The Sun.
London, England, 1850-10-18 00:00:00

debt, viz., for the 6,525/., which as managing partner
in the winding up of the tea concern he received for
and owed to Long, jnn., and as to any authority from
his copartners in the firm of Acrathans, Morgan, and
Co., I take it to be clear that it cannot be presumed
from the mere fact that they took the benefit
of the 20,0001. raised on the acceptance of
D. E. and A. Acraman, and, assuming this
to be so, my conclusion, including all such as has
been admitted subject to objection on the part of
the assignees—is, that no assent to that indorsement,
either antecedent or subsequent, express or construc-
tive, was ever given by any partner of the firm of
Acramans, Morgan, and Co., not being a partner also
of the firm of D. E. and A. Acraman; and this
opinion I should entertain even independently of any
consideration of the arrangement by which the duty
of drawing and endorsing all bills, &c., was assigned
to a particular person, viz . to George Morgan,
though that arrangement affords a strong additional
reason to believe that the endorsement in question
was unauthorised. His Honour observed that there
were circumstances which cleared Long, jun., from
all imputation of fraud, but he cbserved—Tnis can-
not alter the case in point of law, for it clearly results
from " Ex parte Goulding," before cited, from " Ex
parte Agace ' (2 Cox, p. 312), and from a considera-
tion of the true principles on which the whole class of
decisions now in question is founded, that fraud on
the part of the taker of the bill is no necessary ingre-
dient in the defence now set up by the assignees ;
that Long, jun., however unsuspicious of anything
wrong, had no right to rely on the validity of the
endorsement in the .partnership name, offered by one
of the partners to pay or secure what he separately
owed to hitn (Long, jun.) ; and that if he chose
to take it without .further inquiry, trusting to the
assertiorC. of W. E. Acraman that authority had
been giveti, ,supporfeed by his further statement of
transactions between the two firms, tending to make
the assertion probable, he did so at his peril. The
most specious argument in favour of the claimant is, that
when the endorsement was given it may be considered
as given in respect of a loan ;hen contracted with
Long, jun., on behalf of Acramans, Morgan, and Co.,
and that W. E. Acraman, as one of their partners,
had authority by law so to contract with a stranger,
independently of any authority in fact from that
house. But the answer is—first, that no new loan
can possibly be considered as having taken place on
that occasion ; secondly, that if any took place upon
that occasion it was with D. E. and A. Acraman,
not with Acramans, Morgan, and Co.; and thirdly,
that though W. E. Acraman should have had pre-
sumptive authority, as a partner with Acramans,
Morgan, and Co., to give their endorsement, if the
immediate object of the endorsement had been a
loan to them, he had none where its immediate object
(as In the present case) was to pay or secure his
own debt. My judgment being in favour of the as-
signees as regards the first ground of defence, I
might decline the further task of considering the
second, the decision on which, either one way or the
other, would be immaterial, supposing that on the
first to be right. But, as an appeal is probable, and
as it may save time and expense to have the
whole matter laid at once before the appellate
jurisdiction, I will now proceed to state my

views on the second ground of defence, that is, upon
the question as to double proof. His Honour hav-
ing cited several authorities, concluded as follows :
Upon the whole, I reject the proof; but, taking into
consideration the uncertainty which prevailed with
respect to the precise state of facts until the full in-
vestigation which has just taken place, and the de-
gree of difficulty which attends the legal solution of
the case even when its facts are ascertained, I do

not feel myself called upon to award any costs against
the claimants beyond those which were awarded on
the 21st of August last, when they obtained leave to

amend their proof, and which costs, being occasioned
by an incorrect statement of facts which lay within
their own knowledge, it appeared to me they ought
to pay. As to those, therefore, that have been in-
curred since, the claimants will have to pay their
own only, the assignees being of course allowed to
charge theirs (after taxation by the Registrar) on the
estate.
Mr. Stone, of the western circuit, and Mr. Rox-
burgh, of the Chancery bar, were counsel for the
assignees, and Mr. W. Bevan solicitor to the claimants.