The British Press; or, Morning Literary Advertiser.
London, England, 1824-11-20 00:00:00

RILL v. CUPIT AND ANOTHER.

This ease was tried benne the Loan Cuter Jusstcr at Guild-
ha t, during the sittings after lam term, and a verdict found for de-
iendant ; plaintiffappited 'or, and obtained a rule air{ for a new trial.
ft was an ection brought for the amount of a bill, of which de-
fendant wu acceptor. The bill had been enclored in a parcel by
the drawtr, directed to his correspondent at Birmingham. It was
stolen from the cloth, and brought to the office of plaintiff, a re-
spectable hill.broker, and his clerk (in the principal's absence)
4.lcoun:L.: I. Ile did so from his knowledge of the respectability
the acceptance, and of the bolder, who discounted banker's bills
frequently before ; bu: he asked no questions as to bow he came by
it. The plaintiff was himself at Liverpool, and no bl.:ntc wes ins-
putalile to him. The Lord Chief Justice, who tried the case,
Jeff it to the Jury to consider whether there had been a neglect of
duainquiry, and put the suppositious case of a bill.hroker
scribing over his door—" Brod bills discounted here, and no ques-
tions asked." The holder of the bill was a stranger to the plain-
6V* clerk, further than that he knew his features, and knew him
te hive discounted bills before.

lie. SCAItLETT argued at considerable length against the rule,
Mil was followed on the same side by Mr. PARE.
Mr. Go Reny was heard in support of it, end cited a variety of
oar': among others, he particularly ruled on the important one,
"Lawson v. Weston," in which it was laid down by fiord Kenyon,
" *at the holder of a. bill, even though it be stolen. is entitled to
raper, if lie give good consideration for it, and had no guilty
///.,ledge of the theft and that it is not incumbent on him to
*eke inquiry as to the way it conies into the pessession of the poe-
m bringing it to him " It was further objected to. the strong
manner in which his Lords:lip put the case to the Jury, who, in
spanking of the alleged regliicence of plaitititrio this case, and the
iojory likely to ninth to the commercial Interest of the country if
mach a principle were acted on. added. Suppose a person places over
las door in f;ornhill, " All bills, wit': respectable names on them,
disoounted here —no questions asked,"—the question would be,
said his Lordship, whether such • measure would not effectually
promote theft by affordior a facility to the disposal of stolen secu-
rities. Ile further submitted, that if there were want of caution
avywhere, it was on the part of the defendant, who sent Cie bill to
.i:.rmingliam, without a special indorsement.
' ' • • "

Mr. l'ot.t.ocit followed on the same side. lie relied principally
on the can! or •• Lawson and 'Weston," decided by Lord Chief
Justice Kenton. The free circulation of increments of this kind
wculd be paralyzed if bills were not recoverable for which full
vs.ile was given, without any makifider. The limit of due caution
was a term not easily definable nor easily to be tined ; a degree of
emotion to satisfy the conscience was sufficient. if their Lordships
eetertained any doubt, a new trial ought to he granted, in order
a; the goestion, which was one of great public importance and in.
treat to the community, might be trust by a special Jury. Ilia
Lotdship at the trial bad put the case strongly against the plaintiff:
The Loan Caine' Justrice said he certainly pot the point
aleengly against the plaintifff Ile was not of opinion that it could
Wait as sper:al verdict.
Mr. SCARLETT replied.
The Loan CIIIET JUSTICE, after the Court had consulted
fora few minutes together, said, that if he were of opinion that
another Jury would conic to a different conelewion from that at
woe* the former Jury had arrived, he would have no objection to
st.innit it to e revision, but in his opinion a different opinion would
mot be drawn by any Jury. The case of "Lawson and Wellt011," de-
rid d by the Lord Chief Justice. wan hardly distinguishable from
th.• presets case! hut in the opinion of the Court. if that eminent
JuOtrt., Lord Kenyon. had contemplated the consequences of the de-
oast ;1 he had delivered, he would have paused before he pronounced
Toe facility of converting bilk into cash,particularly of late years,
Karr great encouragement to the robbingof mail:coaches. lie
would deeply regret that any decision of his should tend to obstruct
tLe tree commercial intercrurse of this country, but his opinion
anis strong and decided, that to refuse a new trial in the present
tenancy would be rather a protection than an obstruction to the tree
commerce and mercantile Interests of the country. Suppose a
was to present a bill two days after its date, and leave it
rris:n
n sidevetiee • he tr.ight safely do so, u it was not possible
Lts mbbery cold then be sespyr-ted in LoOdcia. The acceptance

was found to be good, and therefore money given without any in-
quiry of the person. who presented it. This surely was not due
and necessary caution. The clerk, at the trial, stated, moreover.
that it was customary with him to discount prod bills without
instituting any inquiries as to the person who presented them. This
much he wished to he understood and known to the public, as to
the case of " Lawsou and Si eston," that at least the law then laid
down was doubted by this Court. What Lurd Kenyon then laid
down was, in his opinion, inconvenient and dangerous as a prece-
dent, and one which this Court were unwilling to recognize.
The other Judges of the Court delivered their opinions, which
were substantially the same as that of the Lord Chief Justice.
Rule discharged.
- - -

CM AGH O. COX.
Mr. SCARLETT appeared to oppose a rule obtained in ibis ease
to shew cause why a new trial should not be had. It waswn •lion
brought by the purchaser of copper for sheathing a vessel, agamat
the vendor, for not having given a sound and saleable article, as
the copper proved useless after a first voyage to the West Indies;
whereas it ought to bare endured for five years, if of proper qua-
lity. The verdict at the trial was for the plaintiff. The learned
Gentleman cited several cases to shim that there was no need of a
special warranty for goods, but that they were to be presumed by
the purchaser to be of the goalie?, they were represented to be. In
the case of " Laing and Pigeon '6 Taunton lu4 it was laid down
that " a person purchasing had a right to expect a sound saleable
article without a special warranty." This was a case which came
within the operation of that principle, and he therefore submitted
that the verdict should not be disturbed.
Mr. GURNEY and Mr. Caateasat. supported the rule. The
case of " Laing and Pigeon" was not in point, as it related to goods
purchased by a merchant abroad from a manufacture in this coun-
try. Here the defmdant was not a manufacturer, but merely •
vendor of an article which he did not manufacture. There was no
imputation, even or latent fraud. to him, in concealing any defect
that might be in the copper. Unless a particular warranty were
given, the plaintiff had no right to recover, as he had an oppor-
tunity of inspecting the article, and in this respect was materially
different from that of a transaction between a foreign merchant and
one residing in this emintry, when an opportunity of inspection
was nct afforded. Besides, it might have been that the copper
was damaged from the effect of Aectricity, in the particular part
of the world to which the vessel made its voyage ; whereas, if it
went to another destination, it might have returned home quite un.
damaged. It might be, also, that there was a latent defect of
which the vendor was not aware, and for which he therefore was
not responsible.
The Loan Crites JUST:CE said, that the verdict of the Jury
was warranted by the evidence at the teal, and by the declaration.
The Court would, however, afford an opportunity of the point
being argued by one Counsel on each side, next term, in order to
decide upon the point (as we understood ), whether an opportunity
of inspecting the goods deprived the purchaser of a right to recover,
or whether the receipt of the value of the goods was not an implied
warranty that they were in a sound and saleable condition.