Star.
London, England, 1804-01-28 00:00:00

RBID V. BLANCH D.

This was an alien to recover the film of 31. for
work done as a Surveyor, and the defendant pleaded
the Statute of Limitation, the hill having been con-
Wafted near ten years ago. The dtbt was firft at-
tempted to be proved by a letter from the defen-
.. dant's boufebeeper, who, it was Hated, had the en-
tire management of his affairs ; hut the fad of her
agency was not fuificiently eftablifhed.
The plaintiff's Attorney's fim laid, that the de-
fendant, when he ferved hint with procefs, admitted
the demand, and exprcfred his furprize at being fued,
as he had a fet off.
In anfwer to this evidence, the defendant's ftrvant
pofitively declared that his mailer told the perion who
came with the writ, that be did nut owe the plaintiff

any thing.
Mr. Easetwa, in his addl.& to the Jury for il:r
defendant, regretted that the fpirit of the Statute
Limitations was not more flriftly adhered to, iu order
in prevent fuiu for debts which bad expired by the
efflux of time.
Lord ELLFINICWOOO.I made a few obkrvati..us
the COMparative credibility of the wiintires, and the
Jury returned a verditt fnr the plaintiff.
His Lrrulfhip informed the Bar, that he w. fit
in Weftmintler Hall, nn Thurfday nett, the 2J of
February, at nine o'clock in the moaning p:LciiAy.
WILL•

Before the Courtrofc, a.. d Lord ELLt w soL ra.r n f4t
at Ni P.rie►,s Cafe Was ..r.9ittl by Mr. re.
601 t 9 giS p

worded as to afford &opt to the itsgenuitfof Coostfai
to goers at and to contend for fuch interpretations of
the Tellator's intent, as might, be favourable to the
Client interefted in the meaning contended for.
The cafe is thus far interelting, that it manifefts
the imprudence of thfe who with to make a difpofal
of property by will (different from the slit-poi:it which
the law makes in cafe of inteftacy ), in not employing
pert-ons competent to exprets their intentions perfpicu-
cony, and according to the technical import of legal
phrafeology.
Lord Et taw soitoti on Paid the meaning and inten-
tion of a Tellator are not (objets for ccnjeaure
They are to be inferred and taken from the words he
ofes—and the words are to be interpreted according
to their grammatical import.
Mr. ]unite Gauss Paid he had conlidemble doubts
as to the adual intent of the Teflator, but it was
lifer and better to avoid conjedure, and to interpret
according to the grammatical import of the words
of a will. If a party, in oplionifii, chutes to draw an
inßrument of this war. and to •run the hazard of
error, it is better of two evils that his intent, not fut.
ficiently expreffed, &mild be fruftrated, rather than
that Courts of Juftice ihould have either the power
or the trouble of wandering into conjeaure. He
therefore was guided by the grammatical import of
the words of the Will.
Judges LAWRENCI and-La BLANC had no doubt
on the fubjed. and the interpretation, continent with
and refultmg thus from the words of the tenement,
was by the Court anonimouny adopted.

alas rains.—Ar V WYNN!. '
The Plaintiff brought his anion to recover the furn
of t 61. tos. the value of a bullock bought by him on
his own account, and fold by him to Mrs. Wynne, the
Defendant's wife. It appeared by the evidence of
the kit witneli, Stuart, a butcher, that the Plaintiff
had been apprentice to Mrs. Wynne, before the was
married to the Defendant. He continued in her fer-
vice after her marriage ; (lie managed the butcher-
ing bufinefs for her holband, who appears to have
given hirufelf Teo, little trouble about it. She al-
lowed the Plaintiff often to purcha'e cattle at Smith-
field on his own account. The bullorj# the price of
which was the enure of this action, was bought by
him cal his own account, and when flaughtered he
fold the earcafe Mrs. Wynne. The amount of the
price bad been aitd to him ; but a Mr.. Smith, a re-
lation of Mrs. Wynne, get it back from him for Mrs.
Wynne, for force pnrpofe for which the wanted it ;
and Mrs. Wynne owned, twenty times at lealt, in
the prdence of witnefs, that the money was doe
to Plaintiff.
Mr. Users's objefted to the legality of this evi-
dence. Mrs. Wynne's declaration, he infifted, not
coupled with any aft of trading carried on by her for
her hatband, could not be evidence againft him.
Lord ELLerraoriouoir confidered her as 'aaing
for her hulband, by his permiffion, in every refpeft,
except as to liability to be fired, *in the predica
cement in which the Defendant himfelf was ; and
be admitted the evidence.
Mr. Matelots., on the fame fide with Mr. Gatt-
i tow, mentioned a cafe in point, where Lord Kenyon
p had, under fimilir circumftances, admitted fuch evi-
dence. Verdi& for Plaintiff.

COURT OF COMMON PLEAS, JAN. s 7.
NAMES V.
Mr. Serjeant Base applied for a rule to Qsew eanfe
why the verdift for the Plaintiff in this cafe flould not
be let afide, and a nonfuit mimed.
The action was tried before Mr. Janice Amite. at
the fittings after Lift Tet m. The fubjett of the as
lion was a Bill of Exchange, and the point on which
the defendant, who was the indorfer, had contended
for a verdia in his favour, was, want of due notice
of its dilhonour. The bill fell due on the ill of Oc
tober, and it appeared in evidence that it was not
prefented for payment till after nine o'clock that
evening, being a Saturday. The Acceptor lived in
Totsenham Court Road, the Plaintiff in the near
neighbourhood. and the Defendant at Knight (bridge.
This notwithllanding, however, no notice of the dif-
' honour of the Bill was fent to the Defendant, till
Tuefday the aah, at two o'clock in tile afternoon,
three days after the bill fell due. The Learned
Counfd was aware that it would be laid, that the bill
had lain in the hands of the Plaintiff's banker till late
on the Monday, and therefore that no improper delay
was imputable to the Plaintiff. This, however, he
contended, could not operate as an exeufe. .f:le bill
had not been paid away to the Banker, but had
merely been put into his hands as agent for the plain
tiff. Any irregulatity in his conduel, therefore, mud
attach to the plaintiff.
Mr. Serjeant Brsr then proceeded to %ew that it
had been held as an ettablilbed point of law. whether
wifely or not, both in that Court and in the Court
of King's Bench, that the next day after the dam
flour was all that was allowed for a notice of this
kind, when the parties !elided in the fame place ;
and when they refided at a diitance, that it was ne-
ceffary that %eh intimation fhnuld be made in row'jr
of poll. He adduced revival cafes in fupport of this
doarine.
Lord A remarked, however, that in the
cafes cited, no Banker had been empliiyed. The
Banker, he raid, furcly was not bound in this cafe to
fend to Knightibridge, to give notice of the difboaour
to the defendant. He did all that was incumbent on
him. He intimated it to his employer on the next
lass ful day. The plaintiff did all that could be re-
quired cf him. He was ant bound to be at home,
waiting for the return of the bill, but neat day he
tendered it back to the Defendant.
Mr. l'erjeaat laid. if it was nn: laid down as
a rule that ti:c Banker and his crr.oloyer were to be
et:infidel ed a. cnc and the farte pc, nc;,:i!,enee to
oily extent hr
held bound, ei.her to yiye r, I 'o
Jorier. or, to return t)ic bill to Ms
time as that he may. give due [vit.:e
venture to la'-. that there was n-t I, ink
don who svoold not acknrovh: !
to give loth notice 1.. l
Mr. Ju:tce :hey s.
ably lo it ,hev .1•,1 I:> it d"; 1.
duty, would he to t,.,t e
kr, p a club for cv_ry bill i!le
poll Li,ni. IVere this to 11C held, n
toad undertaking fu .h.rwer,
1.,t1 A •A• 11 Jr on
point. As hi. vi 1, ciii cz.vcel
it tei be a titeclti,uut.:Lieh Lupor:aao:, he !Loa:. can

i 1, ..

niu

the In

I,_ would
Lon-

:r. pt.anice

,yicainn.

.1 !,;s:-.kga to

his
w,u1.1 be

nt

!?;: poir,?