The National Register.
London, England, 1812-01-12 00:00:00

no

they were then ready to make it—aud to know if the At-
torney-General was ready to receive them for that purpose.
This course was accordingly adopted.
•« mt. Grattan and Mr. Fitzgerald accordingly waited
on the Attorney-General on Saturday last, and stated the
object of their visit.—Mr. Attorney-General was not then
ready to receive the communication ! We understand
that he asked if there were any informations on oath, and
recommended to Lord Fingal and the other Gentlemen to
go before a Police Magistrate, and give their information
to him—said, that the usual way was to go before a Magis-
trate,. and did not seem to think it at all necessat y to see
the Catholic gentlemen himself !
We -understand that theAttorney-General was strongly
pressed to receive the communication, and submit it to the
Irish Government ; that he asked, whether the Gentlemen
meant to conic to him as a Committee; to which the
Knight of Kerry replied, No, Sir, they will wait on
you merely as individuals."
At length, the Attorney-General appointed the hour
of twelve on Monday, the Gth, at Mr. Pole's Office, in
the Caste, for receiving the communication. He said, he
wanted to go to his country seat, and supposed there
could be no danger in the mean time !
'The Earl of Fingal, Major Bryan, and Mr. O'Con-
nell, were appointed to go to Mr. Pole's Office at that
lour. They did so accordingly, and were accompanied
by Mr. O'Gorman. We understand that they gave a brief
statement of the confession made by the Schoolmaster—
gave in his name, and the names and residences of some
of the Trustees who were witnesses to that confession ;
and also some printed papers belonging to this Associa-
tion. They were received by the Attorney-General and
Mr. Pole with ceremonious politeness, and, having made
their communication, withdrew, leaving it to the Govern-

ment to act as they should think fit.
We have heard, too, that the Attorney-General offered
some excuse for postponing the meeting from Saturday to
Monday. He said he had, on second thoughts, written
•to Mr. Gramm, to say that he would be glad to see Lord
Fingal on Sunday ; but as Mr. Grattan had returned to
his house in the country, the letter had followed him
there, where Mr. Grattan had written in answer, that the
matter did not press.
• Lord FINCAL replied, Mr. Attorney-General, tue felt
Mat it Tressed on us to make the communication as speedily
as possible.' "

THE NATIONAL,REGISTER.

SATURDAY,JAN.IL

JAN. Yr>.

LAW REPORT.

COURT OF KING'S GUILDHALL.

THACKORAII V. 131:1t10ETT.

This was an action upon two Bills of Exchange, amounting to near
30001. brought by the indorser against the draw. r.
The defendant was the age nt eef .% essr,. 'rett:in and Co. Merchants
of London, residing at Newcastle-upon-Tvne, and had been in the habit
of drawing Bills upon them for their accommodation. Thi: BiH in
question were accepted by Messrs. Preston and Co, and one of rile part-
ners of the house carried them to the plaintiff (sell, resided atl3ci‘t•sn),
!requesting he would discount them for the ace rn ocidai ion o. the drawer,
13erkett. The
_plaintiff gave him checques on his Bankers fir sell,
amount of the Bills, upon condition that du- money should be reran ned
on the following Saturday ie'nnitzlit. When that day came the plaint:ll
demande ! his advance hack, but Preston and Co. not being preiiiired to
pay it he returned the Bills, insisting on ' icing pad without delay. In
the mean time, and just as the Eills were fallirg due, Messrs. Preston's
became insolvent, and the day before their insolvency was deciared, one
of the partners destroyed the Bills in question, through mistake, ion
with others, and the money never was paid to the plaintiff. Notice of;
the non-payment, at the time the Bills shiiuld become due, w... given
to the acceptors, Messrs. Preston, but not to the delendant, the
drawer.

The Attorney-Genera!, for the plaintiff, contended, that notice to the
drawer was not necessary, inasmuch as theses were ace( ntinodation
and there was no prod of any assets in the hands of th dr.twer
belonging to the acceptor at the time the bill- became due. But it ap-
peared that both at the time of making the bills, and, when they be-
came clue, the defendant was a creditor of Messrs. Preston, oo
lance of account, but in a much less sum than the amount of the hilt,.

Upon this Lord ELLENBOROUGH held, that notwithstandirg the
amount of the bills was much beyond the balance of accfamt, y, t, as
there was an existing balance on an unsettled account at the time they
became due, the defendant was entitled to have notice of the norpay-
ment.—His Lordship therefore directed the plaintiff should be nun-
suited.

The next case was between the same ?arties, and brought by Thi-k-
-orah, the plaintiff, against Berkett, upoi the statute of William 111.
for refusing to give new hills of acceptance (the former being des!ro!,:ed,
as already mentioned), upon his (the plaintiff's) tendering the ustz.;l in-
demnity, pursuant to the statute. But it appearing that the wor,ls of
the statute were " bill or bills lest or miscarried," httt not extending to
bills destro rd, it was agreed to withdraw the case for the I.resetr.;—it
being the intention of the plaintiff to move the Court to set aside th,2
nonsuit in the former case, upon the grounds that notice to the drawer
of an accommodation-bill was not necessary.

in the above Court, on Tuesday, an action came on, at the suit of the
University. of Cambridge v. Dryer, as the publisher of Mr. Fcx's Histo-
rical Work, for not having delivered a cipy of that hook fur !he u-,e,
the University, pursuant to the statute of Anne. There was no di,pute
as to the facts—and the plaintiff's took a verdict for 61. 64. the pric• of the
work, subject to a case for th- future consideration of the Court, wht.
ther the payment of the copies of every work to the English arid Irish
Universities could he enforced--since, in the cases at the Encyclopedias,
and books of that magnitUde, the expellee would be enormous.