Star.
London, England, 1821-07-31 00:00:00

KIRKPATRICK V. KIRKPATRICK.

Mr. WiNorittLn asked leave to mention this case
to his Lordship. It related to the marriage of a ward
of Court. The parties who opposed the marriage
formerly before his Lordship, now consented to it,
and if his Lordship would withdraw his order, the
Master of the Rolls was ready to hear the petition
for the proposal to be laid before the Master, and to
make an order on it.
The LORD CHANCELLOR" Let it be so."
BOWES V. THE EARL OF STRATHMORE.
The ATTORNEY•GENERAL stated, this was the pe-
tition of the Countess Dowager of Strathmore, pray-
ing that it might be referred to the Master to tax
the costs, as between solicitor and client, incurred by
the petitioner in claiming the dignity and honours
of the title of Strathmore for her infant son, and
that they might be ordered to be paid out of the
trust estates.
Mr. HART said he would not object to the prayer
of the petition being gr.‘nted, if the costs of the Earl
of Strathmore, the uncle of the infant, were also al-
lowed in the same way. The trust estates were as
much the property of the Earl of Strathmore as they
were of the infant ; for, if the latter died before he
attained the age of 21, they would be vested in the
Earl. He (Mr. Hart) wished to know if his Learned
Friend, the Attorney-General, intended to press for
that part of the former petition of the infant which
asked to be put in possession of the Scotch estates?
—He should, however, suppose he would not, after
what had fallen from his Lordship in another place
(the House of Lords) on the subject.
The LORD CHANCELLOR—" What fell from me on
that occasion was not intended to be binding on the
parties. I certainly was of opinion that a Scotch
marriage could not exist, when a woman claiming the
benefit of it as one of the parties had never been in
Scotland in the whole course of her life."
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL said it was the intention
of those who acted for the infant to take the opinion
of Scotch Counsel on the question.
The LORD CHANCELLOR-1g Let the costs of both
sides be referred to the Master to be taxed as between
solicitor and client, and, when taxed, to be paid out
of the trust estates."

COURT OF KING'S BENCH, JULY 30.
COX AND CO. O. ROBARTS AND OTHERS.

The SOLICITOR-GIiNgRAL stated the case to the
Jury. This was an action brought by the plaintiffs,

Vle!isrs. IL A. Cox aid Co. against the • defendants.
Messrs. Robarts, Curtis, and Co. for the recovery of
the sum of £938 on a bill of exchange, stated to be
accepted by them. It appeared-that, on the. 9 th of
March, 1820, the plaintiffs received a bill drawn
upon the defendants at 61 days after sight, which
bill was, on the same day, left in the usual manner
for acceptance. It was nor, however, called for till'
the 27th, and it was then delivered to the clerk of
the plaintiffs with the acceptance cancelled. The
drawers, Messrs. Stevens and Roach, bankers at
Cork, had in the intermediate time become insolvent,
and consequently, although the bill was in the first
instance accepted, it was cancelled before given up
to the plaintiffs. The Learned Gen-leman, however,
contended that the acceptors could not, after having
once signified their acceptance, recal it.
J. B. Willis.—l am clerk to the plaintiffs. I left
the bill now shewn me at the house of Robarts and
Co. for acceptance, on the 24th day of March, 18'20.
I put it in the box, as is the usual way. I did not
call again till Saturday, the 27th March. The bill
was then given to me in the state it is now in. 1
made no remarks to any one there on the oddity of

its appearance.
John Coles, the Solicitor to the plaintiffs, was then
examined.—He had paid particular attention to. the,
obliterations on the bill. With the assistance of a glass
he can make out to his satisfaction the words " Ac-
cepted, 24th of March, 1820 ;" likewise part of the
name, " Robarts and Co." If, however, he had not
been so well acquainted with the circumstances of the
case, he should not, perhaps, have been able to read it
so clearly. With that knowledge on his mind, the'
whole of it is quite intelligible.
Mr. SCARLETT—In your mind's eye, Horatio!
In answer to a question from the Jury, witness
said, "I think I can trace the word accepted,' it
being written in brighter ink than that used in the
obliteration."

Mr. SCARLETT, for the defendants, contended, that
the simple writing of the words was not legally an
acceptance; to constitute an acceptance there must
be open delivery, acknowledging it as such.
The COURT observed, that this was a point of ex-
treme commercial importance, and although several
times agitated, had never been finally decided. Mr.
Scarlett would have an opportunity of bringing it
forward in another shape.
Mr. SCARLETT continued—lf such was not the case,
a blot made by accident in the place where the ac-
ceptance was wont to be written might be so con•
strued ; or t wo bills, one for a large and the other for
a small amount,might be left at a merchant's, and the
small one might be intended to be accepted, and the
clerk by accident begin to write on the larger. Was
it, in such a case, to be supposed that it could not
be cancelled ? He must correct the statement of the
Solicitor-General. He admitted the insolvency of
the drawer, but averred that a knowledge of it was
not possessed by the defendants till the 29th March,
consequently they were not induced to cancel their
acceptance on this account. It was an allegation
in the declaration that the bill, by such obliterations,
was rendered useless, but as it was admitted that all
the original writing was legible, that allegation could
not be supported. The plaintiffs had their remedy
against the other parties. On this ground, there-
fore, and the one he had before mentioned, that to
constitute an acceptance there must be delivery as
such, he rested his clients defence. The only ques-
tion for the Jury to decide was, is this any accept.
ance at all ?
The LORD Cuter JUSTICE charged the Jury. It
was for them to make their own observations upon
the bill, and the evidence of Mr. Coles. If they
thought (and there could, in his mind, be but little
doubt of it) that the acceptance was ever written
by the defendants, they would find their verdict for
the plaintiffs.
The Jury returned a verdict, damages £938.
BIRCII AND ANOTHER V. THE REV. R. 0. CREWE.
This was an action by the Proprietors of the Staf-
ford Bank, against the defendant, as indorser of cer-
tain bills of exchange.
It appeared that the plaintiffs, in the early part of
the year 1817, did business as bankers with a man
named Berks, who carried on the trade of a maltster
and corn-factor at Charn, about ten miles from Staf-
ford. The defendant lived at Muxston, in the same
county: he was a clergyman of the highest respecta-
bility, being nearly connected with one of the first
families in the county, and possessed of an income of
nearly £5,000 a-year, including his preferments.
The plaintiffs having objected to advance any money
on the bills which Berks drew upon his factor in
London, named Wright, until they had received ad-
vice of heir acceptance, he proposed to them, if they
would discount the bills immediately, that he should
get the indorsement of Mr. Crewe to the bills which
he might hereafter draw. To this agreement the plain-
tiffs acceded, and his future bills had accordingly the
name of the defendant indorsed on them. Berks con-
tinued to discount bills with the plaintiffs till the lat-
ter end of the year 1820, increasing every year in
amount, till they reached £40,000 per annum, to all
which Mr. Crewe's name was indorsed. This went
on till December, 1820, when some bills were re-
turned unpaid; and application being made to the
defendant, he declared the whole were forgeries.
Berks had absconded, and was supposed to be gone
for America. The amount of the bills outstanding
in the plaintiffs' hands, with the supposed indorse-
ment of the defendant, was nearly £B,OOO, besides
other bills in the same predicament in the hands of
the Proprietors of the Newcastle, the Stone, and
Nantwich Banks.
The plaintiffs called several witnesses who knew
the hand-writing of the defendant, and they swore
that they believed it to be his signature which was
attached to the bills.
The Counsel for the defendant called W. H. Davi-
son, Esq. Sir John Chetwynd, and the Rev. Mr.
Cockburn, Rector of the parish adjoining Muxton—
all of whom had known Mr. Crewe many years.
They gave a positive opinion the indorsements were
not in his hand-writing.
Mr. Crewe, jun. also stated that it was not his fa-
ther's writing : the indorsements were written with a
new pen; his father seldom wrote with a good pen.
The Jury, without heiltation, found a verdict for
the defendant.—This case occupied the Coa:t
seven hours.