The Sun.
London, England, 1821-07-31 00:00:00

LAW INTELLIGENCE.

COURT OF CHANCERY, JULY 30.
KIRKPATRICK v. KIRKPATRICK.

Mr. WINGFIELD, in calling the attention of
the Lord Chancellor to this case, said, a Petition
had been presented to the Master of the Rolls,
praying that a reference might be made to one
of the Masters to take into consideration the pro-
posals that had been drawn up relative to the
solemnization of marriage between the parties
named in the pleadings. Ms Lordship having,
however, on a former occasion, issued an injunc-
tion restraining them from having any inter-
course, and also interdicting Mr. Thompson from
aiding or assisting in the ceremony, he, the Mas-
ter of the Rolls, did not consider he had any
power to hear it until that injunction had been
dissolved by his Lordship. The parties had now
come to an adjustment of their former differences,
and were willing that the marriage should take
place ; he had now, therefore, to pray his Lord-
ship to dismiss the former order, when the Mas-
ter of the Rolls would proceed to hear the Peti-
tion.—Mr. HomE said, he instructed to consent
on the part of his clients; and the LORD CHAN-
CELLOR dissolved the Injunction as prayed.

BOWES V. THE EARL OF STRATHMORE..

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL presented a Pe-
tition from the Countess of Strathmore, praying
that the cause might be referred to the Master,
for the purpose of having the costs incurred in
the prosecution of the- claim of her son to the
honours and dignities of his house, taxed, and
that when that bad taken place, they might be
paid out of the trust estate.—Mr. HART should
not object to the prayer of the petition, if Lord
Strathmore's costs were included in the order,
which he considered he was entitled to have
done. It would be recollected that the Testator
had directed that the rents and profits of the
estate should accumulate, after paying a certain
sum for the maintenance and education of the
infant. but should he not attain the age of 21,
Lord Strathmore would be entitled, under the
will, to the whole, and• consequently he had a
claim coeval with that of the infant. The in-
quiry, it would also be recollected, was by the
direction of the Court, and under these circum-
stances he could not entertain a doubt that his
Lordship would grant his client his costs.—The
LORD CHANCELLOR—Let the costs of both par-
ties be paid out of the Trust Estates, and the
prayer of the petition granted.

COURT OF KING'S BENCH, JULY 30.

COX AND CO. V. TROY AND OTHERS.

- --
The SoLiciTon-GENERAL stated the— case to

the Jury. .This was an action brought by the
plaintiffs, Messrs. R. A. Cox and Co. against the
defendants, Messrs. Robarts, Curtis, and Co. for
the recovery of the sum of X 938 on a bill of ex-
change, stated to have been accepted by them.
It appeared that on the 24th day of March, 1820,
the plaintiffs received a bill drawn upon the de-
fendants at sixty-one days after sight, which bill
was on the same day left in the usual manner for
acceptance. It was' not, however, called for till
the 27th, and it was then delivered to the clerk
of the plaintiffs, with the acceptance cancelled.
The drawers, Messrs. Stevens and Roach, bankers
at Cork, had in the intermediate time become in-
solVent, and consequently, although the bill was
in the first instance accepted, it was cancelled be-
fore given up to the plaintiffs. The Learned
Gentleman, however, contended that the accep
tors could not, after having once signified their
acceptance, recal it.
J. B. Willis—l am clerk to the plaintiffs. I left the bill now
sliewn me at the house of Robarts and Co. for acceptance, on
the 24th day of March, 1820. I put it in the box, as is the
usual way. I did not call again till Saturday the 27th of
March. The bill was then given to me in the state it is now
in. I made no remarks to any one there on the oddity of its
appearance.
John Coles, the solicitor to the plaintiffs, was then examined. ,
He had paid particular attention to the obliterations on the bill.
With the assistance of a glass he can make out to his satisfac-
tion the words " Accepted 24th March, 1820 ;" likewise part of
the name " Robarts and Co." If,
,however, he had not been,
so well acquainted with the circumstances of the case, he should
not, perhaps, have been able to have read it so clearly. With
that knowledge on his mind, the whole of it is quite intelligible.
Mr. SCARLETT—" In-your mind's eye, Horatio."
In answer to a question from the Jury, witness said, " I
think I can trace the word accepted,' it being written in
brighter ink than that used in the obliteration."

Mr. SCARLET; for the defendants, contended,

that the simple writing of the words was not le-
gally an acceptance : to constitute an acceptance
there must be open delivery, acknowledging it

as such.

The COURT observed, that this was a point of
extreme commercial importance, and although
several times agitated, had never been finally
decided. Mr. Scarlett would have an opportu-
nity of bringing it forward in another shape.
Mr. SCARLETT continued.—lf such was not the
case, a blot made by accident in the place where
the acceptance was wont to be written might be
so construed; or two bills, one for a large and
the other a small amount, might be left at a
merchant's, and the small one might he intended
to be accepted, and the clerk by accident begin
to write on the larger. Was it, in such a ,case,
to be supposed that It could not be cancelled ?
Ile must correct the statement of the Solicitor-

General. He admitted the insolvency of the
drawer, but averred that a knowledge of it was
not possessed by the defendants till the 29th of
March, consequently they were not induced
to cancel their acceptance on this account.
—lt was an allegation in the declaration,
that the bill by such obliterations was ren-
dered useless, but as it was admitted that
all the original writing was legible, that
allegation could not be supported. The plain-
tiffs had their remedy against the other parties.
On this ground, therefore, and the one he had be-
fore in:taloned, that to constitute an acceptance