The Sun.
London, England, 1832-11-27 00:00:00

MELHUISH V. RAWDEN.

The Loan CHIEF JUSTICE pronounced the judgment of
the Court in this case to-day. The rule for a new trial,
he said, proceeded on the ground that the Judge who tried
the cause had misdirected the Jury when he informed them
that the rule of law was, that they were to determine
whether or not the plaintiff had incurred an unrea-onable
delay in sending forward the bill for acceptance, in de-
ciding which they were bound to take the interest of both
parties, as well the bolder as the drawer, into considera-
tion. The Jury which had tried this cause was a special
Jury of merchants, and therefore one which must be pre-
sumed to be competent to form a sound judgment on the
question. On the part of the defendant it was contended
that the question which should have been left to the Jury
was, whether or net there had been due diligence used in
forwarding the bill for acceptance, with reference to the in-
terest of the drawer. No evidence had been adduced of any
general custom as to a limited time within which a hill of this
description should be forwarded for acceptance ; but a great
deal of conflicting evidence had been given by different
merchants as to what was their understanding on the
subject. Then, again, by the law of England, no defi-
nite time was fixed within which bills (brawn at sight
must be presented for acceptance. In France the law re-
quired that, if drawn on the continent or in the i,lands of
Europe, they must be presented within six months from
their date ; hut no such law existed in England. There-
fore there was no other rule to be laid down, than
that due diligence: must be used, anti they must he
presented within a reasonable time. The Court, under
all the circumstances of the case, thought that the July
bad been properly directed, and that the rule for a new
trial must be discharged.

DIGBY V. ALEXANDER, ALIAS LORD STIRLING.
In this case, which has been more than once before the
public, Mr. Sergeant Taddy obtained, on a former day,
a rule to show cause why the writ of capias ad statisfa-
ciendum which had issued apinst the defendants, and the
subsequent proceedings, should not be set aside, on the
ground that the defendant was a Peer of Scotland, and
therefore privileged from such process. The affidavits on
which the rule was obtained disclosed those facts with
which the public are already familiar, of the defendant
having voted in the election of Scotch representative
Peers, and in other respects acted as a Peer of Scotland.
Mr. Sergeant STEPHEN to-day showed cause against
the rule.

Mr. Sergeant TAnDY replied, and
The COURT were of opinion that the defendant, not
having availed himself of his privilege at the proper time,
by pleading it directly and positively in abatement, could
not now, after the expense of all the subsequent proceed-
ings had been incurred, be let in to overturn all those pro-
ceedings, and therefore the rule must he discharged.
In the course of the morning, the Earl of Sandwich ap-
peared at the bar, and went through the form of suffering
a recovery.
Mr. Sergeant WILDE was so far convalescent as to be
able to attend Court to-day.

COURT OF EXCHEQUER, Nov. 26.