The Sun.
London, England, 1803-03-09 00:00:00

CORN EXCHANGE, MARCII 9.

THERE are large quantities of Grain here to thy,
with much of Monday's untold; the tumours of War
have caused a small advance on most articles; Wheat
is up zs. per guar= ; Barley and Malt hardly get
better prices ; Pease, Beans, and Oats, sell more
readily at a trifle dearer ; the latter are in immense
quantities ; Flour lolly supporii its prices.

Wheat 456 a $24 a 59$ od Tic*, Bons - 2RS a 33s 6(1
Fine ditto . 6os a bIS 0 0409 ~. • 13$ a 17s a awl
Rye - - 3:s a 35s Qd Poistriii ditto ats a 22S eel
Barley . 21% a 269 oct i lispeSeerl - - 321 a 351
.1%"..141 r
1 . - APS a 45) od Eir4 Hour . 44$ a 4Ss od
white easo 33s a 444 oil I Sect:lEo4o - 4r;* a 411
beaus . 32s a 37s od

On Sunday night, ,about eleven o'clock, a coach
was hired at Chards _cross by a man, genteelly
dressed, WhO orthred the coachman•fo drive to Sr.
George's.row clrt the Uxbridge
,Toittl; 'hrt the
coach arriving at that place, the ittery got our,
and, with horrid threats dettranded iftki.joachman's
money, at the same tihte ilefitaing vitry long
pistol to his breast, and slightly VVOLtAding him in
the side with a tuck in a stiik The coachman de.
livered his money, WlOOO.-600 two seven shilling
pieces, and eight slaings aivir sixpence in silver.
The robber, on partitur:, told the coachman if ite
attempted to pursue him he wriuld shoot him.--
The robber returned towards London, and is sop,
posed to hove got over the Park wall.

LAW REPORT.

COURT OF KiNG's BENCH, FtbitUARY 5.

HARDING V. WATKINS.

This was a point of Law which arose out of an
AwArd inter by Mr. 130 a.a.utt6rt, and Which he did
not chine to decide.

Mr. Justice. LAW ENCt said, he did nut wish to
decicic.in the ab,eoce of Lord ELLENUOROUGU and
his brother LE BLANc, any question of law that
Mr. liult.ltOtlCH had a difficulty in deciding.
Lard ELLENnoßouott and Mr. Justice
LE BLANC came ion.) Court,

Mr. I KsetNis opened-the fats of this case, which
tette these.—A person of the name of Lewis Jon ea,
being in want of a. sum of money, prevailed on'-the
1) .feedant, who is an Attorney, to accept a Bill
which he should draw on him in his own favour, in
order to raise:money on it : and to induce the De.
fendent to give him that acceptance, the Defendant
trot being his debtor, he agreed to execute an assign.
inept to him of the lease of his house by way Of secu.
rity, and which was equal in value- to the eminintof
the Bill. Jones, on the very day that Ile got this Bill
accepted by the Defendant, raised money upon it by
indorsing it over to the Plaintiff, who paid him the
felt value of it. This Bill was dated in December,
18ot ; and Mr. )ones had committed a secret aa
ta haelertiptcy on the sth of October in the same
year. The. Plaintiff at the. time he paid. Jones the
money on this Bill, did not know he had committed
an aft of bankruptcy, or that he
_was insolvent : nor
did` he know any thing of the agreement between
J.eses and the Defendant, when he accepted the Bill.
llia friend,, Mr. Gibbs, was Ao contend, that the
Assignees might have a claim on this Bill: anti
that u Bankrupc having no ,power over. his own
estate, ' could not indorse a MU in which he had pro.
petty, subsecpteso roan ea of bankruptcy ; 'bet then,
how was this power vested in the Assignees.? :Could
they have .any property in thie,Bill .? Certainly not,
because they could not have: any property which the
feinkrept• himself had not. They represented him,
and could not be in a better situation than he was.
New, suppose he hid not indorsed: this Bill to the
Pi :614K • but bed immediately brought an Aaiun
on it'ageinse'ehe Defendant, could he. have recoter-
ed enit it i No man could recover upon a bill for
which he had .paid no value, and which was given
hint merely for his accommotietion. if I receive a'
Bill from a man to enable me to raise money, and
I keep it in my own hands, I never can bring an
Aaiun uyon. it. There is no consideration for it.
it is a mere nudum peurfur, as between the acceptor
and me. It has been decided, that where a person
accepts a Bill for the accommodation of another, and
then passes that Bill into the hands of a third. per.
for a valuable consideration, though that•per.
son knows of the accommodation, he may recover on
the Bill. The Learned Counsel said, he made these
observations, in order to spew the fallacy of the at.
gument on the other side, which was, that the pro.
petty of this Bill was in the Assignees of• the Bank.
rupt. As between the Bankrupt, who was the drawer
of this Bill, and the Defendant, it was only a
nudum paattm ; the Defendant having received
tits consideration for his acceptance ; but the
Plaintiff advanCed the • money on it, and from
that moment became an indorsee against the
Defendant, for .a valuable consideration, and,
therefore,' the Plaintiff alone had a property in
this Bill. The Assignees could have no property in
this Bill, became the Bankrupt had none; and they
could not have a better right than the bankrupt whom
they represented, and to whose rights they had
succeeded. becaMe the Plaintiff's by paying a
valuable consideration for it. He did not mean to
say, the equitable ground in which his Learned
Friend stoud, did not deserve the consideration of
the Court. The Defendant says this man is become
bankrupt. Had he not become a bankrupt at the
time of this transaaion, I should have been indem-
pifted against my acceptance, because he gave me a
lease which his Assignees have called upon me since
to deliver up, and therefore I have lost my security.
To which the Learned Counsel said he should reply :
All this between you and the Bankrupt was un.
known to us. We knew nothing of that ; whether
you had, •or whether you had not a security. You
say to me, if you will lend me 1201. I will pay you
on such a 'day. I give it you ; and it turns out
that the Bankrupt cannot make a regular indorse.
WOOS net the Court consider this as money
aid out and expended for the use of the Defendant •
If a Trader, from having committed an ai of
Bankruptcy, has no right to indorse a Bill, he has
no right to draw one. He trusted the whole jus.
rice, equity, and law of the case, would turn out to
be in favour of the Plaintiff.

Mr. GIB Bs, leading Counsel for the Defendant,
said it was a hard case on both parties; they were
both equally innocent, and he was ready to divide
the loss. This was not agreed to on the other
side.

Mr. MAN LEI- delivered a very able speech on the
same side with Mr. Erskine.

• Mr. Ginus observed to their Lordships, that the
principlc.which had led him to think originally that
the Plaintiff could not supprat the present anion,
was one, which he had turned over and over again
in hit mind,' anti it was this.: Every thing that a
Bankrupt possessed at the time of his bankruptcy,
or which came to him between his bankruptcy and
the obtaining of his certificate, passed to his As-
signees, except. trust property; andt it was quite
impossible to say this Was trust propetty. His
Learned Friend had stated this case with great fair.
ness and:candour. ' L. Jones theliankrupt deposited
with the Defendant a lease, worth more than
the sum the Defendant accepted for ; and on the
credit of which he was induced to accept the Bill
At all. Be took that to be precisely the same thing
as if the Bankrupt had paid money hats the hands
of the Defendant, anti had then drawn a Bill upon
him, which he accepted, or ordered him to pay
this money. Jones had deposited the lease as a con.
sideration for the acceptance. Said the Learned
Counsel, I shall suppose he had deposited leo!.
with the DAendant, and then draws the Bill on
Vin, which he pays. When he had done that, the

etre& of his condud would have been this : he
would have paid isol. the property of other per.
sons ; namely, of the Assignees to the Defendant,
and he would have given an order to the Plaintiff
to receive that property from the Defendant. Now,
it was clear he could have had no authority to
place this money with the Mfendant, becanseit was
not his money, but the property of the Assignees.
Nor could he have any authority to•make over that
money to a third person. And here was the lat.
lacy of the argument used by his Learned Friends-on
the other side, the ability of the Bankrupt, :when
. he becomes a Bankrupt, to draw a Bill.of EKchange.
He may make himself liable, giving- it,to a third
person. If he does, he will be personally liable to
that third person for the amount of it, and may be
sued as the Drawer, perhaps, because the person on
whom he draws the Bill, if he has any money of
' the Bankrupt's in his hands, is justified in refusing
to pay, because that is not his money, but the money
of his Assignees. So in this case, I do not say
that an ation may not be supported against L.
Jones, but I say, L. Jones having drawn on the
'Defendant in consideration of property apparently
deposited with him, but which property adually
belonged to L. Jones's Assignees, neither by draw-
ing this Bill, nor by indorsing it, did the Bankrupt
pass a title to the person (the Plaintiff) to wham he
indorsed it. My Learned Friend says, the Assignees
never could have brought an Adion on that accept-
ance. I deny it. They might have brought an
Ad ion if they had not chosen to take the lease, It
has been said, no Action could have been maintained
against the Defendant, because no consideration
bpssed. But here is -a consideration that passed
etween the Bankrupt and the Defendant, by de.
livering the lease into the hands of the acceptor.
The acceptor then would have been answerable to
lain for this Bill. It would be extremely bard in.
deed, if, after the Defendant has been stripped of
'this deposit by the Assignees, if the Bankrupt were
permitted to say, I have nothing to do with this
Bill, and yet, for the '
purpose 'of fining the Dc.
fendant, dant, the Bankrupt is supposed to have such a
property in it, as -to be able to convey it to an in.
dorsee. The. Defendant, in. this case, is nut a
mere voluntary acceptor for the accommodation of
L. Jones, but hi is an acceptor for a valuable consi. ,
deration deposited with hits. The Bitikrtipt had
no right to deposit that lease with him ; and if he had
no right to do that, he had no right to draw that
fund out of his hands. I will put the case : L.
Jones has committed a secret ad of Bankiuptcy, and
after that pays rsol. into the hands of the De.
fendant, and he gives a draft on that Defendant' to
the Plaintiff for this .Isol. as against the Defendant,
that draft, by the Bankrupt, is• a good order-to pay
out that 1501. ' But though he is obliged to obey this
order,,must he yet pay the money again to the Assig.
!tees of the Bankrupt, because between the Assig.
nees of the Bankrupt and him, this was a bad or.
der That would be a monstrous proposition indeed,
and inconsistent with *every principle of justice.
I think the offer I have made my Leirned Friend
a very fair one ; but Ida not press him to accept it.
He is entitled, undoubtedly, to stand upon his legal
rights.

These arguments were ably supported by Mt:
LAW es, on the same side, tvho, in the course of
his argument, cited Cowper's Rep. 569, and
Esp._6 t.

Lind ELL EtqISOROUGH said, as this was a case on
which considerable doubts had been entertained, and
by persona of great respedability, they would look
into it befoie they decided it, though he could not
impress on his own mind any doubt at all.

EDINBURGII, MARCH 3.

HIGH COURT OF JUSTICIARY.

MONDAY, came on before the Court, the trial of
Robert Wilsom, lately residing in Rose-street, accused
of the murder of Janet Moodie, his wife, on Thurs-
day the 27th of January, last. The Prisoner pleaded
Not Guilty. No objet ion was made to the rele.
vancy of the libel.

I. appeared from the proof,- that on the night
libelled, a little after ten o'clock, the cry of murder
was repeatedly heard in the tenement where Wilson
resided, which alarmed the neighbours, and some of
the Witnesses proved it came froM the Pannel's
house. A number of people assembled in the vas.
sage, chiefly women, but none of them went into
the house. A Gentleman. who resided in the house
as a lodger,. came home before eleven.o'clock, but
saw nothing remarkable, and the Pannel dressed his
supper before he went to bed.' " Next morning, be..
tween seven and eight o'clock, Wilson knocked up
his next neighbour, saying his wife was dead. The
neighbour rose, and found IVlrs. Wilson dead and
quite sail'. 'She got the assistance of some other
women, and the corpse was dressed.. While this
was doing, some marks of violence were observed
about Mrs. Wilson's face and neck, which were
more visible next day.
One of the persons asked the Pannel when Mrs.
Wilson died ? He said he did not know. Was it
before or after the cries of murder were heard? He
answered, there were no cries in his house. Two
Witnesses, one of whom livetlyabove, and the other
below the. Pannel, swore they heard a noise in the
Pannel's house during the night, as if ranging the
fire. . The Pannel did not call up his lndger till
nine o'clock, when he inforMed him. his wife svas
dead. When .this Gentleman left his lodgings at
ten o'clock, lie was met by several people, who.
wished him to make some investigation into the
affair but this he declined,. as Wilton had wrote
for his .wife's brother to. come up from Leith, who
came that . night; and, on account of the clamour
raised about his sister having died .a violent death;
called on the -Sheriff; and .was desired to return next
morning. He mentioned this circumstance torWil.
son, who said he was willing to go to the Sheriff,
and accordingly next morning be went in company
with Moodse and two other men, first to Mr.
Clerk, who was confined by indisposition, then to
Mr. Davidson, to whom Wilson said he wished
that Surgeons should inspect his wife's corpse, on
account of the clamour of the neighbours. Mr..
Davidson referred him to, Mr. Score anti Surgeons

were accordingly sent on the Sur.day, who:inspetaed
the body, and gave in a rept•rt, from which it
geared,fip-
that from the marks on different parts of
the bJdy, and from the state of the lungs, she had
died a violent death, by strangulation ; and to this
report the two Surgeons (Dr. Farquharson and Mr.
Bryce) swore. Wilson was not taken up till the
Saturday afternoon.

It also appeared from the evidence, that Mrs.
Wilson was a weakly woman,. often complaining,
and very frequently bed-,That her husband and
she lived happily together, till lately, when she
thought. he paid, too much. attention to another
woman who lived on the same floor. - This she
comma. nicated to her lodger and a woman her neigh.
hour, which last swore, that Mrs. Wilson informed
her, that between that and Martinmas last her husband
had mtice attempted to administer poison to her, first
in a glass of toddy, and then in some water gruel.
For the Prisoner, it was proved, that he was
always respetted by his neighbours, and was a per-
son of an honest charader,' and decent in his be.
haviour—That, after he was accused by the neigh.
bouri, he did not abscond; on the contrary, he
took every means in his power to get the matter
investigated, and went for that purpose to the
Sheriff, Dr. Monro was called for the Pannel as
to the report of the Surgeons, from whom he
differed in several particulars, respecting the cause
of Mrs. WilsOn's death.

The .evidence was closed on both sides a little
after seven o'clock, when the 'LORD ADVOCATE
for the CroWn, and Mr. CAittnELL for the Pannel,
severally addressed the Jury in very able speeches.
Coe Loan JUSTICE CLERK summed up the whole
in his usual candid manner. At eleven o'clock the
Jury. were incloied, and on Tuesday at two o'clock
returned a verdid, fin'dini by .a plurality of voices
the libel Not Proven; on which the Pannel was
clitmisied frOm the Bar.