The British Press; or, Morning Literary Advertiser.
London, England, 1825-06-15 00:00:00

LAW INTRI.,LIGENCE..

COURT OF KING'S BENCH, WEssimrsTrit,
TUESDAY. JUXE 14.

DRAT/LEY C. ARTirrl.
This case, our readers will remetnbet, was one in which the plait-.
tiff obtained a rule to set aside the verdict for dir defendant, on 1 is
plea of justification, on an action for false imprisonment while the
plaintiff and defendant were stationed at Honduras.
111 r. BROUGITA'M argued on Saturday in support of the rule,
sad Mr. EvANS was partly heard on the sante aide.
Mr. EVANS this day resumed his argument. He contended that
by the Articles of War the righterf military command devolved on
the senior officer in the garrison ; that although whilst on actual
ser►ice Col. Arthur was Col. Bradley's senior, still, when his regis
meat wits disbanded he ceased to be an officer at all, and that Col.
B. then was the senior officer, and had a right to command the
galrrison. An half-pay officer wax a mere sinecurist, because hi.
half-pay was a reward for past services : and did not render him
halite to inmate services, he was not subject to martial law, and
eotild not administer that law ; he was only in the same situation sa
an out-pensioner of Chelsea, and the Court had held that an out.
pensioner of that hospital was not entitled to the privileges which
military men enjoyed. As to the power of superior officers grant.
ing commissions for persons to hold these situations, their Lord.
ships would look to what the effects of that power would be both
intrusted to the Commander-in-Chief, and also to the Military
Commander in Ireland; these officers, if allowed to appoint tint_
liana to military offices, would have far greater power than evert
the King himself, because they might then appoint as many as
they liked, which the King could not. Had the Duke of Wel-
Iffigton gone to Gibraltar at the time of the Peninsular war, h.
would have been entitled to hare assumed the military command
there, because he would hare been the superior officer to the ap-
pointed commander, and upon the same principle Col. Bradley Lad
right to assume the command at Honduras, as against Wood
Arthur.

Mr. Camino's followed on the same side.
The LORD CHIEF JI7STICE, Mr. Justice BAYLET, and Mr.
Justice liot.notn, delivered their opinions, seriatim. They
thought that the mere disbanding of Colonel Arthur's regi-
ment did not disqualtfy him from holding a military appoint.
ment which was totally unconnected with that regiment. Th.
object was to have a man to fill such an office possessing mi.
litary skill, and Colonel Arthur did not cease to possess that
skill because his regiment ceased to exist. Besides, any mili-
tary governor might be placed in the same situation ; and what
might be the consequences if, when news arrived of the disbanding
of the regiment of the Govcroor, and no other Governor appointed,
a junior Officer was to get up and say to his commander. •• Your
regiment is now disbanded, and I am entitled to command ?" Their
Lordships thought the justification by Col. Arthur had been maila
out, and the rule for a new trial must be discharged—Rule dis-
charged.

DOWNE V. DOLDINO ♦ND OTHERS.
This was an action to recover the value of a check which had
been lost by the wife of the plaintiff and afterwards traced to the
possession of the defendant, who had given value, and subsequently
received the amount from the bankers on whom it was drawn. On
the trial the Jury found for the plaintiff. On a former day motion
load been made to set aside this verdict on the ground that on the
trial no evidence was given of the manner in which the plaintiff's
wife had lost this check, but that, for all that appeared, it might
have been paid away by her in due course.
The LORD CutEr JUSTICE now said that the Court was of
opinion that such evidence was not necessary ; it could not in rea-
son be required, any more than a man who had cattle stolen from
his held ought to be called upon to prove in what manner they were
stolen.—Rule refused.
The Lord Chief Justice then left the Court, in order, as wa be.
sieve, to attend the Recorder's report.

COATES AND CO. V. TERNER.
This was an action tried before the Lord ChlerJustiee, in which
the plaintiffii, who are the bankers in the Surd, sought to recover
from the defendant the amount of a bill of exchange a hich became
due so far back as July 1817. On the trial it appeared that the bill
had been indorsed by a person iu the name of the defendant, by the
authority of the defendant's wife, who managed the business of her
husband. This bill was afterwards paid by the plaintiffs to a Mr.
Gillman, who had since brought his action against them, and re-
covered the amount, but nothing was at that time stated by them
as to the liability of the present defendant. The evidence, how-
ever, by which it was endeavoured to charge him in the present
action was that of Mr. Llngard, clerk to the plaintiffs, who stated,
that irrOcusber 1818 he called upon the wife of the defendant, and
asked her whether she had received notice of the bill indorsed by
her having been dishonoured, when she replied that she bad, and
that u soon as she had seen Mr. French, the immediately precuts
ing indorser, she would call and take it up. Upon this it was cons
tended that a liability was admitted, and that the plaintiffs were
entitled to recover. On the part of the defendant, it was proved
that no notice was given of the dishonour of the bill in proper time.
An account was also put in between the plaintifik and the defendant,
which was made up to the month of October 1818, where no notice
whatever was taken of the bill in question, but by which a balaneu
of 31.65. sd. was stated to be due from the defentant to the plaintiffs,
and at the bottom of which account a note was addressed to die defen-
dant, requesting that, as the balance was so small, it might be settled,
and that their accounts should begin afresh. Upon this evidence
the jury found a verdict for the defendant. A rule nisi was eh-
' tained last term on the part of the plaintiff, calling on the defend-
ant to show cause why the verdict should not be set aside, and a
new trial had.
Mr. Coustost SERGEANT thie day showed cause against the
rile. He contended that it was altogether Improbable that the
plaintiffs should have allowed themselves to be sued by Mr. Gill-
man for the amount of this bill so long ago as 18111, and not have
immediately sought to have recovered the amount from Mr. Tur-
ner. If any such conversation ha 1 taken place between their clerk
and the defendant's wife, as was sworn to by Mr. Lingsrd, but
even if such a c inversadon had taken place, yet the admission of
the defendant's wife could not render her husband liable where no
regular notice had been given of the dishonour of the bill, this sup-
tased conversation having been stated to have taken place upwards
of 15 months after the bill had become due. But from the account
of the plaintiff's themselves. in which they in October 1819 had de-
manded only a balance of 31. 6s. !ad. without at all noticing dui
bill, it was quite conclusive that either the bill had been paid, credal
they knew they had no demand on the defendant. These chum-
stances, connected with the extraonlihary lapse of time which took
place before this action was brought. were strong evidcnee to go to
the jury, and lie submitted that the verdict they bad giver. was
correct, and ought not to be disturbed.
31r. READER, in support of the rule, contended that the ad-
rcission of the defendant's wife was a waiver of a regular notice of
the dishonour of the bill, and that the omission of the bill in the
account rendered by the plaintiffs was very easily explained by the
fact, that at that time they were disputing their own liability to
pay the amount of the bill to Mr. Gillman, and therefore it would
have been inconsistent to have charged the defendant with it until
the question of their liability should be decided against them.
Mr. Justice BAY LEY thought that the verdta was quite canto-
lie was one who felt great disgust at relying upon the evidence of
' conversations, steed to have taken place between parties from time
to time, where no other grounds for action existed. Here was a
party who said that a bill became due ir. July, 1817, upon whict,
the defendant was liabk, but no notice of its dishonour was given
a conversation however was repres .sited to hare passed in 1818.
when the defendant admitted his Viability, but still oo action 11111%
brought until 1824. So much dr .ie haring been allowed to elapse
was certainly a good ground fo'. the Jury to doubt whether any
such conversation ever did actu-Ally take place, and without which .
conversation the plaintiffs woe id Ease no ground whatever for this
action. He thought the verdict ought to itilhdi Ind titan the rlll4
therefore must be discharge
Rule discharged.

:41.1nrcirn.
On Monday. at St. I'ancraa Church, by the Rey. lh. M Oefe,
James C. C. Bell, q. of Russell-square, to Miss Mead, of Tarts-
toek-nq iinre.
On the 3lst ult. at Carrisbroolte, rale of Wight, Win. Shear.
Esq. of the ftlith Regiment. nephew of Lieut..Geneval Sir kogas
Shesiffe, Hart. to Mina Rosalie Danvers Earle, filch daughter of tim
late Soloman Earle, Esq. of the lion. East India companes
Service.

DIED.
On Sunday last, at Pentonville, Mrs. Frances Vszeille, widow.
Lately, Denry, son of Brown, Esq. Warden of the Flea
Priaon.
At Woolwli:th, on the 11th instant, Sophia 3lary, wife of B. 'V
Roberta, }:sq. Sitrgeon.General, Royal Artillery, and daughter of
the late Sit George Bolton, of.,Tutshill, Glouet.tershire.
On Saturday evening, the nth inst. in his 86th year. Eros Ds
Gruchy Tassett, Eaq. Father of the Apothecary'. Company.
On Sunday morning last, in the 70th year of her see, Marianne,
the wife of General Edmund Stephens, one of the daughters of Sir
Edward Ilulse, formerly of Breamore, Bart.
Sunday, at Oltilields, Acton, in his 78th year, Thomas Esser,
Esq.

111011 WATER THIS DAY AT LONDON DRlD(ifi.
Slowing 0 uun. after 1. I Afternoon 28 min. stew 1•

Printed at THE BRITISH PRESS Office, by J. W. C•aa*Qli
181, Strand, and published by R.1:488011, ums Owe'

mg

v