The Sun.
London, England, 1803-04-07 00:00:00

CUI4-110ATS.

•
The Bill which originated in the House of Re.
presentaiives, dire ling the President to build or
purchase four Vessels of War, to tarry not exceeding
Y 6 guns- each,'and which came bick 'from the Senate
with an amendment, was taken up in the HoUse of
Itepresentatives on Monday, February. The
,atnenilment proposed by the Senate, was to autho.
rise the Senate to cause/pm/ gun-boats to be built
for the service of the United Stares.
Mr. GitiswoLo wished to be informed by the
Chaitman of the''Selea Committee, to whom the
Amendment had been referted,,what was the Objtft
of these Gunboats, and to what use they were tO be
uppliM. The original objet of the Hill, was to
provide far the Mediterranean Service ; but he could
not conceive that these Gun-boats could be of any

use in that service.
Mr. S.::Ntt ill replied, that they were not 'intend.
ed for the Mediterranean, but were designed for the
defence of our intiftml Conoterre.
Upon the third • reading when the anal question
.
was about to be put, '
Mr. Gooomto rose and said, be was really at a
loss to vote upon the question, unlvs he could oh
tain some information as to the Obieft to which
those boats were to be applied. lie.aaid there had
been public bosiness and, private business before the
house; but this seemed to partake of the charader
of both. It was aeled upon publicly, and yet the
°hied seethed to be a secret, unleoGentletnen were
expetled to discover it by intuition: He had no
objettio to apprnpriate • money for the purpose,
provided lie cauld'he convinced that any public ser•
vice'requiietf it.
Mr. DANA presunied that he understood the ob.
je6t. It could not be the Mediterranean service ;
such boats would not answer the purpose ; Jt could
be for the service of the Itevenne Officers, be.
cage the enacts in COMM iii use were much, better.
Lie concluded,.thss ,erefore, that they must be designed
i. 'fle did `not know that the
iotnrnetec of th 4 user could htrlttly be said to be
internal,' lint he presinned the 'boats must` be de.
signed for a 1 objeei. As he was in favour of any
measure 'which looked like a determination to pro.
tea the conuutree of that quarter, he should vote

.LONDON : Printed lty BUC
At, the Suti-theric

for the tilt ss amended, and he *hoped that. a liberal
construdion, would be given to the term Boats, sq
that vessels'of a size sufficient to answer the purpose
might heprocured.—(Gaz. U. S.)

LAWS. REPORT.

COURT OF COMMON PLEAS, Fe*. 3.
SITTINGS IsgrOltr: LORDALVAtiX.EY, AT GUILDHALL.

POLLARD V. HERRIES.

The'Special verdit% given in this case for the
Plaintiff,- came on to be,argued before their 'Lop.
shiPs. The case was, that
.the Plaintiff; John
Carter Pollard, Esq. had paid into the Defendant'
house at Paris, a. sum equivalent to T 20,Q0 /ivres
rofraois, for whiCh he receiv.ed their note, :pay.
able with 3 per cent, interest, either at Dover,
Paris, or London, au cours. Pusauce ci Path: This
transaaion took place in the year 17or, ` but when
the Bill was presented in London for payment, in the
year, ,c 799, a difference arose, as to the rate of ex..
change ; whether it was to he computed' at the date
of the transaaion, or at the time of -the demand.--
! In consequence of a restriction, by the the French
Government, the exchanges between the two
Countries were interrupted,' and the 'value of mo.
ney considerably altered. "The matter accord.
ingly was tried before Lord_ &Dorsi and the Jury
found,a veridiel for the Plaintiff; for 40!. 6a. rod.
or 591. 4.d. subjea to the deterMination of
the Court. It was now contended, on the part -of
the Plaintiff; that he was entitled to recover a con.
sideration eqUivalent to the sum lie originally paid
.into the hands of the Defendant. On the other hand,
it was alledged, that the bill being made payable au
court d'usance 4 Paris, was.not meant according to
the course of exchange,'buc according to the custom
of Paris, and that the Plaintiff should no; have
brought his AClion, till a regular course 'of Ex.
change was established.
Lord ALVANLEY had some doubts whether, nt
the time of this transaction, the paymdnt was not
to be made at any particular date ; but if a man un.
dertook an obligation at all events, and the holder
thought fit to demand payment at a ;Aare •where, by
law, the Defendant was prohibited from: paying,
there would be some excuse ; the Defendant might
say, at the time of this tranSiletion, he meant that
payment should be made according to a dire&
course of exchange, but it would be dangerous to
say he had the option of that rate. It would be
equally dangerous to lay it down that he was bound
to pay a rate of exchange 'which 'Might ruin him;
the late War had differed from every former one,
except in the reign of WILLIAM 111. by imposing
a penalty on exchanges between the two countries;
but of the two atternatiVes the lesser evil would he
to say, he ought to ,contend with all difficulties,
than that he was not bound to pay at aIL His
Lordship said, under all the circumstances of the
case, he,thought the Plaintiff was entitled to the
larger sum.
Mr. Justice 1-ittsan perfectly coincided in the.
same opinion.
Mr. justice Roo said,it was no objeaion that
the money, had not been 'demanded before, there
being no stipulated time for.Oyment. It was to be
lamented that there were always some inconveni,
ences' resulting from a contraCt of this ki,pd ; but a
party binding himself under such 'conditions must
take all‘the 'consequences,:
M. justice crihillitE said, this money, had been
left in the hands of the banker for other pprposei
than merely to be returned again on demand, anti it
did not .appear that any inconvenience. could
ftom the non.payment, as the interest was so small.
There could be no doubt as, to the rate of exchange,
it being always understood to be the rate existing.
at the time of the demand; and not at the time a
the. date.