The Sun.
London, England, 1823-01-28 00:00:00

of considerable length, perhaps it would be more convenient to
pospone the reading of it until the defendant be brought up for
tudAment.
The SoLICITOII. GEFFIRAL.—That course struck me as the
proper course to be pursued, but I thought fit to mention the
case during the first four days of Term.
Mr. JONES.—My Lords, I must move that the defendant
be committed.
Mr. Justice BAYLEY.—We cannot until we heal the re-
port read.
The Loan Citite. JUSTICE.—Then read his report of
the trial.
The SOLMITOR-GPNNUAL then commented at considerable
length upon the evidence :for the prosecution, and contended
that it was completely destroyed by the evidence adduced on the
part of the defendant. He also contended, that as Law had ad-
mitted himself to be a smuggler, and was at Gibson's house.
which was very near to the spot where the cargo was landed, at
half-past ten o'clock on the night of the 20th of August, his
testimony must be looked upon as suspicious.
Mr. Justice BEST. —Did Law give any reason for being a
Gibson's house on that night ?
The So ercre•on-G ENE na r..—No,my Loth. He also submit-
ted, that as the evidence of Scott, the son in law of Law, was
contradicted in one material part by two uninterested witnesses,
it ought not to have any weight with their Lordships. An-
other circumstance, which certainly attached very strong sus-
picion of guilt to Law,i was that, after considerable hesitation,
Harrison, the servant of Law, admitted that he had seen tubs
of gin at his master's house; and in addition to this there was
the evidence of a' person for the defence, who proved, that i
about this time he purchased some gin of Law. The
Learned Counsel further submitted, that the account given
by Law and his servants of Law's employment dining the
night of the 20th of August, was improbable, and in that
account the master and the servants contradicted each other.
What he had stated was sufficient to warrant the motion which
he now made ; but in order that their Lordships should feel
no hesitation in granting the Rule which he moved for, he had
procured affidavits, the contents of which he would now state to
their Lordships. On the trial Law swore that he was
ployed during the whole week previously to the 20th August
at Hambly Wood ; and that he rettimed home late on the Sa-
turday night with a load of wood. In opposition to this evi.
dence he had the affidavit of a person named Burton, ' who
swore, that during the whole month of August he was em.
ployed iu Hambly Wood ; that Law was not there during the
preceding week; that he was there once or twice in the early
part of the month of August, but that he returned each time in
the evening, and that a load of timber did not leave Trembly
Wood on the night stated by Law the prosecutor. He also had
the affidavit of another person who swore, that about five
o'clock on the morning of the 21st August (on which morning
Hogg swore he was at Pickering) he saw Hogg at 'lambi),
Wood, and that Hogg told him he was there before day-break,
as he expected some farmers to come to buy oak bark. He
had also the affidavit of another person, who swore, that on the
21st August he met Law at Pickering, and that Law told him
he (Law) was at a run on the preceding night. He had another
affidavit—
The LORI) Orrin' Jr'STICE.—Mr. Solicitor, you have
stated enuugh to induce the Court to comply with your mo-
tion. 'rake the Rule.
The Soercuroa-GErreltaL.—With respect to the defend-
fendant himself, I am ready to give bail to any amount.
The CHTEF J rerlCE.—The Court sees no objection to his
being admitted to bail t. are you ready now with your bail ?
The SOLICITOX-GEICEICAL.—Noi my Lord, but we wilt
to-morrow.
The CHIEF JOrriet.....-Then we must commit the defend-
ant until to-morrow,
Mr. Joxes.—l hope my Lord, you will require substan-
tial bail.
The CIVET JeSTlCt.—Certainly, let the defendant give
bail—himself in 500 i. and two sureties in 250 f. each.
Mr. JONEW.—Are we entitled tonotice of hail ?
The Curer JUSTICE.—Yes, to 24 hours' notice.
The defendant was then committed until to-morrow, to the
custody of the Marshal.
CRAWSKED sr. EIYZS.
Mr. MaD.RVAT7 moved to set aside the verdict in this case
for the plaintiff, and to obtain a new trial. It was an action in
trover7 against the defendant, a common carrier, for stopping a
quantity of iron in transits, width he was conveying in ma
barge by the Paddingtrer Con' to the iron-works of Messrs.
Ilornblower and Co.,
in Staffbrdshhe. When the-goods which
were sent by the plaintiff got down, it was found that Horn-
blower had abscondedt for the purpose of avoiding an extent
against him, and the defendant kerning the circumstance, took
`back to his barge part of the iron which he had landed on
Hornbloweet wharf, and detained it, not only on account of his
lien forTreight, but in compliance with an order which came to
hinr from the Assignees of Hornblower, who churned the iron
as property of the Bankrupt. The question was, whether there
bad been a delivery of the goods by Eaves the carrier, which
vested the iron in Horriblower and Co., and made the plaintiff
a creditor under the commission.
Mr. MARRY AT?, in support of hie motion, contended-Vat.
the delivery of a part of the gbods was a delivery of the whole,
and that Eaves had no right in law to take back the iron after
there had been a delivery, as a lien for freight.
The Court were of opinion there had riot been such a delivery
in this case as would vest the Iron in •Hornblower's assignees.
They also held that the partial delivery did not take it from the
possession of Eaves, or deprive him of his lien for freight. Un.
til the whole was delivered no part could be taken from the
carrier.--Rule refused.

MILNE v. GRAHAM.
This was an action on a promissory note drawn in Scotland.
The amount was 4901. and the Jury found a verdict for the
plaintiff.
Mr. CHITTY this day moved to set aside the verdict, and
enter a nonsuit, on the ground that the note which had been
drawn in Scotland was not recoverable in England uncles the
provisions of the statutes of the ad and 4th of Anne. He
said he was to contend that a plaintiff could only recover
upon promissory notes and bills of exchange drawn in Eng-
land.
The Loan CUIEr JUSTICE asked if there was any thing
in the above statutes which confined actions to notes made in
England. The practice was to bring actions on bills made in.
France.
Mr. Justice 110LROYD—The object of the Statute was to
put all promissory notes on a footing with inland bills of ex-
change.
Mr. CHITTY said some doubts had arisen on the point then
before the Court ; and it was important it should be ,settled.
Judge BEsT.—After a practice has been established it is im-
portant, it should not be unsettled.
The Lour) CniEr JUITICE.—I do not find the statute of
Anne is confined to notes made in. England, and therefore I do
not know why it should not now have that narrow scope.
Judge liusT.—Thit it a remedial act for the benefit of trade,
end should receive the largest possible construction. There is
nothing to make this promissory note differ from bills made in
England.-:Rule refused.