The British Press; or, Morning Literary Advertiser.
London, England, 1826-06-13 00:00:00

TO3ILINSON V. THE PARISH OP TIETBRIDGE.

This was an action brought by the plaintiff' who is a surgeon
residing in the parish of St. Mary Maldon, to recover from the
overseers of the poor of the parish of Ilcybridge the amount of his
charges for medicine supplied by him to a poor woman who had
met with an accident in Heybridge, and was removed by the con-
stable of that place into the adjoining parish of St. Mary Maldon.
The Jury, at the trial, gave a verdict for the plaintiff,
On a former day of this term, Mr. Nolan obtained a rule Nisi to
set aside the verdict and enter a nonsuit, upon the ground that die
liability to relieve, or render assistance to casual poor, attached only
to that parish in which the pauper should be, and where the expense
was incurred, and not to the parish in which the accident hap-
pened.
Mr. Gunn EY and Mr. CrirTTT now sheaved cause against the
rule. and Mr. NOLAN argued in support of it.
The Loan CHIEF JUSTICE thought that the rule ought to be
discharged. According to the authority of the case, '• The King
against the inhabitants of St. James, at Mary St. Edmund's," if
the parish of Ileybridge had taken the poor woman in, and had
administered relief to her, it would not have been competent fur
them to have treated her as an individual liable to be removed to
her own parish by an order of the Magistrate, to be suspended until
she ass in a state fit to be removed. If therefore she had been
taken into any house by the parish officers of Hey bridge. they would
have been under a legal as well as a moral obligation to provide
her with the necessary medical and other assistance. It appeared
to him that the removing her from their own parish to another.did
not relieve them from that ',litigation ; but that they were still as
liable to it as they would have been if they had retained her in their
own parish, and rendered her the asaistance she required. He was
therefore of opinion that the verdict was right, and that the rule for
setting it aside ought to be discharged.
Mr. Justice BAYLEY thought the; verdict 'forfeit. It was of
the greatest importance that it should be known by all persons, in
eases of this nature, upon whom it was that the legal liability at-
tached. It would be highly prejudicial to the interests of the
community, and to the rights of the poor, that whenever an acci-
dent should !molten, thequ'ation should be agitated, or even pass,
in the minds of those persons in whose parish the pauper was by ne-
cessity placed, to consider whether the burden of rendering relief
was to be borne by them, or whether, by any contrivance, it could
be shifted upon other shoulders. The cons, quence might be, that
unless the law stated on what party the obligation should fall, the
life of the pauper would be risked by a removal to a distance. In
the case of Lamb v. Bounce. 4 Mawle and Selwyn, which had been
relied upon by Air. Nolan, Lord Ellenborough spoke not of a mo-
ral, but of a legal, obligation. In cases or this description, he
said, it could not be a matter of dispute, in point of law, on whom
the obligation rested ; and he wished it to be understood, that where
any delay would necessarily be attended with danger, the law
raised an obligation against the parish where the party should
be taken sick, to relieve him and to supply his necessities. There-
fore, founded upon that authority, his (Mr. Justice Bayley's) opi-
nion was, that in this rase the law raised a legal obligation upon the
parish officers of Hey bridge to give this woman relief. Lord El-
lenborough had also said, that if the parish officers stood by and
SAW the duty performed by the surgeon, and did not make any ob-
jection at the time, the law would raise a promise on their part to
pay the expenses. Now, when the officers knew that there existed
an indispensable necessity that relief should be administered, it
seemed to him (Mr. Justice Bayley) to be exactly the same thing
as if they had stood by and authorized the act. Jn addition to the
care of Lamb r. Bounce, there was a subsequent one of Jennett v.
Tomkins—Dowling and Ryland's Rep.,541--from which itseemed
to him that it might be inferred that the law cast an obligation on
the parish in which the accident happened. The action was there
brought against the officers of the parish to which the pauper be-
longed; and this Court intimated a very strong feeling that the
action was not properly brought. Under all the circumstances of
this case. therefore, he was of opinion, that the rule ought to be
,discharged.
Mr. Justice HOLROYD and Mr. Justice LITTLEDALE Con-
curred.
Rule diseharged.
Tilt KING V. BENNETT ANT) OTHERS.

The Linn Cn lEF JUSTICE said, this was a rule obtained by
the Atiorney-General against the defendants, Justicetand officers
of the borough of Falvey, in Cornwall, calling on them to slim
cause why a criminal information should not be filed against them
for certain alleged malpractices in their several offices. Their
Lordships had read the affidavits on both sides, and they were of
opinion that the rule ought to be made absolute as to four of the
defendants. namely—Bennett, Giles, Congdon, and Jordan ; and
that it should be discharged as to Ephraim Robins.

COURT OF COMMON PLEAS, MONDAY, Juxz 12.

FAIRLY V. HERRING AND OTIIERS.

This was an action tried at Westminster in the sittings after
Easter Term. and brought by the plaintiff, as holder of bills of
exchange to the amount of 11.0001. The defendants were the pro-
prietors of certain mines in America, and appointed a person named
Morley as their agent. This individual appointed a lllr. Hexter
u sub-agent,who, wanting funds to improve and continue working
the mines, received authority from the defendants' agent to draw
bills upon them, which he did accordingly. The defendants sub-
sequently sold the mines to the Mexican Mining Company, who
proposed taking up the bills. The defendants, however, objected
to this, conceiving that it would injure their credit to have bills
drawn upon their house taken up by another party. Mr. Morley,
their agent, therefore advanced to the defendants, on behalf of the
Company, the necessary fonds for taking up the biils. The bills
were dishonoured, and protested by the plaintiff. One of the tie.
fendants, on being informed of this by Morley, said, " Sir!
are they not paid? They ought to be !paid ; we have received the
money fog them." On being subsequently applied to, they de-
clined taking them up till they had settled some accounts with their
sub-agent in America. The defence set up was, that the words
used did not amount to an acceptance of the bills, and that if they
did, the plaintiff was estopped by having protested them. The
Jury found that the plaintiff prote:ted the bills, being ignorant of
the fact of the defendants having accepted them; and a verdict was
entered for the plaintiff, with leave to move for a nonsuit.
Mr. Sergeant %WILDE accordingly moved on a previous day for
a rule Nisi, when the Court made a case of it for special argument.
'lr. Sergeant STANKI t: now contended that the plaintiff was en-
titled to recover, on the ground of parole acceptance. at.d cited the
case of Lumley and Palmer, Strange, WOO, in support of his argu-
ment.

Mr. Sergeant WatnE, on the part of the defendants, contended
that if there had been a promise, it was nos made to the drawer of
the bills: and that it was laid down in numerous cases, that a per-
son could not recover on parole acceptsnce, after having protested a
bill.

The Loon CHIEF JVSTICE said, looking at the facts of the
case, he considered, both in point of justice sold law, the plaintiff
was entitled ter recover. The defendants, in the arrangement they
had made with the Mexican Mining Company, had been benefited
by the outlay of the money which was the cause of the present
action. The Company, too, had advanced them money for the ex-
pu.:ss purpose of taking up these bills. Mr.-Sergeant Wilde had
contended that the promise was not made to the drawer, and that
the plaintiff was ignorant of the promise ; but if a man took a bill,
he took it with all the advantage such bill might portent, though
he were ignorant of the fact. The tulvantage, whatever it might
be, teaselled with the contract, and the plaintiff had a right to avail
himself of it. If a man andert•.uk an acceptance, he undertook to
pay ; if he undertook for the formal parts, he undertook in point
of law far the substance. The then, was entitled to re-
cover in point of law, and he thought no human being would say
that he was not equally entitled in point of justice.
The other Judges concurred with the Lotd Chief Justice.
Rule discharged.
BLUM V. WELLESLET.
Mr. Sergeant Srasixta, for the defendant, obtained a rule to
postpone the trial of this cause till the sittings aAer next Al ichad-
mas Term, on account of the absence of a material witness on the
Continent.

TRUTH, A NOV 1.: L.—Although events of a description
narrated in this production are probably of not very unfrequent
occurrence, they have rarely, if ever before, appeared in print.—
The heroine, Evanshaw is • young, accomplished, and Vir-
tuous heiress, who, having been rigidly treated by a puritanical
mmhe r, imbibes opinions adv:rse to those of her family. She is in
consequence driven from her home, loses her paternal property, and
sullas a series of persecutions, under which nothing but the firm-
ness and self-respect arising from her conviction of the truth of
'her sentiments could have supported her. From this sketch, it will
at once be perceived that the novel is written in a spirit very (lir-
, fercnt front that of eudebs or Tremaine. The admirers of the
orthodox works have, however, no reason to complain of the fair-
mu of their adve•sary's argument.