Star.
London, England, 1803-01-28 00:00:00

GREENOCK, JANUARY 214

The Clyde, *Coil., from hence to Liverpool,
is put into Deaumaris.
The Severn, Law, from hence to Brißol, and
about 6o fail f Yeats, are wind bound in Beira
Loch. _ _ _

1711 e Neptune at Naples from QDebec.
The True Briton, Macnouoas, failed from
Cork for Jamaica on the t4th inft.
The Active, What, and Margaret and Agnes.
M,Pitaasom from hence for Liverpool, were fife
in Be!fail Loch on the 16th inft.
The Pomona, RAMAT, which failed from this
port for Grenada, on the 14th init. put into Bel.
fall Loch on the 15th, owing to contrary winds
and bad weather.

The Louifa, hi‘Fit, of Glafgow, bound for Li-
verpool, put into Belfaft Loch on the •4th intl.
where Captain Mins was informed there had been
fiveral wrecks on the coati.

TheTay, Kiwi, from Sligo for this port, (prong
a leak at (ea, and both pumps having no circa,
bore away for Lochfoyle, and was driven Afire in
a gale of wind, on Quigley Point, about nine miles
from Londonderry. it appears by a letter from
thence, of the tsth init. that the cargo would be
all fared I but the kelp and yarn were damaged.
the vettel having been in fuch a lituation, that the
tide ebbed and flowed over her. Kilos, the mat:
ter, was determined however, if he could get the
veal well repaired, to take the goods on board
again, and proceed on his voyage to Greenock.
The Alert, M.Lacm tan, and Jeanie, M'Dov•
oats, from this port for Liverpool, were Rill in
ampbelton Loch on the aoth inR. after attempt.
ing to make their paiTage, had been beat back with
gales of bead vriud.—Sevetal vetiels were there
waiting a favour.ibie wind.

LAW INTELLIGENCE.

COURT OF KING's BENCH, TAN 27.

TINDAL AID CO. V. LF.Wrs AID ANOTHER.

Mr. GIBBS moved for a new trf:ll. The Olin-
tiffs are Bankers at Eriflol, and br.wsht this action
againft the defend.ints Lewes and !fudges, on re-
veral promitfory notts, which were tira.vn by
them. The cattle was tried at qui:dhlll, at the
Sittings after laft Term, when there was a verdid
for the defendants. The promilrory notes in quer-
lion came into the bands of tire ,plaintiffs, by hay.
ing dikounted them, and althon,,vh the defendants
had adually paid the amount of thefe notes; that
money, through the bankruptcy of Gayer and
Company, had never comeinto the hands of the
plaintiffs. The queflion le the caufe was--Whe.
ther the plaintiffs had given credit to the defen-
dants for thefe notes, nr whether they did not
look to Clover and Company for payment ?
There were fome ftrong fads in this cafe. The
defendants had .paid the amount. of there notes to
Clover and Company. The plaintiffs were aware
of that circumffanee, and yet never anted the de-
fendants for this money for upwards of fix years
after, and till after the bankruptcy of Glover and
Co.

Lord ELLIIIISOIOUOII thought it was clear the
plaintiffs had !hewn by their conduft they looked
to Glover and Co. for payment. The evidence
feemed to prove that, and he believed the verdia
of the Jury was founded on that belief.
Mr. Gress (aid, the plaintiff. had 'hewn all
the favour :hey. could to the defendants, becaufe,
in truth. Glover and Co. ought to have paid this
money. They had proved this debt under their
Commifflon, in cafe of the defendants, becaufe if
'they had fued the defendants, and had received
this money of them, the defendants could n. •t have
come in under the Commiffion ; and therefore it
was very hard, that becaufe the plaintiffs had
done every thing in their power to relieve the de-
fendants, by proving the debt under the Commit*.
lion of Glover and Co. that they fh,Juld be confi.
dered as having difcharged the defendants. They
had sifted from the molt honourable motives.—
Rule refufed.

TAYLOR O. IiARRIS.

Mr. ERSICINP laid, it would be necelfary to Rate
the ground and principle on which he made this
motion. This cattle was tried in London, and
was an action on feveral bills of exchange. The
defendant objected to the payment of thefe bills,
on this ground, that he fhould be able to impeach
them for an utiorious confideration—and he fuc.
ceedcd in that, Lord Ellenborough being perfect.
ly fatisfied on that point. But promiffory notes
having been given originally for goods, the plain-
tiff propofed to go on the count in the declaration
for goods fold and delivered, on the authority of
Gray v. Fowler and others, t. H. Black. 462.—
The Learned Counfel Paid he did not difpnte that
law ; but this cafe was abundantly different, and
was this :—The defendant purchafed goods of the
plaintiff, and, for the payment of them, gave him
certain promiffory notes, five in number, on which
this adino was not brought. When two of thefe
notes became 'due, the defendant took them up;
but, before the other three became payable, he,
fearing he fhould not be in a condition to honour
them, applied to the plaintiff, and this agreement
was entered into between them—the plaintiff
agreed that the defendant fhould draw upon him
bills of exchange, to the amount of the three pro-
miffory notes which were Rill outftanding in dif-
ferent hands, and that he, the plaintiff, would ac-
cept thefe bills of exchange, on which the aAion
was brought. The plaintiff laid, I will not do this
for the mere difcount, but you &all pay me a
premium of t tl. 51. That premium was added
to the intereft, and .the defendant gave the plain.
title promiffory note for thefe two articles alone.
The cafe then was this—the plaintiff fells goods
and delivers them to the defendant, which he pays
for by promiffory notes, payable at different dates.
After be has paid two of them, he agrees with the
plaintiff, that he fhould accept bills to be drawn
on him, by the difconnting of which, he, the de-
fendant, might take up, and did take up the three
promiffory notes. But the plaintiff, in order to
induce him to accept thefe bills, not only infißed
on legal intent*, but a premium of tt4 se. The
defendant, at the trial, had a verdict on the counts
for the bills, and the plaintiff had a verdia for the
original confederation, or value of his goods; and
the only queltion was, Whether the nfury, being
eftablithed on thefe counts, could reftore the plain-
tiff to his original demand for goods fold and de-
livered ? The Learned Counfel admitted. that if
the bills tainted with the army, had been the notes
which had been originally given for the goods, the
plaintiff might Rill have a right to recover, as for
goods fold and delivered. But here the notes dig
were given for the goods, were all taken up and
paid; the two firft with the defendant's own mo.
ney, and the three left with the money be receiv-
ed by dikounting the bills which the plaintiff nor
cepred. This atiton was btnoght for all the goods
fold and delivered, although the defendant had
paid two of the promitrory notes with his own mo-
ney. The bills of exchange not being paid, cams
back on the plaintiff Isioniel6: but the firft notes
which were given for the goods being all paid, he
fubmitted that thefe bills exchange werein fad
a loan of money from the plaintiff to the defen-
dant at an ufurious interek. and when thar was
proved, the plaintiff had no right to refort to his
goods fold and delivered, beeank thefe bills were
not connected with the goods. At the trial it was
conceived that the original promiffory notes were
affected by the ufury,bitathat was a Initiate.
Lord ELLEVIOROUGI4 (aid, it feemed from that
Ratement there mull be a Rule to thew cafe.—
Rule granted.
_ _