The Sun.
London, England, 1822-09-10 00:00:00

. .
INTELLIGENCE.

Doubts having
,arisen whether the Act of Par-
liament which prohibits an intercourse between
St. Domingo and Jamaica. was repealed by the
Art of last Session, opening the trade of the Bri-
tish Colonies to foreign countries, the following
correspondence on the subject has taken place
between the Lords of Trade and the Ship Own-
ers' Society :

Ship Owners Society, Aug. 13, 1822.
St hare been,requested by the Committee of the Society
of Ship-owners to state to you, with a request that you will b.,
pleased to represent to their Lordships, that a very general im-
pression appears to prevail among ship-owners, that under the
Act 3 Geo. IV.,cap. 44, an intercourseis permitted between the
islands of St. Domingy.aiid•Jamaica, which it is feared ray be
productive of very serious consequences, as vessels which liava
gone to St: Domingo without procuring cargoes, may proceed
down to the free ports in Jamaica in quest of freight, and be-
come liable to the penalties of the 52 Geo. 111., cap. 355-sect. I.
The Ship-owners' Committee presume, that 3 Ge0..1V., cap.
44, repeals only the acts of regulation therein enumerated, and
consequently that the act 52 Geo. 111., cap. 35, prohibiting in.
tercourse between Jamaica and St. Domingo, remains in force
and they will take such means as are In their •power, to un-
deceive those owners, or. masters of ships, who may have
misconceived the enactments of the. new act ;• but as the
Committee fear that any measures-. which they can adopt will
not be completely effectual, they wish-to submit for .the con-
sideration of their Lordships, whether, they may not think it
right to recommend that instructions should go from Earl
Bathurst, to the Governor of Jamaica; from the Lords of the
Admiralty, to the Admiral on that station ; and. tiom the
Lords of the Treasury, to the officers of the Customs, instruct-
ing to abstain from presecuting-any vessel, the Master of which
may, through misconception cia, the said-,act, and without the
most remote intention of violating the spirit of it, have pro-
ceeded from St. Domingo to Jamaica, as without such direc-
tions be given, it is greatly. to be feared that some vessels may
be seized and condemned, to the serious loss or ruin of the
owners, notwithstanding that the Lordaof the Treasury may,
upon having the circumstances brought befOre them, eventually
direct the restitution of the proceeds of theship and cargo.
I have the honour to be, &c.
• (Signed) J. W. BUCKLE, Chairman.
Thomas Lack, Esq.

Office of Committee of Privy Council for Trade,
- ' Whitehall, August 17. •
Sint—l-laving laid before the Lords of the Committee of Privy
Council for Trade, your letter. of the 13th instant, on the subject
of the intercourse between Jamaica and St. -Domingo, 1 am
directed ta.acquaint you, -that their Lordships do not conceive
that it was the intention of the Legislature (certainly it was not
of his Majesty's Government in framing the Bill) to repeal the
Act of the 52d Geo. III:.85, although it may perhaps be in-
ferred from the general terms of-see. 3of the Act of 3 Geo. IV.,
c. 24 that the intercourse prohibited by the former Act-was allow-
ed by the Act of last session : considermg,.hoWever, that the first
clause of the new law repeals specifically•certain Acts therein
enumerated, in Which enumeration the 52d Geo. 35, is
notincluded, the Lords of this Committee apprehend that the
just inference would be,- that -this Act is not to be taken to be
repealed ; but, as a contrary impression may have prevailed,
and may lead to serious embarrassment and .loss to innocent.
parties, if it should be acted upon,, and the vessels be subse-
quently seized, their Lordships will take the steps suggested
by the Society of ShiP-owners, in order to obviate "any such
losses.

I am, Sir, your most obedient humble servant,
{Signed) TIIOMAS LACK.
John William Bucklie,.Esq., &c.

BILLS OF EXCHANGE.

DECREE OF THE ROYAL. COURT OF PARIS.

On an appeal .by the Sieur ,FARROUILLE, in
respect to a judgment given against him in the cause between
him, Farrouille, the holder, Desprez, the orderer ( dormeur
d'ordre ). Steinman and Fort, the drawers, and G. Dammeme,
the acceptor of bills exchange drawn by order and for the ac-
count of a third party,
The Court deciding on the different appeals—
In what concerns the appeal of Farrouille,
Considering that article 140 of the commercial code gives the
holder of a bill of exchange an action, for the amount only,
against the drawer, acceptor, and the indorsers, to which articie
142 merely.adds the guarantee ; .
Considering that the action to which the drawer and the ac-
ceptor is entitled against the orderer for making provision, re-
sults with respect to the former only from the contract of com-
mis-sioh, and with respect to the latter, only from the contract
of order to draw, to-both of which contracts the holder is alien.
In what concerns the appeal of the Syndics Desprez ;
Considering that the drawer has his claim with regard to the
bankruptcy of Despret, on account of the remittance made to
the said Desprez of the sum received from the Verson who fur-
nished the value, and who now has his recourse against him,
the drawer; and that the acceptor has his recourse in the obli-
gation by which the orderer is bound to make provision for the
bill, and consequently to keep him safe with respect to a third
party or holder. •
In what concerns the subsidiary appeal of the Syndics Stein-
man and Fort, seeing that on the grounds above stated the said
appeal ceases to have any interest.
Has made and makes void the appeal; orders that what is
appealed against shall have full and entire effect ; and con-
demns Farrouille and. the Syndics Desprez in damages.
On the subsidiary appeal of the said Steinman end Fort, also
,on the other demands, claims, and conclusions of the parties.
Puts them out. of Court ; orders the restitution of the pe-.
nalty consigned on the said subsidiary appeal ; and condemns
:Farrouille and the Desprez each respectively in payment of
their expences.
It results from this decision, that the orderer having no con-
tract viith the holder of the bill, a simple contract of order to
draw exists betwecn him (the orderer) and the drawer; hence
it follows, that the holder can have no direct action against
the orderer, resulting from an agreement; and that he can
have no
.action against him but by the usual course of law.
The principle on which•this,law is established is that—
He who has not signed, or caused to be sig ,ed by prewar:.
tion,.a contract, cannot be bonnd by such contract.
Bankers and merchants are in general of opinion the t the
receiver of a bill of exchange obtains at the moment in which
he purchases such bill, the guarantee of the drawer, and after-
wards that of the drawer if he accept the bill ; but that
Leyond those guarantees, nothingis promised to him ; that he has
required and can require no more; in the same manner as he
transmits and can transmit nothing more; that he who next takes
the bill of exchange, and thereby becomes the hohier, does not
then rely, nor can rely except upon the rights acquired by the
purchaser who ceded the bill to him, and who adds his guaran-
tee by the act of indorsement.