Star.
London, England, 1827-01-31 00:00:00

LAW ItEPOR r.

, PRITY COUNCIL-a•ArPRAI.S-4astuanv 30.
Lord iftwrsta, Ale. Swot. the Marna of the Botha, tnd the
Paso Oster &sm, sat wake st the Coonoil Chamber, W rM.hks.
place, for the porpose-of bearing Appeals.
reams v. ALL4N.
ml was an appeal against the decision of the Soprano Coon rf✓
Demerara, for *seeds' executive bail from the mortgagor of as
estate in favour of the present respondeot, wbo was the mortgagee.
71111 COURT dinnissed the appeal, on the growid that there was as
distinct evidence that the required bail bad been recessive.

COURT OF CHANCERY. Jam 30.

IP ?MR MATTRR or ••••111•1111 Nal% • aaral.FT.
The Lose Cuaticas.tom attended ia his room at Westrainster,to
bear a Petition upon a writ of Habeas Clarpws, for the discharge of,
this bankrupt.
Mr. Morraitua waked on his Lordship, on behalf of the Bank-
rupt, and after ►asing gone through the matter, the bankrupt was
ordered to make an affidavit, which, his Lordship said, he would
read with the rest of the papers, and be hoped he would then be
able to make an order of discharge. The motion was net opposed,
nor were we admitted into his Lordship's presence.
COURT OF KING'S BENCH, Jar. SO.
1111.4111 T ?SUL

Mr. Justice &rum sat till half-put tea o'clock this nastalog to
hear, motions of sane, and justifications of baU.—The Coon then
rose this day, being the anniversary of the martyrdom et King
Charles L
COURT OF COMMON PLEAS, Gonossac, Jew. so.
This day stands in the calendar as a holiday, but his
Lotdship being informed that the parties were extremely
nxi ,us to hare the case of 4! Savage v. Rich" decided,
hi determined to sit for that purpose.

SAVAGE ft. 'XV, /ART.
This case was tried in this Court at the Sittings before
last Michaelmas Term, when a verdict was returned for
the plaintiff. The defendant was dissatisfied with this
verdict, and during term moved for a new trials on the
ground that the vet diet had been given against evidence.
The Court being anxious that the case should be more
fully inquired into, granted the motion, and the case
now came to be tried a second time.

Mr. Sergeant Bosawcwrr stated. that this was s

action on a bill of eschange for 1,0001. dated March,
1825, drawn by one Joshua Rowe, accepted by Sir C.
Henry Rich, Baronet, at that time Mr. Bich, payable
96 months after date. Mr. Savage was a Gentleman
engaged in the corn trade, and at the time this bill
came into his hands was in partnership with Mr.
Boggis ; the .name of the firm being Boggis and
Savage. These Gentlemen had been long acquainted
with Hobson and Marshall, who were in the same linel
of business as themselves, and to whom they had fie-
queatly been in the habit of giving accommodation.'
In July Mr. Hobson of the last named firm, applied to
Mr. Savage, the plaintiff, to accommodate him in the
following manner. He bad bills on different persons
to the amount of 1,5271. ISt. and he wished that on

giving these to Blies and Savage, they should give
him their acceptances for them. Mr. Savage hesitated,
and did not seem disposed to comply with this request,
when Mr. Hobson said he would place in their hands
three bills of 1,0001. each, as a collateral security ; to
this proposal Mr. Savage assented, and the bill in
twit* was one of those which had been thus placed
in their bands. The bills, amounting to 1,9271.185.
were three in number—one for 1,8721..95. another'
for 901. and some few shillings, and the other for 2.51.
.—The two latter were paid wben they became due,
but the former bad never been paid to tisk hour. When
Hobson and Marshall applied for this accommodation to
Boggis and Savage, the account between them stood is
favour of the latter, Hobson. and Marshall being coed:
durably their debtors. It was part of the defeated
Learned Friend that the bill had been given toe
mod Savage, for no consideration; but be cont as
'dm bill for 48724 9s. bad never been paid, a valuable
consideration had been given. The nest question would
,be whether the transaction was bottolfule? It was stated
at the former trial that the bill had been obtained from
,the acceptor by fraud. But he would prose that Mi.
Savage had not the slightest knowledge that it had been
so obtained, not had he any season to believe that it had
been obtained by any other than fair means. The bill
was not taken by Mr. Savage to negociate—it was placed
in his hands as a collateral security. It had been said that
the name of the drawer was well known, and that it
should have roused the suspicion of the plaintiff; but
he would inquire, that supposing the drawer was not
a good man, and the acceptor was, would not the bill
be considered good ? In his opinion it certainly would.
He had no doubt but he should prove it to be a 4oied
fide transaction. He should also prove that the plaintiff
had made inquiry into the circumstances of Sir Charles
Rich, and would produce the persob from whom be had
the information that Sir Charles was in good credit.
These were the facts of the cam. He should call wit.
nesses who would prove them ; and he had no doubt that,
be should entitle himself to the verdict of the Jury.
The handwriting of Kr Charles kick adasitied.
A witness proved the handwriting of Joshua Rowe, the dames
• Mr. Hobson, whn put the bill into the hands of tbst
plaintiff, was then called; his testimony confirmed all
the facts that.had been stated.
Evidence having hoes called to prove that a consideration s 4
been glees fir the bilkand that the masa:don was perfectly basejlis
Mr. Sergeant Vaironan replied for the defendant ; and a number
of witnesses were called, whose evidence went to ohm *bat
cookl not have hoes given per valuable consideration.
The Loaa Caine Jaime sunned up, and the Jury inunallatelt
returned a verdict lee the plalatilf—Dsasszes, I,oati.