The British Press; or, Morning Literary Advertiser.
London, England, 1826-01-27 00:00:00

LAW NOTICES.

_.---
„ novirr OF CHANCERY.
arroat illy VICL-CHAWILLOR
CAUSES TO PE HEARD THIS HAI. •
Minnt v Eaton, part 1 51_aqui. of Salisbury At.-Oso. • flinriand
1
heard v Jackson Sarno • Corporation
Has I:ii. o Mir. 1 Mar.hall r Donner of Tomes
Jernirgharn • Her- Yen v Yen Name • sedgwick
hen 111.nks v Hanks Gritratto•Staniforth4
I Jackson o Haokey Fowler • Rkhards to obow cause

LAW 11V7'ELLIGENCE.

COURT OF CHANCERY,. TxtrnetrAr, JAx.26.

The 314wrica or THre ROT.ill'haVillg intimated his intention
of sitting tor the lard Chancellor to haw motions this morning,
his Irmiship took big seat • weeordlngly, Mr. ShadWeil and one or
two other Counsel only being present.
Lord ilirroaa asked' Mr. Seanwr. t.t. if there was any thing
to MOVE.

Mr. Sigabwiti.r. 'raid that be believed not ; the motions for
hearing were generally a_ppeal motions, and they could only be
heard by the LayerCtiar arker.
Lord GIFT' on o'4ld he 'understood such to be the ease ; bat he
thooght it possible some other motions might bate been to be
made, of which he would have been happy to dispose.
Mr. WAEFFIELI) said the principal pi
which his Lordship alluded had been dispn
days .4 aml front the knowledge of the unfor
the Lord choneettor none had been entered s

Itt of the Motion! to
.etl of berme the holy.
(mate hadispositioo of
ince.

Lord l:irronn then na.rl the he slynild remain a abort time in
the private room, and should be happy to come into Court should he
be required to to do. No ouch request however was made.

VIC CA; Rik NCELLOR'S COURT, Tjf unto JAit. 26.

The Cotirt wan engaged during the dry in hearing Counsel in
eases affeciing the execution of powers. The Pub,irets were not of •
public nature, and the arguments were purely technical.

COURT OF KING'S BENCH, THURSDAY, JAR. 26.

LLOYD V. ASHRY, ROWLAND. AND SHAW.
This was an action on a bill of exchange, drawn by Rowland.
gen, on the ii-hse of Ashby and Co., engineer'', in frombard.streer,
and accepted by Rowland. jun. (the partner) in the name of the
firm. The cause was tried before the Lord Chief Justice at the
late sittings for London, when the plaintiff was nonsuited.
Mr. MARI:ItaI. now moved fora rule to show cause why the
'tomtit should not be.aet aside, and a new trial had. The plaintiff
in this case was a builder, and the bill was given for certain mill
works and machinery erected by him foe Rowland. sen. Previods
to the exveution of the order, the plaintiff inquired into the mode
by which he was to he paid, and he was told that he might have
the acceptance of Ashby and ; upon which he inquired at the
home of the defendants whether such a bill would be accepted. and
the answer given by e person there was m the affirmative.
The pinint itr nutortli-:;•: completed the order, and received the bill
in que•tion in payene.,t. At the trial it appeared that Shaw was a
dormant partner. whose name was not used in the firm; and nn that
ground, and as the hill was nor taken on his credit, and the work
done was not for the use of the trade., the plaintiff under his Lord-
ship's direction, was nonsuited. The Learned Counsel now con-
tended, on the authority of Ridley v. Taylor, II East 175„ and
other deeded casts, that the circumstance of Shaw 'wing a dormant
paper did not deprive an innocent indorsee or payee far value of
his right of action. If a bill were tendered to hint (Mr. Marryatt
on Child and Co. though he knew that no such person an Child was
in the firm of that banking.house, yet he should take the bill on
the credit of the house, and against all the partners, whether osten-
sible or dormant. . _

The LORD CHtEr Jusrtct thought if there were no objection
to it, this had better be made a came for the opinion of the Court.
Mr. MARRYAT was not aware of any objection to that course.
Mr. (Jr tt REV ( who was with Mr. Scarlett observed, that If his
Lordship had not been with them on the point of law, they find
very Important evidence which they would have produced.
The LORD CHIEF* JUSTICE—Then the question is whether
there shall be a new trial. let it be a case.