The Sun.
London, England, 1803-01-28 00:00:00

GLASSINGTON eV. RAWLINS AND ANOTHER.

This was an aflion at the suit of Thomas P.
Glassington, against Messrs. Rawlins and Cox, the
late Sheriffs of the County of Middlesex, for tres-
pass and unjUstly,taking what were alledged to be
the goods of
.the Plaintiff, in an execution issued
against the goods of a person of the name of
Dickie, who carried on the business of a ,Stationer
near Exeter 'Change, in the Strand ; Glassington
alledging that the goods belonged to him as Assig_
nee 01 the estate and effeds of Dickie. The cause
wa's tried before Mr. Justice LAWRENCE, at the
Sittings after the last Term in Westminster.hall,
when the Plaintiff was nonsuited, because it ap.
peared, in the apprehension of the Learned Judge,
that the. ad of bankruptcy of Dickie was not
proved: The ad of bankruptcy relied on was that
of Dickie having remained in Newgate two months
fir debt: He now moved this upon a point which
ought to have struck him and his Learned Friends
who ive.ie with him at the trial, namely, that
Dickie aaually had lain two months •in prison for
debt before the commission was issued, and that
therefore the as cf bankruptcy was made out in
that respell. The ha, he said, was, that • Dickie
was arrested on the r+th of °dotter, 1801, and
the commission did ,not issue until the grh of De.
cember following, which was 57 days, the one in.
elusive, and the other exclusive, and this was suffi-
cient, for months in law are always lunar months,
unless in cases stated to the contrary by statute,
and two lunar months were only. 56 days, so that
Upon this point the nonsuit was wrong,
Mr. Justice LAWRENCE said,. that although the
Nonsuit proceeded on the evidence not having made
out that the Party had lain in prison two months
at the time of suing out the Commission,. the Case
presented other difficulties to the Plaintiff ; one of
them was, that there was not sufficient proof of the
amountoll.the Petitioning Creditor's debt, and that
would, have been another reason • for a Nonsuit.
However, if this point had been mistaken, the
better course would be to grant a Rule to skew
Cause.

Mr. GARROW said, that many things would ap_
pear upon the report of the Learned Judge, before
whom this Cause came on, to which he should here-
after call the attention of the Court, particularly a
little blue book exhibited to endeavour to make out
the Plaintiff's Case—not that he was very anxious
against a new trial being had in tltis Cause :--he had
obtained two Nonsuits in it already ; and such was
the nature of this Case, that he was confident, he
should go on nonsuiting the Plaintiff to the end
of the chapter.-:-Rule to chew Cause granted.

Mr. PARK moved for a Mandamus calling on the
Archbishop of York
.to swear in Thomas Clark, of
the Parish of Desby, in the County and Province of
York, to the office of Parish Clerk, to which he
had been appointed by the Vicar. The Parish had
contested the nomination with the Vicar, and had
entered a Caveat against this person being sworn in,
and that was the reason why the Officer of the
Archbishop had declined to swear him i.i ; whereas,
he now maintained, on behait of the Vicar, that it
appeared by the current praftice for a century, that
the right of notnination.was not in the Parish, but
in the Vicar. Probably the Parties might take
Issue upon the custom, and ultimately go before a
Jury ; id the mean time he hoped the Court would
grant the Mandamus, as he had stated the custom
from an Affidavit, &c.—Granted;

LYONS W. WARE.

Mr. ERSKINE moved for a Rule to JIM Cause
why the Nunsuit in this Case should not be set
Asidq, and a new Trial had. The question, he ad-
mitted, had a difficulty in it on his part. It was a
question, whether one Partner can execute a deed
lor the other three, without the presence and assent
of them all which, it was maintained, he could
not, unless there was a Power of Attorney given by
the other to that one Partner for that purpose.
Now theft was nothing of that kind of Power in
this Case.

Lord ELIANHORoUGH said, that this question
was set entirely at rest in the Case of Harrison and
Rushiwarth,in the Seventh Term Reports.
Mr. F.ISICINE said, he not dispute the Rule
of Law, that one man cannot bind another by obli_
gation under seal, without a Power of Attorney for
that purpose, executed likewise under seal, .nor was
he prepared to say, that one Partner could bind
another without his leave, in any thing that .svaa not
within the fair scope of the Partnership.-;—bnt
that he could, as had been held in many instances,
so that the aft done was within the fair .scope of.
Commerce. It would be extremely difficult, and in
some cases perhaps impossible, to carry on business
.in the commercial world, -particularly in its present
state, if this were not so.. There was no doubt
upon earth that one Partner might hire a ship on his
own account, and jointly with his Partners; and if
he did not put his seal to the Charter-party, no doubt
hii agreement to hire the ship would be as binding
on the other Paltners, as on the individual. who
entered into it. Now, the present Case was this:
One of the Defendants was resident in 'ttigland,
and had executed a Charter party of alfreightment
of a ship for himself anti the rest, of the Firth of the
House, the other Partners being abroad.—On which
the Plaintiff watt nonsuited, because hiS Lordship
held, that the Charter-party was not binding ; for
being a deed under seal, one of the Partners could
not execute it for the rest, unless he had a Power of
Attorney frOm the rest. The only question was,
if it'was a question, how far a Charter,party of
Affreightment, as an instrument of mere commer-
cial purposes, could be considered as an exception to
site general Rule of Law, which says, that one
Partner cannot by deed under seal 'bind another
Partner, unless expressly empowered so to do by.
Deed also under seal ?

Lad ELLSLISOKOVGH said, be 4110414 be tery

. -
glad in this ease to make it an exception to t!,4,..
general rule, b(.::atise that would he very convenient
‘0 commerce ; but after the decision of the Lae et-
Harrion and Rushworth, there could be no doul
upon it, for there was no distiOtion made on .oty
account ; no mart could bind another by deed under
seal, for any purpose, without especial specific po,vei.
under seal for that purpose from such rron, ex-
cept in the case of a Corporation,. in 'which t,lie
common seal was binding on the body corporate..
He was bound to say this, because in the case 11..1
had just quoted, Lord KENYON, in giving judg
menr, had said, that there was no doubt upon the mat
ter, that the point was reserved more from the anxietl,
of the parties than from any difficulty in the question
itself. There was no distinction in the pre ie';',t
case from that which had been determined, cxecto:
that the Defendant here, who executed the
party, had made an admission of the prOpritty of
the deed, and said no advantage should be taken
by their house ; but that could ton vary the :oat::
of the Lin, nor give him legal power where he had
it not befure:—Motion refused.