Star.
London, England, 1808-11-10 00:00:00

and the executian was taken Mitt the ttieath• of Oc-
tober last. Rule to show cause granted.

MIIMICOITIS O. MfItDLTH•
The Cater Jostles observed, that in this case a
point had been sent to the Judges i* the nature of a
case to be argued, but it did qot appear to be a point
reserved at Nisi Prins, nor a question sent from the
Lord Chancellor, but appeared to be a matter which
two gentlemen at the bar were pleased to call on the
Court for an opinion on a point which they wished
to have settled. This was too summary, and some.
what unceremonious in individuals, in calling upon
the Court to give its opinion, and therefore the case
should be considered as undelivered.

WOOLLY AND ANOTHER V. TOMLINSON.
The ATTORNEY GENfRAL moved for a Rule to
shew cause why the verdict which was given for the
plaintiff should not be set aside, and a nonsuit entered;
or in the alternative, a new trial should not be had,
on the ground that there was usury in the transac-
tion between the parties. After stating the compli-
cated circumstances of this case the Court granted the
Rule as prayed.
LORD GALLOWAY V. MATTHEWS AND OTHERS.
Mr. TOPPING moved for a rule to shew cause why
there should not be a new trial. The Defendant, Mr.
Matthews, had been concerned with Mr. Smithson in
the trade of a brewery, and Mr. Smithson was also
in the profession of the law. Mr. Smithson disliking
the aspect of the brewery concerns, and the conduct
of his partner, inserted in the public papers an ad-
vertisement, stating that he would not be answerable
for any debts that Mr. Matthews, his partner, might
contract ; upon which Mr. Matthews felt a difficulty
in going or., and Lord Galloway, his neighbour, was
kind enough to accept for him a bill of exchange for
2001. at 65 days, he undertaking to provide funds for
the payment of it when it bccame due, and for that
purpose accepted another bilr in his own name, and
that of his partner, Mr. Smithson, of which my Lord
Galloway became the holder. But when the bill be-
came due, Mr. Matthews did not take it up, and this
action was brought upon it. The bill which Lord
Galloway had accepted to accommodate Mr. Mat-
thews, was discounted. immediately, and the produce
of it applied to the payment of duties to the revenue,
and other partnership debts to the amount of 1801.
So that this was not an acceptance of Mr. Matthews
to support any concern of his own, but to benefit the
partnership.
But Lord ELLENDOROI7OII held, that the notice
which Mr. Smithson had given, that, he would not be
answerable for the futui e contracts of Mr. Matthews,
which- Lord Galloway knew of, repelled the other.,
wise implied'authority of one partnesito charge the'
other with bills drawn on account of the trade, and
advised the Jury to find for the Defendant.
Mr. TOPPING submitted, that one partner quid
not thus absolve himself from the engagements of
the other, in business which concerned the joint trade.
' —But the Counr held, that the authority of one
partner to accept a bill and contract this debt for
another, is but an implied authority at any time, and
was here specifically retracted ; that the Plaintiff's
remedy, therefore, was against Matthews alone.
Motion refused.