The Sun.
London, England, 1804-11-14 00:00:00

HARtcINCK v. PLAYFAIR.

Most of n_ur prnitssional Readers are informed,
that the eXt,.nsive concerns of Hartsinck and Play.
fair, who were declared Bankrupts, have been
thrown into the Court of Chancery, Mr. May, who
had been ruired by his connexion with these par-
ties, had entered into an engagement with them to
be supplied with their notes, to the extent of from
seven to ten thousand pounds, for the term of seven
years, for the payment of which he was to provide,
and as a collateral sectiiity, he gave them his War.
!ant of Attorney, on the 26th June] prior to the fai-
lure of Hartsinck and Playfair.

Mr. ER ,KINE applied for a Rule to shew cause
why This Warrant of Attorney should not he de.
r erred up to be cancelled ; and he supported his ap_
plication by an Affidavit from a Mr. Vernor, by
which it appeared that a balance of eight or ten
thousand p. ❑nds was due to Mr. May ; that the
latter had performed his part of the engagement
with Messrs. Hartsiuck and Play fair ; and that this
Warrant was liable to be employed to the disad-
vantage of his estate.
Loid FLLENSOROUGH.—" If May have a claim
upon Hartsinck and Play fair, will not the Warrant
of Atorney be cut down to its proper extent ?
The nature of the accounts between the parties is
not explained ; but yuu may take a Rule to shew

cause."

WYNNE rl./. RAIKES.

This was an anion of considerable consequence
to the individual, as well as to the puhlie ; to the
former, as it was connoted with a Bill of upwards
of 50001. amount, and to the latter, as it mare-
rially tiff Cird the law of Bills of Exchange. The
Bill was at sixty days date, was drawn by Mr.
Aguilar Brown, of North America ; and Messrs.
Andrews and B itlet, of the same Continent, were
the Payees, from wht-m it devolved into the hands
of the Piainttff. A Verdi& had been obtained for
;he Plaintiff, subjed to the opinion of the Court,
in a case which came on now to be argued ; the
material fads were these :—When the bill was
drawn, the Defendant refused acceptance, not
having sufficient effects in their hands, partly from
an attachment of Messrs. Mellish and Co. on some
property of Aguilar Brown, and partly from the
elarnage sustained by the Ship Chesapeak, on board
which some consignments were made by .Aguilar
Brawn to the Defendant. In the seqoel, the ac-
count of Brown with the Defendant had a more
favourable appearance ; the damage in the Chesa-
peak was not so considerable as was expeded ; some
bills of Aguilar Brown were paid by Mr. IVlangin,
and Messrs. Mellish and Co. hid been induced to
.svithdraW the attachment. In consequence of these
new circumstances, the Defendant wrote to Aguilar
Brown, that the (outstanding bills world be duly ho-
noured. The Plaintiff was the holderof one of these
bills, and contrary to this notice" to the drawer, on
its maturity, payment was refused, , The question
then before the Court was, whether this declara.
!inn, sent prior to the coming due of this bill, and
received in America subsequent to its so becoming
due, were such-an acceptance of the bill as render-
ed the Defendant liable to the payment ?
Mr. L I TTLEDALE, for the Plaintiff; commented
on these bet,. He said it was not necessary that
there should be an acceptance on the face of the
bill. It might be in a collateral writing, or it
might be even by parole ; and this principle he
supported on the cases of Johnson and Collins, r
East, 98, and of Clarke and Cock, 4. East, 5'7. He
said the letter of the Defendant to the drawer
constituted such an acceptance, that this commu.
nication to the, parties where the bill originated
must legally render the Defendant liable to every
bolder into whose hands the bill should devolve.