Star.
London, England, 1826-05-22 00:00:00

LAW REPORT.

COUX OF XING'S MUNICH, nar_iconas.t., MAY 20.
MILKS V. 11000$.
This was an action by the plaintiff, an attorney,
against the defendant, the drawer of a bill of exchange,
accepted by the defendant's father. About the time
the bill became due the defendant and his father went
to the plaintiff, and he WAS
_requested to hold tl.e bill for
a short time longer, until some property of his father's
would be sold, when the bill should be paid. The only
questions were, whether the request to the plaintiff to
hold the bill and the piornise to pay were made by the
defendant, andwhetherthe bill was presented when due?
Evidence was produced that the bill had been presented at the
re.idence of the lather, where the son also resided.
The LORD CHIEF JUSTICE stated, this was an action

against the drawer of a bill of exchange; and by law,
iC the bill was not presented when due, the drawer was
release I from his liability, if he chose to avail himself
of that defence. But if, knowing that the bill had not
been presented when due, he waves that objection and
prurni.es to pay, he' then becomes liable.—Verdict for
the plaintiff—Damages 581. lOs.
GIBBONS Ve CIIAMBERT.
This was an action nominally to recover thirty shares
in the -British Annuity Company. The plaintiff agreed
for the purchase when they were at a discount; but
before the contract was completed by the t;ansfer of
the shares they rose to a premium, and then the de.'
fendant refused to fulfil his engagement. The action
was substantially to recover the- difference in value
b.:tween the discount and the premium. The broker's
n les for the sa'e being tendered in evidence,
Mr. F. Pomace objected that they could not be read, as they
were not stamped.
The Loan CAllir Jusysea allowed the objection, and decided
tint thew shares were not " goods. wares, and merchandise," es
drictibed in the declaration ; and therefore noosnited the pialiE
CAUTION TO WINE-NZIRCIIANTL.—MOLLOT V. lIIREDITH.

This was an action brought by a wine-merchant. to recover from
the defendant the sum of 291. 7s. 6d. for wine and spirits sold and
delivered. It appeared that all the spirits were supplied in quanti-
ties less than a gallon, and
The Loan Cum Jostles, therefore, directed the Jury to strike
Out all those items in giving their verdict for the plaintiff.
The Jury found for the plaintiff, making thew deductions.
HARLIN V. HERRING, GRAHAM AND CO.
• Mr. Serjeant VAUGHAN stated, that this was an ac-
tion on a bill of :exchange, of which the defendants
were acceptors. They wete engaged in extensive spe- '
culattons in the New World, and in raising money for
the South American Government. In 1823 they, had
conceived a project of purchasing mines, and for that
purpose sent out, as confidential agents, Myon, Mouray,
and Esther, who drew the bills on the defendants,—
True it was the defendants did not sign their names to
them as acceptors, but an acceptance might be by parole
as well as by writing ; a promise to pay amounted,, fn
law, to an acceptance. As to the fact of the promise,
it was for the Jury to decide from evidence. The facts
comected with it were briefly as follows :—Mr. Esther,
the confidential agent of the defendants, having em-
barked in a mining speculation on their account, blr-
rowed 50,000 dollars, as a security for which he gave
14 bills of exchange, 'amounting to 11,4581. 6s. Bd.
drawn on the defendants. Shortly after this, they
opened a negotiation with the United Mexican Mining
Association, and sold to them the mines which Mouray
and Esther had purchased on their account, for the
.50,000 dollars. The United Mexic.n Association,
knowing that these bills of exchange bad been given
as security for the purchase-nsoney of the mines,
undertook to pay . the amount when due; but the
defendants said, that as the bills bad been drawn on
themselves, it would be more becoming that they should
take them up. To this the United Mexican Associa-
tion acceded, and actually paid the amount of the
puiChase- money to the defendants. The Learned Ser.
germ contended that this amounted to an express un-
dertaking to pay the amount of the bills. He under-
stood that the defence set up would be, that when the
bill bad been presented, in January last, for acceptance,
and refused, the plaintiff had protested it for non-accept-,
ante, and therefore in law he was ft( t entitled to recover
from them as acceptors; but .be maintained, that pre-
vious to that time, the defendants had accepted it by
parole, and this they could not waive by any act which
the plaintiff had done through ignorance ; at all events,
if he could not recover on the bill of exchange, he was
entitled to a verdict for money had and received by the
defendants to their use.
Several witnesses were called to prove the facts of the case.
SOrjeatit aildressed the Jury on behalf of the defend-
ants. lie gated that the bill having been protested for non accept-
ance, the defendants were net liable as acceptors • and that though
they were bound by the acts of their agents, they ought not to be
sued as drawers.
The Loan Cow Jostsrat said. that as there was a large sum of
money at stake, and no question of the fact respecting the liability
of the defendants, a verdict should be taken for the plaintiff, sub •
ject to the !pinion of the Court as to the legality of the mode of
suing for it.—This was accoediogly acceded to.
COURT OF COMMON PLEAS, MAT so.
FISHILa I. STOCEDA LS.
. This was an action for a libel published in the Ninth Nuinber of
the klensairs of 'Harriett Wilson.
Serjeant VAUGH4kI said, that the plaintiff was an
Attorney resident in Dorsetsi lire, who bi ought this action
to redeem his character from foul imputations cast on
it in the publication in question; and, in so doing, be
thought be could ii-e do greater good *, his country.
It was impossible for the Jury to live in this country,
and not to know that this work was of so scandalous
and abusive a nature, that every legal exertion ought
to be made to suppress it. The libel in question was
introduced in the 9th Number of the Memoirs of Har-
riett Wilson, thus.—"r An old Irish cracked General
asked me if I knew Fisher, the Lady-killer God
forbid,' said f. •He is just the man for you,' replied
the General, for be is a practical sharp lawyer, and
will put you up to a plan of making that vile shabby
Duke treat you better—lie is a very gay man, the
beauty of Devonshire, six feet tall, and has black eyes,'"
&c. She then went on to state that she had writ.en to,
him on professional business, and had received an an-
sa er, requesting her to call at his chambers after dark,
be would then be alone, Scc. She then commented on
this fabricated letter, designating it as an attack on her
chastity, and censuring the impudence of a dirty, nasty,
six feet high country lawyer,, in attempting to make
love to her. Mr. Piblier nas also introduced as having
said to the General, that though he had heard a great
deal about her he did not think much of her, for she had
not a good point. The Learned Serjeant said, that the
plaintiff had a large family and an amiable wife, wh9
could not avoid feeling affected by this publication, and
that lie had thought proper to proceed in this inoc'e of
action to give the detendant an opportunity of putting
a justification oar record; his neglecting to do that was
st meant evidence of the falsehood of the imputation.
Ti.onras 111itchelson deposed, that he had purchased the Num-
ber containing the libel at kir. Stoekdale's.

John Alarsltall peeved the marriage of ;the plaintiff to 17915,•
be had read the libel in question, and thought it alluded to Itlt.l
Fisher; there was no otheeperson of the name In that neighbourhood.
►Mr. Serjeant SPANNEY, for the defendant, told the
Jury that they should leave but of their consideration
every knowledge of the book except what was contained'
in the number before them ; it contained nothing of the
nature of an imputation on the plaintiff, for the person
there represented was Charles Feeder ick Fisher,whereas,
the plaintiff on record was Hugh Evans Fisher, who had
no tight to appropriate to himself the description al
luded to. If he was a rain mart, the honour of having
been libelled in such good. Company as that of 'Dukes
and Marquises should be gratifying to him. But whe-
ther it was a drama, or taken for a romance, or al.
luded to tome Mr. Fisher that lived in the times of the
civil war, There was no evidence; but it was foolish in
the plaintiff to suppose that it alluded to himself; the
Jury most have read in the Spectator, where some
pragmatical man wrote down the Whole Doty of Man,
and applied different parts of it to every man in the pa-
rish. This stewed the inclination of mankind to form
ideas of other persons; and so will Mr. Fisher, who fan-
cied, as he had been six feet high, and had black eyes,
that none could be meant but himself. The Learned
Serjeant here indulged in a strain of ridicule, whereby
he amused the Court for a considerable time, anJ con-'
eluded by telling the Jury that they ought not to en-
courage an Attorney, whose object in coming forward
was to specula-s in damages.
The CHIEF JUSTICE said, that this was a fertile, but
not a fit subject for ridicule; it was for the Jury, who
were married men, to say whether a publication, imput-
ing to a man who had a wife and c' ashen, that he was
in the habit of loving every pretty woman he could see,
but was too impotent to satisfy his pas,ion, should be let
pass with impunity-. The plaintiff was represented in
that book in the manner in which an ancient poet re-
presented a lewd woman—least:la non oiris—
independent of the injury of his moral character it was
calculated to effect him professionally; for what family
would employ an attorney to make marriage settlements
if they believed him guilty of the conduct here imputed
to him ?—The Learned Judge c ncluded an eloquent
charge by recoasmeuding the Jury to give such da-
mages as would operate to check such. publications for
the Intuse.—"Damages 7001.