Star.
London, England, 1829-10-24 00:00:00

SMITH V. HESECTII.

This was an action on a bill of exchange for £l,OOO, accepted
by Mr. Hesketh, the son of Sir Thomas Hesketh; and indorsed by
two persons named Atkinson and Edwards. The usual proof was
given of the hand-writing of the parties.
The Arroutay•Garaart., for the defendant, gave a curious
history of the bill. Mr. Hesketh having occasion to borrow two
or three hundred pounds, Mr. Atkinson (one of the indorsers),
who was intimate with him, said he could obtain the sum front a
merchant named Wheeler. Mr. ilesketh gave an acceptance in
blank to Atkinson, and meeting hint some time after, underitood
that Wheeler would not advance the money. Atkinson, as be sup-
posed, destroyed the acceptance, and he did not know that it bad
been negociated until the bill was presented.
Capt. Atkinson being examined, stated that he paid Mr. Hes-
keit), at three different times, 1,0001. in bank notes. The payments
were after the blank acceptance had been put into his bands.
This statement established the right of the Plaintiff, the in-
dorsee, to recover. and the Jury found a verdict for the plaintiff.

BRANUM AND OTHERS V. MOM.
This action was brought by the Plaintiffs, who are well known
engineers, to recover between two and three thousand pounds for
iron work done for the St. Katherine's Dock Company. The ob-
jection was confined to the charges, which the Defendants opposed
as being unreasonable. The inquiry at last became so Minute and
complicated, that the parties consented to refer the whole to arbi-
tration.
Mr. Bariumuse, as Counsel for the Defendants, undertook, on
the part of his clients, to pay the Plaintiffs, by the fourth day of
next term, 2,0001. and refer the general account to an arbitrator,
giving him authority to allow interest for any additional sum which
might appear due to the plaintiff.

ADAMS V SAVNDIRS.
This was an action on two policies of insurance on the ship
Earl of Dalhousie and cargo, on a voyage from Quebec to Lon-
don. The policies were effected in October, 1826, and the ship
sailed about that time, but before she arrived at the port of delivery,
she suffered much from bad weather. Her cargo was obliged to be
taken out to repair the ship, and the owners sought to recover the
damage sustained.
The policy produced by the Clerk of an Insurance Broker of
Liverpool, appeared to have been adjusted, as the name of the De-
fendant, originally on the back of the docuMeto, had been can-
celled.
The Arrosurr-Groasat. contended that the settlement which
appeared to have been made with the insurance broker, deprived
the plaintiff of his action against the underwriters.
The Jury found a verdict for the Defendant.
COURT OF COMMON PLE iS, Ocr. 43.
Adjourned Sittings at Guildhall.
11IUMATTZ e. NDDIX AND •NOTHSR.
This was an action brought to recover the value of eight hogs-
heads of wine sold by the plaintiffs agent to the defendants. Se-
veral witnesses were called, but they failed to prove that the
defendants purchased the wine on their own account. The plaintiff
was therefore nonsuited.
mum( V. winos's.

This was an action on a contract entered judo between the par-
ties, by which the plaintiff agreed to take fruit at 4s. 6d. per box,
front Messina to St. Petersburgb, and other goods in the same
proportion. Pumice-stone was part of the cargo, and the defend-
ant had thought proper to charge this according to the tonnage,
instead of the size, and by that means took £47 more than he
was entitled to.
The Cuter Joanne left it to the Jury to say whether the custom
of paying for the freight of pumice-stone was by admeasurement
or by tonnage?
The Jury, after deliberating for a short time, teturned a ver-
dict fur the defendant.