The Sun.
London, England, 1826-01-27 00:00:00

LA\V NTELLIG ENCI

VICE.CHANCRI,LO/08 COURT, JAN. 2G.
The Court was occupied in hearing causes, none of which
were of any public interest.

COURT OF KING'S BENCH-, JAN. 26.
HOB9Oll AND NAlteifiAL v. RJCR.
This was an action against Sir Charles Rich, as the acceptor
of a bill of exchange for 1,01)01., of which the plaintiffs were
the holders. At the trial before the Lord Chief Justice, at
Guildhall, it was proved on behalf of the defendant that this
bill, and three Others 'for similar sums at long dates, were
obtained from the defendant ore a consideration, whichl had
proved wholly valueless. These hills were transferred to the
plaintiff's by Messers. Meyer and•llazard, who were indebted
to them greatly beyond the amount of the securities; and the
case was left to the Jury . on the question, whether there was
any money advanced or fresh credit given on the faith of these
bills, as the Lord Chief Justice held that the pre-existing
debt Would not suffice to give the plaintiffs a title to the bill
as against a Jury, under
aceeptance had been obtained by
fraud. The Jury, under thissfireetien, returned a verdict for
the defendant.
Mr. GURNEV no* moved for a rule to shew cause why the
verdict should not be set aside and a new trial had, on the
ground that the existing debt did form a good consitieratiOn for
the transfer of the bills, and entitled the plaintiffs to sue as
bona fide holders, and urged the importance of the point, and
the magnitude of the sum; as reasons why the case should un-
dergo a revision. He stated that_ the plaintiffs had become
bankrupts since the trial.
The Cotr ft T granted a rule to chew cause.
LLOYD V. ..tglinY A*o oTlielit.
This was an action on * bill of exchange against three parties
Shaw, Ashby, and Rowland, as the-acceptors of a bill of ex-
change. The acceptance was in, the handwriting of Rowland,
and iv:is given for a debt of his own, he being at the time in
partnership with the other defendants, but lir. Shaw being a
dormant partner. The Lord Chit Justice held that a dormant
partner, who lends no credit to the firm of which he is a nietn-
bar, is only liable in respect of contracts in which he has an in-
terest, and not generally for any liability incurred by his part-
ners ; and accordingly the plaintiff was nonsuited.
Mr. Ni Alt ItYATT now moved for a rule to show cause why
the nonsuit should not be set aside, on the ground that where a
bill is accepted by one of several partners in the name of the
firm it is taken on the credit of the whole firm, of whomsoever
it may be composed,—The COURT granted a rule to show
Cause.

RAOSTER V. LORD PORTSMOUTH.
This was an anction by Bagster and aschmakers, of
Long-acre, against Lord Portsmouth, for Co.,die use and hire of
a phaeton, and landau, from 1818 to 1824. At the trial before
the Lard Chief Justice at Westminster, the inquisition finding
Lord Portsmouth of unsound mind, and unfit for the ma.
nagenivot of his ufl'airs from January, 1805, was relied on as
evidence that he had no contracting mind by which lie
alone could be rendered liable; but the Lord Chief Justice
thought the carriages suitable to his estate and degree, and
that therefore he was liable to pay for them ; and accord-
ingly a verdict was found fur the plaintiff, with liberty to
mate for a nonsuit.

31r. Munroe(Ast now moved accordingly fur a rule to show
cAuse why the verdict should not be set aside anti a nonsuit
entered. On principle, and independent of any cases, it would
seem quite clear that a person of insane mind could make no
valid contract express or implied, as wanting the power which
was essential to the very meaning of the term. The old law
undoubtedly was so ; subsequently the -doctrine that no one
should be admitted to stultify. himself sprung up; but this,
again, had been considerably limited in latter times. It also
might be doubted whether the present defence came within
that doctrine; because here the Crown had interposed, anti the
party had been found a lunatic; and as the Inquisition had
relation back, and avoided instruments executed during the
period to which it applied, it should also avoid any parole con-
tracts made by a party in this incompetent condition.
Mr. Justice BAYLEY asked whether there was any decision
which established that a lunatic might not be responsible for
necessaries—if he went to a butcher for meat, or to a tailor for
clothes.
111 r. ilsouortasz said, undoubtedly inconveniences might
arise from holding that, lie was not responsible.for necessaries ;
but there would also be obvious inconveniences from a con.
miry decision; and in this particular instance It was very de•
siruble that the protection, it affOrded by the law, should be
applied to the noble defendant, us an order had been made for
an account of all his debts in the Master's office, where claims
would be examined, and, if just, discharged.
31r. SCAILLETT observed, tllitt when, at the trial, he had
admitted the unsoundness of Lord Portmnotith's mind, he
understood it to be also conceded to him, that during the time
when the debt was incurred, the defendant wits at large in
society, and acting in the management of his affairs.
The LOUD Cum. JUSTICE said, that it appeared from
the plintifri evidence, that Lord Portsmouth frequently drove
the phaeton, and occasionally rode in the landau, winch was
also used by his lady. At the trial lie was of opinitm that the
evidence of unsoundness of nand was not such as to deprive a
creditor of his right to recover for necessaries ordered and ac-
tually enjoyed by the defendant; but lie distinguished this
case from Instances of unexecuttsl contracts which /night bear
on the nice of them marks of insanity, anti in which imposis
tion might form a legal answer to a demand founded upon them.
—fie thought, therefore, there was nothing in this case to im•
peach-the right of the plaintiffs to recover.
}lr. Justice BAYLEY expressed his opinion that the mere
fact of a person being found of unsound mind, and incompe.
tent to the management of his affairs, was not sufficient to de-
prive an honest creditor to be paid for goods sup_plied to his
order anti for his use. It was often extremely difficult to de-
tect unsoundness of mind • 'Alen impossible to a stranger; for
many persons afflicted with mental disease were perfectly col.
heeled on all subjects but one, on which their delusions were
awakened. lie therefore held the ruling and the verdict right.
The other Judges concurred, and accordingly no rule was
granted,