be inferred in ~the absence of proof. If there 'had beat any . culpable negligence in 'the - case, his Lordtitip said, he . should have submitted it to. the • Jury, but here was tsothing but . the plain case, thae.the . Plaiatiffs were-Holders of a,Bill 'tor a - fair consii . leratiOniin the courze of Commerce, 'and 'the: Defendants, the*cceptors of-it, and, there. fore, there - was nothing.,- . 4a) it .out of the common course. - • 11Ct for the Plaintiffs--Damages 520!. A ,Cause of much. interest to the mercantile world was tried last week TO `:the Court of King's Bench, Dubin, before Lord:, KR 'AR DENT it was an anion on the Bankrupt,lpaw,.against the Defend ant, for having conceald a hog ii of sugar, value "sol. the property of a i - )nokrupt : the fat being clearly. proved, ,a verdid for the Creditors was giVen, pursuant to the statute, one hundred pounds penalty, being double the value of the goods, and one , hundred pounds damages were awarded the Plaintiffs, together with all the costs of suit. • •It is asserted that one ounce of Chocolate con tains as much nourishment as a pound of lx.ef. Whe ther this curious assertion be strktly trae , or not, it is certain, that the nutriment afforded by the Cocoa Nut, when well prepared, is most admirably adapt ed for the human. stomach : hence the high repute of the preparations by Fry, of Bristol, which no less proves his superior skill and care than the ex cellent salubrity of the articles prodUced from his /debuted manufadory. •