Star.
London, England, 1827-10-24 00:00:00

e*ef,••• •

LAW
1141111102i4k
_
• .Coffin 'OP ..11CINfriXARNelt
Before /Abed Tseiirysidtikeesdiiiitiek" ••
J. IiALSI, JIM/ AUAt\$T IC tei rittg.UVE *Awl 10,
" • 4 •• '
This was an action fof a'gneetiogginctieention. ;Tile
Taal ',tiff art 4 Vete tEst two tnestibell"for the
btu °ugh of, ek Ives,' in
.etyli opt, -7 •
The Agroikjeit dims/tit, fort rplotig, oilicithat
h;s cheat gitas jii 'bone: tbei e.confi 6mise grott)ol lead
to a better tioderitandlist beivreent the parties t 'Bbd he
mould therefore consent to'taLe verittiwith naininal
. ,
damages.-
This was acceded to by the defendant ;
Lor'd TeArgangtrexpres4d hopes':thai fife two
membits for St. Iges would Be able to settlb ell their
dis_putes.
Verdict, by consent, fur the Plaintiff.
%Wallis v. NATLEIi..
This was an action against the defendant, as acceptor
of a bill of exchange for:1,501. drawn by the platetiff.
The defend,' t pleaded usury;
The A-rine:say GENERAL said, 'thit visit the third
action Which the plaintiff had been obliged to bring
upon certain bills which had been drawn under circum-
stauces perfectly fair and honourable, although he had '
not been allowed to recover upon th. m without having
been obliged to fight liis w y throogli a host of -*dyer.
saries. The planniff. after two •inories, could not,
ItAweger. help helix% a little surpri.ed that a third
chamPicio should silting up.' Upon a former trial be
~thr'Att,orriey deneral) had stated the plaintiff to-be
Mitt-444e seeiclietnt. This *iii i mistake,. whicit be
was ueilrode 'boil to rectify. Tjie plainiiff was nate-
rallied ; he was'iltign of fortune, arid bad large pea.
sessions in the island of 'Madeira. Some years sinettie
was requested by Mr,Wildman, a West India mercbebt,
to lend him a large sum of nicfney, which he agreed-to
.:o upon proper security. The money wis advanced,
and part of 'the security was the present bill. On the
former trials Mr. Wildman' had been examinee, gad
.he evidence he ribald nob/ give, if the defendantielled
''him in support of his plea, could not be materially &if-
Yerent from what he had bef ire given. The detendint
:tried what fie could do in a Eourt.of Equity, but had
been unsuccessful. There was no pretence for axe: thing
usury to the plaintiff, who would have been much mote
willing to give up a portion of the inferest, to which be
was strictly entitled, than 'to have run the risk of
losing his capital by taking more than the legal inrerest.
The signatures of the- parties to• the bill.were proved,
and the bill was read.

Mr. F. Nileti, for the defendant, endeavoured• to
prove that the plaintiff hid tatted mns than legal inte-
rest upon the sum lie had lent Mr. Watson, by having
Oren upon part of the sum the amount of a year's in-
terest at the beginning of the year, insitsd of waiting
for the close of it, v. hen the interest would hare becoine
due, and for that purpose he called Mr. Wildman, who,
however, did not •prove the point.
•D,

Veldiit for Oil -pi itiotiff—
fiteiest, 2,b091.

,Amager, for principal and

TANILITT AND ANOTHER D., SAWYERS:
This was an action to recover 1,1521. the balance of
an account. The defence *as, the set-off of a bill of
e‘chatigo for 2.0001. in favour_ of the defendant, drawn
upon the plaitititri; by Messrs. Mercer and Co. of Cal-
cotti, and alleged by the -dafernlant to hAve.been ac-
cepted by the plalnfiffc • • • - - •
The whole point turned' upon-whether the plaintiffs
hatfur had pot accepted. the bill. -It appeared that the
defendant had beenin India; and had left a large suns
of money% the hands of Messrs. Mercer andro.frorn
whoni, upon setting net for-this eruntry, he received a
'letter 'of credit upon•the plaintiffs, stating that -they
woad' guarifttee any irdvaocels the- plainflfs' might
make him: Upon reeeipt wf this letter, the plaintiffs
allowed the defendant to -draw upon them, which he did
to a very considerable extent. The reetendant received
the bill foe 2,0001.-ttom Messrs: 'Mercer and Co: which
Was drawn-payable at six Months after sight, and sent
it to the plaintiffi with the following-letter, detedthe
9th of November;" I enclose• a bill. from Messrs.
Mercers for 2,0001. which you will of course accept
from such time as the -bill would in ordinary course
have come to hand. I :WI be in Lond .n beforcit is
due." The plaintiffs returned the lollowing answer,
whit!: the Attorney-General contended amounted toms
acceptance :—" The enclosed bill is, I .appose, a tensity
lance on the account of our advaLce t if such it iv, and
you will endorse it; *e will accept it, and it shall go to
your credit." To this letter the defendant, who was at
Dunbar, replied on the Ist of December-0 I received
your letter some days ago, returning Messrs. Mercer
and Co.'s bill, which I did not espetr, as--I said-in my
letter I should be in town beinte it tell dire, and I do
not understand why it should be returned for endorta.
don previously to its acceptance, unless it were for the
purpose of negotiation, which- would not be necessary
in the-present instance, as you will see by Messrs: Mer-
cer's letter, which shall be produced to you with the
bill, to show the general post-mark." The deenclant,
however, did not endorse the bill, or return it to the
plaintiffs, and hews came from India that Messrs.
cers had failed.

Mr. CAtarsatE contended, that'an acceptance was a
contract thit Could riot be implied; no negligence,' de.
fault, or misconduct, could amount to h. • It was for-
merly held that if a bill were sent fie:acteptance and
kept an uneason.ble length of. tittle-by the- ti;aster,
such delay would amount to at acceptance; that, how-
'ever, was not now the laws No man could be held liable
as un acceptor unless he undertocik upon the bill. • Ac.
ceptances were either 'atsolfite or conditional. 'I he
fetter the plaintiffs Tents on receipt of the bill, clearly
*did nor amount to the absolute acceptance; it supposed
a condizion.tt If you will endorse it, we will accept it.'
Wyss antra conditional .promise,. andthey were in no
situation to 64 the bill- to their' advantage in this it ac.
ebunts'with Mecca and Co. until they had accepted it.
It Kg's a conditional Offer, and the condition was not
only not peifotmed, but the letter of the defendant, of
the Ist of IY:ceinber, was a disclaimer of that offer.—.
Was it Merely to save postage that the bill was not et.
clo.ed in that !titer ?. TAtlO.v:ould have been Scotch
economy, indeed ! If the-Zefendant* wished to save Is.
20; he was hot to do it at the risk of Messis.' Tarbutt.
By that letter, he allo:ted that this bill hid been ac.
*cepted:' The plaintiffs. 'levet credited the. defendant
with the amount, nor did they eve; debit Mgus. Mercer
land Co. 'titbit ; not did they make any fißty of it in
slier books... o - •

Lord Timmons said, that the question was more of
fact than Of law. /1 the Jury were of opinion thatl e
whole transaction amounted to an undertakior the
part of the plaintiffs to be charged
would find for the defendant; bu

they had made themselves responsible
plaintiffs mustreeavei. • '
• To a question From a Juryman
said, it had been held in some of
'snise alter the bill was doe, that
amounted to an Acceptance. A
Noiralent to au acceptance bat

A•crile

. .
• 9
i
1
a
.1
.4
--
.
1
• 4.
... :
• I
°t
I I
1
, . •.
t
.
•
, .
1
.
4
At
1, ' • II
N., • ,
••
:.
,
i
• i

an undertaking r n the
ged as acceptors, theT
ut if they did not think
insible as acceptors, the
an, Lord Teurzurnsm
F the cases that a pro-
it should be accepted.,
promise to' age
t a proniite to
z:
•