The Sun.
London, England, 1838-11-06 00:00:00

VICE-CHANCERY.-(THIS DAY.)

His HONOUR, after disposing of several unopposed petitions,
proceeded to hear motions.

QUEEN'S BENCH.--(TillS DAY.)

ROTHSCHILD V. CURRIE.

Sir F. POLLOCK moved it, this case; which was tried before
Lord Denman at the London Sittings after last term, verdict
for the plaintiff, for a rule to show cause why a nonsuit should
not be entered by leave of the Learned Jute. The question
turned upon chat was to be considered proper notice of an
English bill drawn in England, but upon a Paris house, and
there dishonoured. The bill was dated the 30th January,
1837, and was drawn upon the Paris house of Curmeil and
Co., in favour of the defendant. It was indorsed by the de-
fendant to the plaintiff Rothschild, and was by him transmitted
to the house of Rothschild. Brothers, at Paris. It became
due on the 30th April, which happened to be a Sunday; and,
therefore, according to the French law, and according to the
custom in England, and most mercantile countries, it became
payable on the previous Saturday. It was presented for pay-
ment on the Saturday, but dishonoured ; and no notice of the
dishonour was sent, nor any notice of the dishonour taken, till
Wednesday, although the post left Paris for London every
afternoon at five o'clock. The intimation might have been
sent on the Monday or Tuesday; and the question shortly to
be presented to their Lordships was, what was the notice to be
given in order to charge the English endorser of an English
bill which had been drawn upon, accepted, and dishonoured
in a foreign country ? Was the law of the country, when the
bill was accepted and dihonoured, to obtain with re-
ference to the notice to be given to the English resident, in
order to charge the latter, or was the English law to obtain?
He was not aware of any decision upon the subject, but there
was a strong authority in the case of Trimby v. Kelliard, 1
Bingham's Report, New Cases, page 151. Ifthe French law
was to prevail, notice need not be given for filteen days, and
in the case to which he had referred the bill was drawn in
France upon an English merchant, and there the Court de-
cided that the law of France was to prevail with reference to
the course of that bill, when the acceptor came to be charged.
All authorities on the subject agreed that the law of the
country where the bill began was to govern all the subsequent
proceedings of the parties.
The COURT granted the rule.
ROACII V. TIIE GREAT WESTERN RAILWAY COMPANY.

Sir WILLIAM FOLLETT, in this case, which was tried before
Lord Denman at the last Guildhall sitting, moved for leave to
enter a verdict for the defendant on a nonsuit. It was an
action of trotter: brought by the assignees of tno bankrupts,
named Horton and Paxton, against the Great Western Railway
Company, to recover the value of certain engines, utensils, and
timber. The pleas were not guilty, and that the goods in
question were not the property of the assignees. It appeared
that the bankrupts entered into a contract with the Com-
pany to make the box tunnel on that line of railway,
and it was proved in evidence upon the trial that the
making of the shaft of the tunnel required a great deal of at.
tention and care, and, once commenced, should be continued
to the end ; that it would be extremely ringerous, after its
commencement, to remove any portion of the works or tim.
hers. The contract, which was a very lengthy one, contained
a clause that if, from any cause, the contractors were unable:
'to complete the works, the Company were authorised, upon
notice being given, to take the works into their own hands,
and that all the fixtures, engine tools, &c., should become the
property of the Company. The plaintiff contended that the
_property in question had vested in the assignees, while it was
argued, on the other hand, that no act of bankruptcy had
taken place at the time the notice required by the contract had
been served upon the contractors.
After hearing the arguments of the Learned Counsel on
these points,
The COURT said—You may take a rule.

XCIIEQUER COURT.-(THIS DAY.)

(Sittings in Banco.)
PALMER V. THR GRAND JUNCTION RAILWAY COMPANY.
This was an action brought for the purpose of recoverin
compensation fron the defendants for damage sustained by the
plaintiffs, by their negligence in carrying horses. The action
was tried before Lord Chief Justice Tindal, at the late assizes
held at Warwick, when a verdict was found for the plaintiff'
Mr. HILL now moved for a rule nisi to enter a nonsuit, or
for a new trial. The action was brought against the Com-
pany fur negligence in carrying horses from Liverpool to Bir-
mingham. The evidence was that the horses were brought
in the evening, when they started from Liverp-^Ol. They
were travelling during the night, and about two or three
o'clock in the morning the railway train came in contact with
a horse which appeared to have strayed on the railway from a
neighbouring field, the consequence of which was that the train
was thrown off the rails, one of the horses killed, and others
injured. For the plaintiff it was
given in evidence that the
feneet of the railway were not in a proper state of repair;