The Liverpool Standard and General Commercial Advertiser.
Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1832-12-04 00:00:00

COURT OF COMMON PLEAS,' Monday, Nov. 26.

MELLISII v. RAwpoN AND OTHERS.---This was a que. Con of great
importance to the mercantile world, and excited great snisation in the
city. The judgment was pronounced by the LORD CHIEF JUSTIOE.
He observed that a rule had been obtained by the defendants, which
called upon the plaintiff to show cause why a new trial should not be
granted, upon the ground of misdirection by the judge upon the trial
of the cause. in consequence of which the jury found a verdh.t for the
plaintiff. The law laid down to the jury appeared to be suhstantially
this---that they were to determine upon the evidence before them as
to whether there had been unreasonable delay upon the part of the
plaintiff, the holder, of a bill of exchange; in sending it forward for ac-
ceptance, or putting it into circulation ; and, in order to arrive at a
proper determination of that question, the jury were told that they
were to take into consideration the interests not only of the drawer,
but also the interests of the holder ; and they were to say, under all
the circumstances, was the delay in.this case, which amounted to four
months and twenty days, an unreasonable delay or not? That must
he taken as the substance of the judge's direction to the jury. The
defendants, in argument, contended that it was wrong so to have put it
to the jury, and that the proper way was, whether they thought due
diligence 'had been used by the holder of the bill in sending it forward
for acceptance, or putting it into circulation. •With reference to the
drawer, it was urged, in the course of the armament, that by the law
of merchants it was the duty of the holder to put the bill into circula-
tion, or, if he retained it, he should have sent it forward for accept-
ance by the first packet that sailed to Rio Janeiro after it came into
his hands, or, at all events, by the second. There was no evidence in
the case of a general unvarying course with respect to foreign bills
payable at a given time after sight to he pursued by the holder when
he kept them in his own hands. Had there been proof of such gene-
ral usage it would have put an end to all doubt, and the time for for-
warding a bill of acceptance would have been ascertained. The only
question then would have been as to whether the bill had been sent
forward within the specified time or not. But there was no such evi-
dence of such usage ; on the contrary, there was a great deal of con-
flicting evidence of the judgment and opinion of merchants on the
point, and a great diversity of opinion prevailed. Again, there was no
definite time prescribed by the laws of England when such presenting
for acceptance should necessarily have taken place. Upon the whole,
the Court were of opinion that the jury were properly directed to give
judgment upon the question as to whether the bill was sent forward or
circulated within a reasonable thne ; in doing so; they took into con-
sideration the interests of both parties, and they decided that the time
was reasonable ; therefore the Court were of opinion that the rule for
a new trial should be discharged.---Rule discharged.

TEE CHASE.
The Woodford Harriers' will meet, this, day, at •Longforl, on tie
road from Preston to Whalley ; and Thursday, at baeLwora4hi4i, in
OswaidtwiStle--each morning ,at