Star.
London, England, 1829-06-27 00:00:00

DAY V. STEWART.

Mr. Sergeant WILD& and Mr. COMVN appeared for
the plaintiff; and Mr. Sergeant TARDY and Mr. Ser-,
geant BOMPAS for the defendant.
This Was an action upon a bill of exchange for
Silt 16s. 6d. dated in September, 1827, and drawn by
the defendant upon a person named Watson, and even-
tually indorsed over to the plaintiff, who was the holder
at the time that it became due. The acceptor then
failed to take it up. and the plaintiff, who had given a
•aluable consideration for it, had consequently brought
the present action against the drawer.
The band writing of the parties, and the present-
ment and dishonour of the bill, were proved on the
part of the plaintiff.
One of the witnesses, in cross examination, stated
that he had discounted the bill for one of the parties,
and had transferred it after it became doe to the uncle
of the plaintiff, fur the benefit of the plaintiff, on receiving
from him Potosi Mine Shares to the amount of the bill.

For the defendant, it was contended that the bill had
been given for no consideration, inasmuch as that it
had been drawn to settle some differences which had
arisen between the drawer and the acceptor, out of cer-
tain time bargains in the Stocks, to %Melt they had
been parties. It Was also contended that. as the bill
had not come into the plaintiff's hands until some time
after it had become due, he would be liable to all the
equities cf the hill, by which it was competent to the
defendant to be admitted to the same defence as he
would have been if the holder bad been acquainted with
all the circumstances under which the bid bad been
drawn. These facts proved, it was insisted that a ver-
dict must be given for the defendant.
Witnesses Were then called. *hose evidence went to
confirm the general grounds of the defence, except that
of the bill bating bean given for the diffetences arising
out of time bargains. To prove this point the defendant's
clerk was called; but he could only state-what he found
in the defendant's books, or liens his OWn belief upon
the subject. He believed, he said, that the *orris " dif-
ferences in Consols," which *ere entered in the defer'.
dant's book, meint differences in time bargains. But'
in cross-examinaiion he said that they might also mean
differences in teal bargains. It was tustontity, he
added, on what Was called the settling day, to settle the
differences arising out of real transactions as *ell as the
differences arising cant of time bargains.
The LORD Cuter JUSTICE having summed up the
whole of the ease, the Jury returned 'a verdict for the
plaintiff fur the whole amount.

PREROGATIVE COURT. Jugs 26.
&fore Sir Joint NiciocL.
SWIM V. bAkiVOOD.

This was a question arising on a testarantary paper;
executed by S.,ptia Darskind, deceased, and dated the'
29th of March, 1828. It ippeartd that the resiatrix I
was a Mauled ivOinan at the period when the paper in
question was executed, but thatole had been living for
some yeari sepirate twin her lititband, and atthehouse
of-her 'Mother, eib'u resided in Noifolk. The testatrik,
notwithstanding her re/Venni*, hid the right to dispose
of about 7t01.-Bank hock, and by the instrument in
question the fairest arising on that sum we% bequeathed
to 'Geo** Baiter. %alio wai a coachman, living in the
service of Mrs. Darwood's rancher, and CO a diughter
of Saiceest*Wo was einproye'd as a miltiner 'hf the
Ttie intunikeitt, Vas edtittly id ibei

deceased's hand writing, was propounded by %Vert*
legitift id& trieptised, bf the tkeeiserts t tarirlis 66
idode WWI it &1 ittifeistid that the cieteesed was
ifddretEd to the kfbit of difittkhik itaetit 10 es-
cm. and that the paper in question was a ritten and ez.
eiiited by her When in a state of intchitation.
Sir J. Mo und. said thrsir, in order to A aside the
testamentary paper in qtfestinn on the ground sur
Bested, it should appear to the Court not only that the
deceased des id the habit of drinking to intoxication,
but that she was incapable of understanding what ske
was doing at the period when she executed the Omits
tnent. In the present case t*o female servants who
witnessed the eieeution of the paper, deposed. that el,
though the testatrix appeared flushed, as if she had been
&inking, yet she was not in a state of int,.zieatien, but
knew perfectly well what she was doing when she mote
the paper; and the document itself fully corroborated
their testimony, for it was written in a firm hand, and
was drawn up as regularly and accurately as it was
possible for any female to draw up a testamentaty
paper. The disposition contained in this paper was
certainly a strange one, but, nevertheless, as there was
no reason to doubt that it was executed at a time when.
the testatrix understood perfectly the effect of what she
was doing, the Court felt itself bound to decide that the
paper propounded was a valid instrument, and to direct
that it should be admitted to probate.