The British Press; or, Morning Literary Advertiser.
London, England, 1826-02-01 00:00:00

ILisrotrata of the eause—that Dibbin by this deed prevented
the arbitration from making the award. This was the gist
of-the mat. 'This conduct soblected the other party to con.
entierable inconvenience, who had in comer:items immortal expenses
to in amonnt %prettied in the declaration. .tn swand was, however,
matte, and 11132/. given by a verdict of this arbitration to the
plaintiff: Another count in the declaration stated that sowe of
ttnae disputes were reduced to writing, mai that an award was
made on tile 17th March; that the matter was subsequently, taken
into Court, and 1,0321. allowed to the plaintill: The defendant
netnitketantling, refused to pay the *want, and constituently
broke his ctrienant; that was the substance of the declaration. Ills
lArdatin then 'aid that the defendant pleaded thitry4ighr dip'.
terentylette, and traversed the' entire statement of the declaration.
To the greater pert of those pleas the defendant demurred, end in a
farther plea to the first count in the declination it was urged that
she plaindff would not be entitled to the amount if the award had
not been made. Upon this point it was not aecesuiry to say much;
the plea ought to contain a clear and distinct proposition, stating a
certain specific fact. The Court could not, upon the supposition
that the award had not been made, take any view of the case, lie.
cause many subjects were involved in that question.. There
might hue :'ltheti several accounts between the parties to arrange,
and ether matters which were not before the Court. The other
pleas might be demurred to without any injury to the cause. His
'lArdship raid that when he considered all the pleas together, he had
knowledge of that whiclrreferred to the notice of arbttration. ITpon
that point It is stated that the defendant was, st the time that the
antic' was oructl,lten miles distant from Bristol, and ill, but he
did not say that be was ill in bed ; but he (Baron Grahato did not
think that sufficient cause to revoke the award. There was indeed
a ease in Haskins, 71, where an award had been art aside, upon
the ground that notice of meeting bad not been given. The opinion
of Lord Hardwick., however, overruled that decision, for he Raid
that notice in such* case was not necessery. The difference be-
tween the two opinions was—if the party had been informed that the
arbitration had an intention to charge them excessively, or refused
to bear him or Counsel in defence,. then beyutul all doubt and
.question there would have been gond ground for revoking the
decision. In this case the party did not attend the meeting.
but on the 13th October, the very day on which the deed of
reescation was made, the award of arbitration war concluded.
He did not consider that there was in this plea apy ground for revo-
cation. The notice of meeting comprehended as far as the ?itch plea.
In the 21ss plea the defendant stated, that at the time of the arbi-
tration the sum of 1,032/. was not due and payable. That was a
bad plea, because it assumed that the award had been made. A
plea which denied a sum that hail been awarded was not due was
in fact to set aside the award. The 22d was a general plea. Ile
was surprised that any pleader could have set forth a plea in that
ray. To apply the phrase eon intrgft eonrenlionent to such a
case was extraordinary. It would indeed have been very difficult to
know what plea of thirty-right he had broken ; it was a strange in-
congruity. Upon principle. of reason and common sense such a
plea could not be put upon the general issue, because non twit
On t.( r fionent applied to several pleas. Vi'ith respect to the award it-
sell; he did not consider ft valid ; it did not award a certain sum.
but what money was at the time in the hands of the cashier of the
cepertners. They diould have inquired what money was in the
hands of the cashier ? what were the debut of the co-partnership he
had to pay ? what debts he had to collect ? And they should also
have taken into their consideration the expenses that might have
been incurred, had a debtor to the copartners refused payment. it
dots not appear how Dibbin got notice of the meeting and how he
gave his convent. If lie gave his consent, it was not necessary that
it should be given in writing. An objection was taken by the de-
fendant, because it had been said that he had given his consent in
writing, and that the award was made whit that consent. That ob.
jeetion was not material, it had no force. The defendant should
allow the fourteen detnurrers, and the record would then stand
upon the single ground, whether or not the notice given by the
plaintiff and accepted by the defendant was a good plea.
Mr. Baron 11 t• t.1.001C raid that he did not think that the notice
of meetiag could be made a ground of plea. In the case of Aston
1.. George, or George v. Aston, he did not exactly recollect ha* the
names stood, where great expenses were incurred, and there were
symptoms of partiality, it was decided that all the costs should be
paid. In Bury v. Thomson it was held that notice was necessary,
bur in this case how was Dibbin to be satisfied ?
The COURT decided that the plea on the notice was not valid.