The Express.
London, England, 1855-07-02 00:00:00

IN RE iinstutx EXERT BLUEISH.

Mr. Justice Coleridge intimated that two cams still stood
over for judgment, one being an application for the re-
admission of Mr. Barber se an attoraey. As it was a matter
which bad not been argued till very late in the term, and
required long and careful consideration, the court would
take farther time.

COURT OF COMMON PLEAS.—JoNE 30.

ON AT NW PAM IX LONDON.-IZIDIX CIA
AND ♦ SPACIAL /VAT.
WOWS O.

3t =ITU
IP.

This was an action brought to recover a sum of shoal
2,0001. claimed to be dim to the plaintiff as the balance of an
account. The trial occupied the whole of two days.
Mr. Edwin Jules, Q.C., and Mr. J. Brown, appeared for
the plaintiff; and Mr. M. Chambers, Q C., and Mr. Wills.,
for the defendant.
It appeared that the plaintiff, Headrick Peter Bernelot
Mune, had carried on the business of a prevision dealer at
Harlingen, in Holland, under the style or firm of Bernelot
Moons and Co., and the defendant was a shipbroker in the
City. On the 3011 t of August, 1853, the plaintiff entered
Into a written agreement with the defendant, by which
he agreed to hire of him a steamer called the Queen at 150/.
a week for 12 weeks. He was also to have the option of
Chaerg her for 10,0001, and he paid a deposit of 3,2001.
velgesi I was employed in carrying cattle and provisions
from Harlingen, and at the end of the tum the agreement
was continued for another 12 weeks, which expired on the
14th February. The vessel continued running for a third
period of 12 weeks, and was then taken off the station. The
plaintiff's case was that the amount of 1501. a week to be
paid for the vessel was preposterously high, and had, in
fact, only been inserted in the agreement as a nominal sum.
It was indeed understood that the amount to be paid was
about half that sum, and the defendant had actually
charged only 751. a week for the third period of 12
weeks; but, according to his case, he bad charged this
lower rata only from a feeling of liberality, and because he
knew the speculation was not paying. Upon these facts
the questions were raised, whether the defendant was en-
titled to charge 1501. a week for the Queen, and whether
the plaintiff bad hired her for the thud, as well aa for the
first two periods of 12 weeks. It appeared that there was a
perms named Lindeman, who occupied a seat in the plain•
tiff's office, and transacted a good dealer his business, both
in Holland and in London. In March, 1854, Lindeman
agreed to purchase the steamer Herne of the Hune Bay
Steam Packet Company, and the defendant advanced him
3,6001. for that purpose. The Herne was accordingly pur
chased and fitted up u a cattle boat to run to Holland.
She was subsequently sold by Lindeman to a Dutch mer-
chant,tand was rec'.riatened the Leeuwarden, but soon after-
winds she struck upon a bar and became 'total loss. It hap-
pened also that Lindeman gat into bad eircumstances:and be-
came unable to pay for the Herne. When the els fendant ren-
dered his account to the plaintiff he debited him with the
3,6001., upon the ground that Lindeman, had been in fact a
partner of Ice plaintiff, or at all events that the plaintiff had
repr. seated Lindeman as his partner, and was therefore
jointly liable with him for the 3,6001. The plaintiff's case
was that be bad done nothing of the sort, but had on the
contrary introduced Lindeman to the defendant as his
clerk. According to the law of Holland, all persons engaged
in trade have to take out licensee, and to declare who are
their partners, and the plaintiff proved by his own license
that he had had no p , and he produced Lindeman's
license to show that he had been hie clerk only. But leaving
out the (meths& of partnership altogether, it was contended
on the part of the p!aintiff that it appeared from the ear-
respondeue that Liademan had bought the Herne, not en
the part of any partner, but as • private speculation, and
that the plaintiff was not liable in the transaction.
The jury, after considering the matter for three•quarters
of an hour, expressed au opinion that the Queen bad run
for the whole time of thirty' nix weeks on account of Bernelot
Moeas, and Co., and that the defendant was entitled to
charge 761. a week for the whole time ; Lather, that Linde-
man had been • partner, or had been held out to be •
partner, but that the sale of the Herne was to Lindeman en
his separate account.
The verdiet was then entered for the plaintiff for the
agreed amount of 4841. 141 4d.

EXCHEQUER CHAMBER.-.TuNE 30.
12111110$ TX 111101.-111109.1 I. JCITIC! COL= DOE, XL. /MICR
MIMI. Xl.. ICRICII IMMIX% XL ANTIC, cm:ammo, LED XL JUS.
TICE =MUM
The court sat to-day by appointment to deliver judgment
in cum which had bees previously argued, only one of
which was of a nature to call for a report.
OP BILLS OP

V. PESO.-ACCEPTA
P.XCHA24O7.

Mr. Justice Coleridge delivered the judgment of the
court in this ease, which was a writ of error on a judgment
of the Court of Exchequer. This was en action on an in-
strument which was alleged to be a foreign bill of exchange
for 2001. There were two points involved ; firstly, whether
the instillment was a bill of exchange, and secondly, whs.
' then if so there was evidence of its acceptance by the de-
fendant When this case was tried before him he thought
there was same evidence, but the court thought there
was not. The evidence to support the acceptance
was given by Robert Leonard, who deposed that having
received the instrument in a letter from London, he went to
the defendant and told him he had called on him for pay-
ment of a bill for 2001. The defendant said be did not owe
2001., and witness asked him if he knew any one in Africa.
The defendant] said he bad a son-in-law there named
Righton, who commanded a ship. Leonard having shown
the instrument to the defendant, he said it was Righton's
signature. Witness told him the bill was given for a vessel
called 'Abe Dove, purchased by Righton -from the Baptist
Society. Witness told the defendant that as he acknow-
ledged the signature to be Righton's, he bad better pay the
bill, but he said be would give abE at three months for it.
Witness told him be had better pay the ;bill, as it looked
something like a forgery, and he had better take it out of
his hands. The defendant said he had not the money, but
would give a bill at three months. The witness de-
clined to accept that, and went away. Assuming the
instrument to be a bill of exchange, it was payable
at sight, and to prove it to have been an acceptance, it must
have been an acceptance according to its tenor and effect.
Looking at all the defendant bad said, it appeared to the
court to be a perversion of its meaning to understand it as
an acceptance of the instrument, for it was obviously not hie,
ntention to pay at sight, but on a future day. The verdict
for the plaintiff must therefore be set &aide, and a venire de
novo mud be awarded.
Judgment accordingly.