The Statesman.
London, England, 1822-02-18 00:00:00

AP:

Liir mrstLIGIMCS.,,,

i CURT OF KING'S BENCH, Vitriol:area, Fu.l6.

TEMPLER P. MITRES.
This was an action by the endorsed against the as-
eerier of a bill of exchange, dated at Newcastle me
the 3d of February, 1821, by which the drawer re-
• ,quested the defeadant, two months after its date, te
pay to Messrs. Sykes and Ce. bankers, London, the
sum of 112/. The bill was accepted generally. but the
plan of payment was thus made part of the request of
the drawer by whom it was subsequently accepted. It
was prind that the drawer, for abase accommodation
the bill 'us made. remitted to the bankers mentioned
In its body, before it became dee, feeds sulicint
'pay it; bet Jading it ass sot presented, he withdrew
',hose finds from their hands. Payment, in fact, was
net demanded till a month after the bill became due,
• whoa then were no effects in the possession of the
bankers.
Mr. 'TINDALL now contended that the acceptor was
discharged by the beta of the bolder. It was, in-
deed. solemnly tinkled, that where a place of payment
is specially mentioned in tSe eeerptimee only, no proof
of presentment or notice of dishonour is requisite to
charge the acceptor. Bet here the place of payment
was pan of the original contract; a circumstance
''which brought the cue precisely within the printiple
of the cons of " Sanderson v. Bowes," 14 East. 500,
sod " Roche s. Campbell," 3 Campbell, 247; in
which it is decided. that if a promissory note be made
payable in the body at a specified place, it mast be
elnly repeated there, though the cue is otherwise if
the rape is only specified is a memorandum at the
foot. when it forms so part of the instrument. Be-
sides, here the damage to the acceptor was not matter
of possible specelatioa, but of actual proof; for bad
the bill been presented is time. it would have been
paid.
The LERD JUSTICE intimated a decided opi-
nion that neither presentment Nor notice was made
obligatory oa the bolder by the words Inserted in the
bill. He, however, gene Mr. Tindall lean to move
for the 'Erg* a Posta on the point, if, on consider-
ation, be should think there was any chance of sae-
ens, sad directed a verdict for the plaintiff, with 971.
damages.
HORSE C. PETERSON.

Mr. Camel °posed the pleadings in this cause.
The plaistif, is his declaration, complained that the
deka:kat' bad *pokes words charging him with ern-
be:sling bis esoales to the amount of several bucked
potted', modals° sewing him of particular Mateo.
of fraud, in having received monks from Sir Gofer
Heeler and Lady Iffitinay, for which be ar
counted. The defendant pleaded that be was not
, guilty, sod also pa/tilled by a plea, which, though it
professed to apply to the whole of the words, only
charged Dee act of embesslemeat respecting 21. Ye..
received *Oa Ladyliildasay.
It. °MENET stated the circumstances of the case
to t jury. it appeared from hls opealeg, and also
Mom the *Adam of the witne's's. that the parties
Were related by nenniage, and bad both lived is the
aersiec the Earl of Besberough, the plaistiff as
groom or ostler, and the defendant as steward. Abate
nine years ago, Peterson, whe is a Russian, and im-
?trimly acquainted with the English language, took
• livery-stables in Oxford-street, and agreed with the
plaintiff to manage them for him, authorising him to
receive gooney and to conduct all' the affairs of the
trade. Horne, therefore, left the service of Lord
hksborwagi, in which the defendant tonelnued, and
managed the business until about.* year ago, wheel
Petema um& harsh imagnage to. Mtn respecting the
mode is which a horse bad been ridden by a customer,
at which be took tame, gave trarning, and finally
quitted the service. After this. the defendant made
the charge against him to a Mr. Reynolds, a book-
seller, in Oxford-semi, and repeeted the 'causation
in the bearing of one of his postilions. It was fur-
ther kited by Mi. flunky, In his opening, that after
this action was brought, the defendant preferred an
indicrekat for the imputed fraud against the plaintiff,
on which be was tried at the Old Bailey, and acquit.
ted en the cross-examinatioe of the pet:Mentor; to
which it was answered by Mr. ADOLPNUS, that the
aemtittal was occasioned by the confusion of the de-
fendant, who is an *ld man and • foreigner ; but
there was no proof of either of these assertions of the
d counsel, and the'Loan Collor derma directed
the jury to dismiss thane entirely from their minds.
On the part of the dafeodant. Mr. ADOLPUUS offer-
ed to prove that various sums were received by Mr.
Home, in the comer of his employment, fir which he
never accounted to his master:
But the Lean Cuter JUSTUS was of opinion that
the defendant, by the terms of his pies, could only
give evidence of the specific transaction alleged re-
specting Laxly Mildinay, because the plaintiff could
only be prepared to disprove this individual charge,
and was not to be surprised by new accusations on the
trial.
'1 be 1 d Counsel, therefore, addressed the Jury.
ea the defendant's case, but did not call any witnesses.
The LORD Cuter JUSTICE, in his charge, ob d,
that as the words were not proved to be true, they
must be treated as false, and that the plaintiff was
clearly entitled to a verdict; but that the Jury would
follow a recommendation which be shears offered in
f this kind—to be temperate is estimating the
damages.
The Jury found a verdict for theplaintiff—Damages
loot'