The Statesman.
London, England, 1809-12-22 00:00:00

YENNING V. LUCKIE.

The ATToRneY-Gmen ‘r. stated this to be an
action against the Defendant for not having car-
ried into effect, nn his part, the agreement which
bad been entercd into by him u ith the Plaintiff,
respecting the disposal of a certain quantity-0f
elm -The Plaintiff was a man of perfect respect.
ability, and inferior to none in this commercial
city, for integrity in his dealings, nor had that
cleiraeter of his been ever so much as broeght into
rostion, Until the occasion arose out of which
this action. sprung ; and on that occasion, some.
Cling happened that prpdnced the present contest
between these parties.. They had been intimately
connected in commeree and in friendship, but that
friendship had been broken off for reasons which
t se Plaititiff was conscious were not discreditable
to him. Au irritatimi was the effcct of the rupture
in the friendship of these parties; and this action
was the fruit of that rupture; ho was sorry that
such a misunderstanding should take place between
two persons who had been so connected. The
Plaintiff was conscious of the perfect rectitude of
his intention, and was ready to manifest that by a
reference to his actions, as they related to the
subject matter of this cause. The Thfentlaut
might, however, rely upon it that nut a word
should fall from his lips, as he opened the
cause of the Plaiotilf, tending to increase that
irration, under the influence of which he was
wrsuaded the Defendant had acted. It was
however, necessary that the Plaintiff sliquld come
ito a Court of Justice, to thew his readiness to
h.vo the whole of his conduct • investivited
o.)erily, and before the public; to do away en-
trely all possible chance of any imputation
resting
_upon his tharactcr, in consequence of
what bad been circulated about him, on the
subject of this cause; and that was really all that
he was anxious for. He was not actuated by any
personal hostility towards any body ; his only
object was the viie6catioti of his character, and
that he went upou accomplishing.
Mr. Passe huprd lie should he excused for
trespassing upuu the Court, and for doing a thing
so apparently irregular, as that of interrupting
the AlAorticy-General in the course of his ad-
dress to the Jury. pure intentions %scut his
apology. Ho wis to restore the friendship of
these parties. He new of nothing so likely to ,
conduce to that vitt, as a frank declaration of
the feelings of his client, the Defendant. Ile!
protested, that he felt, at this moment, no irri-
tation towards the Plaintiff, nor had lie the least
inclination to say, or to do, any thing that might
have the effect of making him uneasy. So far
from it, there was not a word in his brief, tend-
ing to 'Mew that the Defendant was actuated by a
spirit of irritation. As a proof of' it, he was
willing to submit the whole of this case to any
geatleinan whom the Plaintiff himself would be
pleased to nominate.
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL said, that after hay-
ing offered to the Defendant an opportunity of en-
quiring into the conduct of the Plaintiff openly
in Court, and 'hewing a readiness to justify the
whole of it ; and as the Defendant declined that
investigation, the Plaintiff would not object to
the etude _proposed, of adjusting all matters be-
tweet' him and the Defendant, by arbitration.—
Ths cause was therefore referred.

• STEVENS V. LYNCH.
Mr. Gaituow said, there oas but one reason;
why this cause was tried by a Special Jury, and
that was to cause delay in the proccecings ; that !
object had been gained. As to the cause itself. •
there was nothing in it. It was an action upon
a bill of exchange, of which the Plaintiff was the;
bons fide holder for a valaable consideration, •
and the Defendant the drawer. It was accepted
by a person of the name of Jones ; but when pre.
sented by the Plaintiffs clerk to Jones, it was dim.
honoured. The defence was, that the Defendant
had not received due notice of the dishonour by
the acceptor. Generally speaking, no action could
be brought against the drawer of a bill of exchange,
unless he had notice of the acceptor's nut paying
it ; and the good sense of the thing was this..-
That the drawer might have as early a recourse as
possible to the Itcceptor himself; but there were
cases in which the law dispensed with that prac-
tice. One of them was, that of the drawer haw-
ing no effects in the hands of the acceptor. No.
lice to the drawer of the null-payment by the
acceptor was unnecessary in such a case; he
could not want notice of an event which he n►ust
know would happen; that is, that the bill would
be dishonoured fur want ►yf` effects. That was
the ow here. The Defeudant bad no effects iu
the hands of the acceptor in this case; it was a