The Sun.
London, England, 1829-11-09 00:00:00

COURT OF KING'S BENCH.

MITCHELL AND OTHERS V. BARING. "
• 91,0 0
Mr. GURNEY, in this case, moved for a rule to
cause for a new trial. The action was on a Awe:
change, change, drawn by the house of Le Rui and Co., 1n,...1.00,
rice, on a house in Liverpool, and made parable
don. It was accepted by the plaintiffs, who are ;ca.
chants in London, fur the house of Messrs. Le Rum and
and will be paid by them, if regularly presented for no
mint and refused when due. The bill became due
November, 1825, and was presented and protested
Liverpoul. The defendants then refused to par ittAer
cause it had not been protested in London, where, o
contended, it ought to have been presented. The cale,"er,
tried at the last sittings in Guildhall, before Lord
den, and a verdict was returned fur the phintifir tiQo
.Lordship holding on the point of law that the presents
in
Mr Liverpool was sufficient.
. Justice BAYLEY—When could he have preient'
in London?
Mr. GURNEY replied that the defendant had thefin br
great proofs as to the custom of merchants. Pe or
called Mr. Ward, the Member for the City. Iheolier
naging clerk of Messrs. ALaterntan and Co., 3"", Ib°
persons of the most extensive business in foreign bili7iiyill9
all agreed that the general customs was to present OW:
in London. 110j11°.

Lord TENTERDEN—Yes, if the holder resided in - t that
Mr. GURNEY—But I apprehend, my Lord, thca reif°
inference cannot be drawn in the present case. of
bills are drawn on London according to the price 'be of
lion, and altering the place of presentation 10°Idif tbe
material consequences to the holder of the bilb,,„so i 0
drawer meant to pay, it was usual for him to 10'1,01 i°
timation when the money would be provided, W"
this ease had not been done. tea°
I iLord TErirennErr—lt was to be regularly Pro tte
" and refused when due."
Mr. GURNEY thought that these words only raea°to o
if the bill was not taken up when due. The (10°1,0
1' 01
this case at Nisi Prins had excited as much astati'l" P
in the City as any judicial decision he recellect°
'.oo°
would not surely be contended that if a bill were cit°
Calcutta, and made payable in London, that it so0:006
sent hack to Calcutta to he protested, before the
could get his money.
—D. loiuk, M Ganef! i°

Lord TENTEnnux—Do you think, Mr. tat
.uch a thing as that you mention could ever take Fr; so
fact; and that if a house at Calcutta refused to accer.oll
house in London would accept for honour. It cel3oo
could not be required to prevent where the acceptor PP
domi
Mcile. hooll
Mr. Justice BAILEY said he could not understals' pre
refusal to pay could be given, if the bill had net beevoll
sented. A neglect cannot be called a refusal. It.„oer',
he thought, be much safer for the purposes of 03"-0,0;
that the presentment should be made at the Pl'icejorir
the acceptor resides. No place being named in 10eroft
was a proper presentment in Liverpool. It was tli4bers
now to prevent it at the Exchange, nor ought it ter JO*
sented "no where," as contended. The. Learn&
thought that the verdict ought not to be disturbed' ipio°;
Mr. Justice Lirrutnacs—l ant of the same I il'
There can be no refusal, if no request is made'
that the protest was a good one. A of , so
Mr. Justice J. PARKE thought that the w°r"„-ire
acceptance rendered it quite unnecessary to jug," tjed''
custom, and that there ought not to be a rule '—
Rule refused.

COURT OF COMMON PLEAS. 0 Ar19
DELA FIELD, ASSIGNEE OF JONES, V. Fit
A NOTH ER.
Mr. See giant TAnDY moved for a rule to 11.01eild:110:,1
why the tiolisuit in this cause should not be *et the LlO
a new trial granted. It was an action tried l'l, oef:lorr
Chief Justice, at the sittings before the plelef,-00°, fol
London, and was brought to recover a large 6":," eitP
of the defendants, respectable attorneys in diltE•
alleged negligence in their proceeoiou..--Ruler-