The Statesman.
London, England, 1823-01-11 00:00:00

ever. •
This also leas an old question, which took up mach
time both to dly and on a former occasion, as to whether
certain bins of exchange had been given for a valuable
consideration:or whether they were mere accommoda-
tion bills, and if they should he proved to Lave been the
latter, whether a regular notice of their having been
oishonoured, ought to have been served upon
the drawers; Ste. When the matter was before
his Honour the Vice-Chancellor, he directed an
issue to try whether they were accommodation hills or
not, anti alienist all books and vipers to be produced at
the trial—heit that was appealed from, on the ground
that the ptaintiff ought to have liberty to examine the
books before the trial came on ; and the argument to-day
was, that, for the purpose of saving expellees, an exami-
nation of the books, should take ulace before the
Master, and Int he should he allowetl to say whether
they were Or were not accommodation bills, without the
case going to • Joey.
The assignees, under the commission objected to this
mode of proceeding as from every view of the case they
could take it would be sure to very considerably add to
the expense that %%Quid attend the deciding of this ques-
tion.
His Imantnir thought that in any way of proceeding
that could be adopted in this matter much expense would
be int:tiered. He, however, on the whole as a preliminary
step, ordered that the case should stand over for a month;
and that the liefeirdeats should deliver to the plaintiff all
books and Writings; in the meantime to know whether
hey could or' not make oat from them a case that
hey were modation bills.

COURT OF KING'S BENCH, JAN. Ica
CHAMBERS V. ROOPCR.
This woo action upon a guarantee given by the de-
fendant to thAplolltiff for the payment of a promissory
note for 10601. by a Mr. Liitper, defendant's wan-
in-law. payable six months after :late, the ronsideration
of which was money Advaneed by the banktwg tone of
the plaintiff to the debtor.
The plaintiffs case was conducted by Mr. SCARLETT
and Mr. COMTH ; and the defendant's by Mr. MARRI•TT
Mr. F. Pohkacc, and Mr. Braun.
The defendant was described by the name of Doctor
Hooper, soil was stated to be father•in•law to Mr. Harper,
a cow keeps r. A sum of l'4loo/. had been advanced to
Mr. Harper upon his promissory note, payable six
months after date, and the defendant, by a letter given
in evidence, guaranteed the payment of the note, if nut
taken up when at maturity. The note was dishonoured
when due, but no notice of the dishonour was given to
the defendant.
The defence set up was threefold; first, that the de-
fendant had notice of the dishonour of the note;
•
second, that after its dishonour Mt. Harper kept cash
at the plaintiff's banking house, and at one time had
money of his to the amount of 1.2001. in their hands,
out of which they might have paid themselves ; and
1 third, that after the dishonour of the note the elaintiti
commenced an action against Mr. Harper upon it, and
took a warrant of attorney from him for securing the
payment of the debt, without the privity of the defend-
ant. Upon alt, or any of these grounds, it was submitted
1 that the defendant was discharged of his liability. The
facts bearing out the statement.
The CHIRP JUSTICIC expressed an opinion that if the
jury were satisfied of the facts, the defendant would be
discharged in point of law. la consequence of this opi-
nion,
The plaintiffs elected to be nonsuited, sod they were
nonsuited accordingly.