The Sun.
London, England, 1804-01-31 00:00:00

ag t•rule that the ranker anti his etApl.9yer were t,-
ht considered as one and the same person, negli_
gence to any ext, nt might be san&ionetl. A Banker
must be held bcund, either to give notice himself
tq the Indorser, or to return the Bill to his em.
ployer in such time as that he may give due notice.
He would venture to say, that th,.A-e was not a
Banker in London who would not acknowledge it
to be the practice, to give such a notice on the du
of the dishonour.

Mr. Justice ROOKS said, that they would unques.
lionably do so if they could. To lay it down,
however, as an incumbent duty, would be to force
a Banker to keep a Clerk for every Bill that might
come into his possession. Were this to be held, no
Banker would be fond of undertaking so- dangerous
an employment.
Lord ALVANLEY said that his opinion was clear on
the poi,nt. As his Brother BEST, however, con.
ceived it to be a question of such importance, he
should converse, with his Brethren on the subjeA,
and with the other judges, and should be ready to-
morrow, according to their opinions, either to grant
or refuse- the Rule.

Mr. Serjeant BEST sheaved cause against a Rule
obtained by Mr. Serjeant COCK ELL, for having a
Wairant of Attorney granted by a femme coverte,
und:tr articles of Separation from her Husband, in fa-
:your of a young man, an Attorney's Clerk, set aside,
on account of her coverture. The Defendant, he stated,
waslhe lady.'s trustee under the articles of separation.
She had been much involved, and he, out of pure
friendship, and to keep her out of disagreeable law-
suits, had advanced her various sums of Money.
To secure re-payment of these, she had granted
him the Warrant of Attorney now sought to be set
aside. •

Mr. Serjeant COCKE LL said, that the Gentleman
had taken the Warrant of Attorney, well knowing,
at the time, that the Lady-was a married woman.
He had not, however, contented himself with this ;
he had also taken out an attachment against the
husband. Rule made absolute.

SATURDAY, JAN. 28.

HAINES 'W. BERKS.

Thit day Lord ALVANLEY delivered the opinion
of the Court on the point reserved yesterday.
• His LOrdship said that the argument of his Bro-
ther BEST amounted to this, that a Banker into whose
hands a Bill of Exchange might be put to require
payment, was the Agent of the holder, and as such
was bound to give such notice as the holder him.
self would have been called upon to afford. His
Lordship had conversed with his &ether, in that
Court, and with the other judges,- on this point,
and they were all clearly of opinion, that it would
be dangerous in the extreme to lay down such a
doarin. It was an indisputed fact, that the greater
part of the Bill transactions of this Couizz7 was
negotiated-through the medium of Bankers. Were
it, however, to be held, that they were bound to
give immediate notice of the dishonour, not to the
person from whom they. received the Bill, bot to
the Indorser,- of whom they might know nothing,
an end would at once be put to their interfering
ict transaClions of the kind, of to their undertak-
ing so dangerous a responsibility. All that was
incumbent on a Banker in a situation of this kind,
wat, to give the earliest reasonable notice to the
person -from wham. he had the Bill. This, it was
the opinion of he Court, had been done in the pre-
sent case. The Bill was duly presented for payment,
was noted, and did not come back into the hands of
the Banker till between the, hours of nine and ten
oh.)c')cuel
roof
This was clearly beyond the
anyt night.iios
post conveyance, It could not there_
{'ore a
beincumbent on him to return the Bill that
f (r
night, neither was he called on to do so..next day,
which was a Sunday;. but, on the Monday, which
was the first Itrzs,:ful day, he sends back the Bill,
the
hen, responsibility
regularly noted, to the person from whom he re-
ceived it. Here, then, of the:
holder commenced. He clearly was not bound to
stay at home all day in expeCtation of the return of
Neitherthing h knew,w4s he bound, the might have.
a beenß i Id,
ulivyh
icohn,
ufo any
rer
d.•
moment he came home, to dispatch a slecial messen.
ger with notice to the Indorser. That such notice
was not necessary, had been determined over and
over again. What. then was incumbent on him ?
To write a letter to the Indorser by that night's
post, if within post hours. Such notice would, in
the present instance, have reached the Defendant
next day.
Mr. Serjeant BEsr seeming to alledge that such
notice would have come to hand on the same even-
ing,
• Lord ALVANLEY said, that in a case like this
they were not to count on minutes. The l'l.;intiff
might have come borne an hour sooner, or an hour
later. They were bOund to put a fair and reasonable
construftion on his conduCt. It appeared that next
day, being as early as it was reasonable to suppose
any written notice could have reached the Defend-
ant, the Plaintiff himself called on him, and tendered
back the Bill.- The cases cited by Mr. Serjeant
BEST did not apply. It did not appear that in any
of these cases one of the three intervening-days was
a Sunday ; neither did it appear that the Bills had
been in the. hands of Bankets.—Rule refused.