The British Press; or, Morning Literary Advertiser.
London, England, 1804-11-14 00:00:00

Wunt.NORTII r. MEADOW!.

This was an anion for scandalous words, to which
the Defendant had pleaded three several pleas.
To these pleas the Plaintiff demurred.
Mr. Sc A a [Ai supported the demurrer, in a very
able argument. He stated, that the words charged
in the declaration were : .4 that he the Defendant
caused it to be believed that the Plaintiff had com-
mitted an unnatural crime, and that he was wholly
unfit for the society of man." He had been pro-
posed as a member of a'Society of Engravers; and
the Defendant further declared, 4, that his charaAer
was sn infamous, that it was an insult to the Society
to propose such a man ;" he continued, .. I will
pursue and hunt him through the world ; and if his
name is enrolled in the Royal Academy, I will have
him dismissed, and will not leave a stone unturned
to publish his infamy. Delicacy forbids me stating
the particulars, which were conveyed to me by a
child of nine years old." The Defendant had
pleaded a justification, by which he stated. th at
Joseph K. Meadows, a boy of nine years old, did
tell him sn. The Learned Counsel contended, that
he could not justify, in the first place, as he did not
give the name of the author of the slander, when he
first spoke the words ; and, in the next place, he
had aelcsl and propagated those words upon his own
authority, thereby giving credit to the report.
Mr. Braeowts, in support of ilia plea, contended
that the declaration was bad ; in as much as it was
absolutely necessary to state, that the words were
nut true; that the charge, independent of the ins-
redo (of which there was none), was not aaionable ;
and further, that the words were not altienable, as
they did not point to a certain crime.

Lord Ekkcesosovnit.--.. This is a demurrer to
certain pleas ; and it is contended, that the count in
the declaration does not charge a certain crime,
and that it is unassisted by an 'amend°. The only
question is, whether, in the plain and uhviimi t-ense
and meaning of the words, thc crime may be im-
plied ? could any bye-stander hear them made use ot,
and not infer the real meaning ? I think the jostiti-

cation insufficient, and toe Plaintiff is entitled to
judgment."
Mr. Justice Gaon thought it impossible that any
man could cl,.ubt the true meaning of the words.
Mr. Justice I. tVRENCE said, he remembered a
case, when a man was indided for cutting another's
head in two ; one half fell upon one shoulder, and
the other on the opposite. It was there contended,
that the declaration WAS had, in not haviaz stated
that the man was killed. In this case, if the under-
standing of man was not perverted entirely, the
crime must be imputed from the words ; they could
put no other explanation on them, different from
their cornmeal acceptation.
Mr. Justice Le BLANC entirely agreed with his
brethren, and the Court pronounced the pleas in-
sufficient.

WYNNE V. RAIKES AND CO,

This was an action on a Bill of Exchange for
5001: and a Verdi& was found for the Plaintiff.

The cause was tried last Sittings, and was nearly
as follows : the Defendants were the known
agents of Mr. Aguilla Brown, residing at Bal-
timore, in America, who was in the constant
habit of drawing upon these Defendants ; on the
2d of January 1802, he transmitted bills to the
amsunt of 50001. to be accepted by the Defend-
ants, among which was the bill in question. NVhen
presented for acceptance by the Plaintiff as the
holder, the Defendants refused to accept, alleging,
that some derangement had taken place in the affairs
of a party who was to give them provision for those
acceptances, and until the? should have provision in
hands, they would not holiour the bills. Some time
after Messrs. Raikes and Co. wrote to the drawer,
that they would accept and pay all those bills. This
letter was delayed in the passage, and the Plaintiff
had no intimation of the intention to Accept and pay
the bills until after it had arrit-ed at maturity.
Upon those grounds the Defendants contended they
had no right to pay the bill, and a case was made
at the trial for the consideration of the Court.

The question was whether the Plaintiff had a
right to recover the bill against the Defendants,
they having first refused to accept, and the promise
of payment not being communicated till after the
bill strived at maturity ?
Mr. LITTLEDALES, on the part of the Plaintiff,
contended, that the acknowledgment of the receipt
of the bills, and the promise to accept and pay
them, was sufficient to bind the Defendants at any
time. He cited many cases to shew, that, to consti-
tute an acceptance, it was not necessary that the
name should be put upon the bill, a promise of pay-
ment was a sufficient acceptance.
Mr. Pu LEN, on the part of the Defendants, con-
tended, that it did not amount to an acceptance ;
there were a direst refusal, as well as promise ; the
latter had not been communicated to the holder, till
after the absolute refusal to accept had been given ;
that promise was only made to the drawer, on con-
dition that, when there should be funds in their
hands, they would accept ; and lastly, he contend-
ed, that a promise, amounting to an acceptance,
mast go so far as to reduce third persons to take the
bill ; and, therefore, whatever might be the riglA
of the drawer to recover, the holders had none un-
der such circumstances.

Lord EL LLNUOKOSIGH•-•" A refusal to accept,
but a promise to pay, is surely an acceptance, and
operates to the interest of all parties concerned. It
is for the benefit of commerce, that persons should
be strialy held to what they write or promise, on
those sublets. It has been long held, that an ac-
ceptance °nal made, cannot be retraced ; this has
been bid down by my Lord Mansfield, upon the
best authorities."

Its Lordship then expressed a wish, that the
question might be shaped in a case for a special ver-

Mr. ERSKINE, on the part of the defence, ex-
pressed, with great deference, his doub•s upon this
case : he said, he should never presume to put his
opinion in competition with their Lordships ; but as
they had not yet given judgment upon it, he took
leave to observe, it WAS a case of very great mo-
ment, and well worthy their Lordships' deliberate
consideration. He admitted, Lord MANSFLELD was
a great man, and a great lawyer; but in quoting
the opinions of those great men, people were some-
times led into an idolatrous persuasion of their in-
falibilit y.
The Court then ordered the cause to stand over,
until they should look into the several authorities,
reported upon this question.
Mr. ERSKINE moved for a Rule to chew cause,
why a warrant of Attorney should not be delivered
up to Mr. May, in order that the same might be
cancelled ; the condition of it having been fulfilled
on the part of Mr. May. Mr. May had entered into
an engagement with Messrs. Hartsink, Playfair, and
Co. in 8,0001. to cash all their bills to that amount,
for the term of seven years. The latter, soon after,
were embarrassed, and applied the money they re-
ceived, otherwise than in the payment of their bills ;
they afterwards became bankrupts, and May had to
pay the outstanding hills; so that, instead of being
any way deficient in his part of the contrail, there
WAS a large balance due to him ; and having fulfil-
led all the covenants of the warrant, it became void.
The Court granted a Rule to shew cause.
Mr. Glass applied for a writ of mandamus to be
direaed to one Thomas Hughes, requiring him to
declare why he claimed to be admitted as a freeman
of the borough of Carmarthen. This, he stated,
was one of the cases of a colon, able conveyance
—Rule Nisi granted.

COMMON PLEAS.

THOMPSON V. GRACE.

Serjeant BEST moved the conditional Rule for a
new trial granted in this case should be made abso-
lute: it was an attion on a policy of insurance
against Ole Underwriters, for the amonnt of the
vessel called the Grd Ndsus, which toundered and
sunk on her voyage from Oporto; the defence set
up by the Underwriters was, that the vessel was
not sea worthy when she sailed from Oporto.
Serjeants BAIL Y and SHEPHERD opposed the
Rule being made absolute ; stating, that at the
time this aelion was brought, there were three other
adions of the same nature depending ; the parties
in these aaiiins agreed to wait the event of Thornp-
son and Grace, and to abide by it; accordingly it
was tried last Term, and the Plaintiff obtained a
Verditt ; two of the three aaions were settled cc-
cinding to that verdict; in this the Learned Ser.


. -

ME.1i..........

PMFvf,"!..•••'- •

•
[ jeants argued, that the parties in the other a!tions
being bound by that ver.liCf, it in some mea.are
bound the parties iii this ad'on to abilk; by it also,
;I'he Chu it r thought th.. partiei l:1 the o:he
aCtions were not bound by the event of this ; bat,
that if on a re-hearing, the Verdiet was reverse
the settlements in the tither anions should be resf
versed also. Rule made absolute.
ZING V. ANDREW BRANDON.
Serjeant BEst moved that a liodens corpus An
be granted to bring up the body of Jane Knee, anti
infant : her mother had placed her with Philip and
Harrint Le k'evre, who agree I to keep her for the
sum of eight shillings a week: the had remain
aal
there for sometime, when her reputed father, Alex
ander Brandon, found means to take her from under
their possession, and placed her with his cousin, '
Andrew Brandon. The mother, on missing her
child, went to the father and demanded that she
might be permitted to see the child ; she was tole,
by him that she might see her whenever she pleased,,
and that she was living with Andrew Brandon, id
Susannah-row, White Chapel. She went there A':.•
cordingly, but Andrew Brandon totally refused give
ing up the child to her, or even so much as to let her',
see it. ' •
Sir JAMES M s ssr mils having asked was there
any case concerning a natural .1111.1, the case of thin
King against Soper was cited, where the reputes' -
father having got possession of the child, an habeas
COI*IIIII was applied for, and it was adjudged dui ii
mother should have the care of the child.—Granted.'
SARROW r. READ.
Serjeant SHEPHERD moved to chew cause against
a conditional Rule, obtained by Serjeant Bur, on
Thursday last.
..
Serjeant SHEPHERD opposed that motion, mi:
grounsled his opposition on an alleged contradittion
in the affidavits sworn on the part of Mrs. Read, and,
on affidavits sworn by Mr. Barrow, and his attor-
ney, Mr. Cockayne.
Serjea:e. Bcsr then moved, that the matter should
be referred to the Prothonotary, to enquire wheel
sum was advanced.
It was so ordered by the Ccurt, and that Mrs"
Read should pay all the costs, as between atturnet
and client, if found to be in the wrong.