The British Press; or, Morning Literary Advertiser.
London, England, 1819-01-27 00:00:00

DRURY-LANE THEATRE.

COOK V. POULK.V..4, WlBl.llf. and She PROPRI-

ETORS OF DRURY-LANE THEATRE.

The c,rcuotstances of this tuotion we reported
yesterday.
Sir A RTIWIL PIGGOTT, at the runiK of the
Court, regoested that his Loill.hip would hear the

further obter►ationa or Counsel i►► this motion on
Thursday n►orniug. Ile had intimated this appli-
cation to his Learned Friend, Mr. Wingfield, who
dill not object.
The Loap CHANcELLog--" Let it be so."

COURT OF KIND'S BENCH, WrATMINSTER,
TURADAY, JANUARY 26.

TIERNEY r. RING.

This was an action on a bill of exchange for
5421. Is. tid. drawn by Messrs. Eggleso and power,
upholsterers, of Dublin, on Mr. John King (the
husband of Lady Lanesboronah), accepted by
him, endorsed over to the Plaintiff, by the drawers,
and made payable in Dublin. A verdict was re-
turned for the Plaintiff of 500/. 7s. 91. English
currency, being equal to !Lig/ r 8-l. I I currency.
In the course of last Term, Mr. Tomtit% moved
for and' obtained a rule to skew cause why the yer-
diet should not be set aside, and a nonsuit entered
—on the ground, that, by the declaration, it ap-
peared, the Plaintiff claimed 542/. Is. /Id. English
currency, whereas, the bill purported to be drawn
for 5421. Is. Bd. Irish, being 1-20th less than the
sum declared iiiton.
Mr. 51ARRYATT shewed cause. lie contended
that. the lirclar;altoll was correct, ivarnwch as,
through the whole course of the limo-tiling, the
bill having been drawn in Ireland, made piyahle
there, sod the verdict returned tor a sent,
lent to what was claimed in Irish coriency, it wds
clear that Irish money was well understood to be
that which the Plarittiff claimed. The declaration
did not purport to be on a bill drawn in England.
It was true that it was not described to have been
drawn in Ireland, specifically—but it was stated
that the bill was made in Dublin, and, undoubt-
edly it could only have been issued with reference
to the money of the place where it purported to
have been drawn.

Mr. Justice BAYLEY—" How does it appear,
on the declaration, that this bill was drawn at
1)ullne, iu Ireland There may be a Dublin iu
America, or even in this country."
Mr. MARRYATT—" Looking to the evidence,
there can be no doubt on that point."
Mr. Justice BAYI,LY—" We cannot refrr to
the evidence. We must confine ourselves to the
declaration."

The Cuffs JUSTICE—" Every one who hook.
at the declaration mum suppose that the Plaintiff
is proceeding for English money. whereas, it ap-
pears that the bill is drawn for Irish currency.
The difficulty you have to encounter is, to ►haw
that the declaration is properly ►et out for the re-
covery of 54-2/. Irish currency."
Mr. MbititYATT reiterated his argument. that
the bill, being drawn in Dublin and made parable
there, and haviiir, been properly set forth, the decla-
ration asifecient to enable the Plaintiff to
recover a aunt of Irish money.
Mr. LITTLEDALE followed ou the same aide.

The CIIIEF JUSTICE said, the question was,
whether an English Judge, sitting iii an English
Court of Justice, and reading a declaration, con-
taining the words 542/. Is. ed. without the intro-
duction of any express►on to skew that they did nut
meals English money, could consider them as allu-
ding to any other species of currency? He thought
that he could not. Was there any reason to sup-
pose, that 5421. of Irish and not of English money
Was meant ? If so, it could only be found in the
words.—" drew his bill in Dublin, to wit, at 11'e•t-
tninster.' Dot there might be other places called
Dublin, not iu Ireland—und, us the Plaintiff did
not choose to state " Dublin, in Ireland,"—the
Learned Judge could see no reason for summon..
that any other than English money was referred
to in the declaration.

The othir Judges concurred iii this opiniou—
and the rule fora monsmit was made absolute.

CAMERON and OTHERS, Assignees V GEORGE
LANG, V. SMITH.

This was an action of trover and conversion. The
Defendant was petitioning creditor under a com-
mission of bankruptcy sued ou: against Lang. It
appeared that he had held a bill of exchange for
9G!. 7s. 10d. accepted by the bankrupt. which be- I
came slue oo the 18:1i of January, 1810. It was
not honoured, and the commission issued oil the 8111
of October, 1815, the interest accruing on the hill
up to that time, making, together With the priori-
pal, a stun of more than 100/. which the Defendant
proved, and received his dividend. At the trial a
verdict was given for the Defendant, with. liberty to
the 11.,intiffs' Counsel to move for a new trial. on
two points—let. Whether the depositions of a per-
son named Com)Ily, now deceased, were admissible
in evidence, they bring " I lepositions taken
in the matter of James, instead of George Lang, a
bankrupt ;" and, grl, Whether interest due on a
bill of exchange could be added to the principal,
au as to constitute a valid iteritioning creditor's
debt? In the course of last Term, Mr. MARRY ATT
obtained a rule to show cause why the verdict
should not be set aside, and a new trial granteri.
Mr. SCARLETT now sliewed cause. Willi respect
to the first point, he considered that it was of very
little importance. The deposition could not be
supposed to have been taken under a commissiou is•
sued against James Lang, since it was not pretend-
ed that there waa any such con iiii istion in existence
—and the general head to the whole body of docu-
ments, of which this deposition formed a part, was
perfectly correct. The question was, whether a
mere clerical error, should he suffered to deprive a
party of Ins defence. Surely it was not a matter of
so solemn and important a nature, as a writ of right,
to which an aiiirodmesit could be allowed. With.
respect to the petitioning creditor's debt, lie ar-
gued,that it might be formed of the principal, tom-
blued with the interest, due on a hill of exchange.
A case, he miderstood, was recently tiled iii the
Court of Common Pleas, in which it was decided,
that interest ought not to be allowed out of the
bankrupt's rotate. Thee was true, after the act of
bankruptcy had been cominitted—but, he believed,
it could not be doubted, that interest was allowable
up to that period. A bill of exchange and the in-
terest.due on it would form a just ground, not only
for an actitor of assarapsit, but for an action of debt
—and it was an identical proposition, that, if it
would sustain an action fur debt, it might with
propriety be proved under a to 111 l lesion of batik-
tuptry.
Mr. GunN Er also supported this propos& .
Mr. Justice BAY I.EY—" When U.S action of debt

is brought on a bill of exchange, it is fur the prin-
cipal only. The intereq i. given by the Jury, as
damages for the injury the sustained
by the detention of the principal."
Mr. M AIRYATT, in support of the rote, coo-
tendril, that interest was not allowed, iu cases of
bankruptcy, unless the on which it was
claimed, stipulated spetitically, that it was to be
paid. A bill of exchange was nut an iostrullieur of
that description. lit some itc.tatices, a Jury would
not give any interest on a bill of exchange. Sup-
pose a bill became payable, moil the acceptor was
ready to take it up, but that it not presented
for a tadvemotith, a Jury wool,, not, tit that case,
give interest, since the delay on with the
Plaintiff. The general proposition, therefore, that
interest was always recoverable, was not coriect.—
The question, was, however, set at rest by a decision
of Lord Ilardwicke, who held that interest on a bill
of exchange could not be claimed out of a bank-
rupt's estate. This principle has, ever since, been
acted on.

The COURT held, that, except where the terms
of the iostrumeut, expressed distinctly that it was
payable with naterest, the proof of debt, under a
COMIIII%SIOII, must be confined solely to the prin-
cipal. The opinion of Lord liaidwicke, which was
mince supported by a case in the Court of Common
Pleas, was drelSiVt• 0111111 s point. When an action
was brought on a bill of exchange, interest was
not claimed as part of the debt, but was recovered
in the shape of daniages,, and of damages onh•.—
Where thfere was a penalty, as in the case of a
•botl, the interest might he added to the principal,
bec.ubie it was so much of the penalty that was
taken from the party. Though the custom of trade
hail superinduced a practice of giving interest, yet
it could not he received as putt of the del e, but as
damages—and, whether the action weir of debt, sir
of assumpsit, the Jury were not ['amid to give 5 per
cent. interest. During a very consitlesaisle period
of time, it was 16 invariable practice to lose 4 per
cent. only—because, looking to the value of money
at that time, it was considered that a 'mill was Hot
datilliified to a weater nntouut than 4 per cent. by
not having the principal in his pocket.
Rule fora uew trial madealibulutr.