The Statesman.
London, England, 1809-12-01 00:00:00

L4W INTELLIGENCE.
-.1., •
COURT OF /MOT BENCIL 774

_
..........

. Thursday, Nov. 30. ~
Sittings before Lord Eas.cNnostoroat At Glad.
hall, London.
31111112 V. Intel' AND ANOThrelt.
Mr. Pause stated, that the Plaintiff was an
attorney of this Court, and the Defendants were
charged as the drawers of a promissory note.—
lie understood there was some dispute as between
the Defendants and Edward Ward and Thomas
Ward, Kirby and Wallis ; and that it was alleged
that the original consideration fur this note has
illegal; but that could nut affect the Plaintiff, un.
Ices it could by shown that he knew the cunsideta.
tiers for this note was illegal ; ler he was the
ton.' fide holder of it, for a valuable consider.
ation, and the Plaintiff certainly did not know the
consitieration to be illegal. lie was an Attor.
ney, Ole had done considerable business in hit
profceston fur Messrs. Ward, fur. which his bill
amounted to a considerable sum ; they were in
eosse..ion of this note, which was drawn at
twenty-one months, a thing, which undoubtedly
was not common in the way of trade; this note
was given to Mr. Birkit, by Messrs. Ward, in
part paynient of his demand, but when he had the
a ;le it hid only four months to run when it
was offered to the Plaintiff, lie observed to Messrs.
Ward it had a considerable time to run ; they said
46 yes," but that they had taken it for an old
debt, upon which the Plaintiff naturally took the
note, nut chusing to offend his client by refusing.
There was no possibility of bringing home any
knowledge to the Plaintiff of any illegality of the
consideration for which this note was given by
' the Defendants to Messrs. Weed, and therefore,
ho must be entitled to recover upon it, however
Messrs. Ward themselves might have been unable
to do so. had they been the Plaintiffs in this ac.
lion. Mr. 13irkit was the holder of the note
for a valuable consideration, and he had no
knowledge of any illegality in the considera-
tion for which it was given, and that was enough
1 for him. lye could shew that the Plaintiff, Mr.
! Birkit, hail done a great lva! of business for
Mears. IVerd, of whom he had received this
note in part of payment, but that would be
hardly necessary until the legality of the note
was impeached.
I Benjamin Cressthwaite said he knew the De..
fenclant; proved the note to be of the leand-wri.
ling of the Defendant, and that it was indorsed
! by Messrs. Ward ; was present when the note
I was given by Messrs. Ward to the Plaintiff, who
! had done much !tipsiness for them as attorney.
1 Messrs. Ward had paid Mr. Birkit several sums of
money before that time oe account of his • having
done business fur the partnershie. .
1 Cross-examined by the Attorney-General. The
witness said that thePlaintiti had been attorney
fur Messrs. Ward two or three years before that
time. 111 was then their only attorney.
The note beine read, was as follows :—" Lou.
don, 10th August, 11307: 21 mouths after date
I promise to ;ray so E. end T. Went, or order,
1681. 7s. fur value received. Sigucd by Mr.
Kirby, and 1.... and T. Ward."
Jelin Bebb, clerk to Mr. Birkit, proved that
Mr. 13irkit, the Plaintiff, had done business as an
attorney fur Messrs.- Ward so fir back as the
year 1806, and that his bill upon them amounted
to between 3001. and 4001. •
The Arroasee-Gem LIAL said, he believed that
. with the materials • with which he was at present
furnished, he should bring the case to a couclu.
idol', which would entitle him to a verdict. It
was justly stated by his Learned Friend Mr. Park,
that except in certain cases, provided fur by the
( Act, when a DWI sends a bill, or any other luxe-
' viable security for the payment of money, into
the world, he cannot object to the payment of it,
when in the hands of a person who has given vas
Inc for it, un :lie ground that there was an illegal
consideration for it, unless he can prove that holder
to have had full knowledge of that illegal consi.
deration, although be might avail himself of that
objection, as against the person to whom that in.
I strument was originally given. But if be could
I prove the holder to have knowledge of the illegal
consideration at :rte time of his taking the instru.
menu, then the original vice in the instrument
would be an answer to the holder as well as to the
person to whom the instrument was originally
given. The case was this :—Kirby and Walks,
in the year 1807, had been unfortunate ; they
i were unable to pay the whole of their debts, but
' their creditors were so well satisfied with their
conduct, that they agreed to take a composition
of about thirteen shillings in the pound in satis.
1 faction of their claim,. All the creditors did this,
eacppt Messrs. Ward ; they had nu objection to
the other creditors taking the compost ion, but
had an objection to their claim being included in
it ; they thought, however, they might find it
difficult to enforce the payment of the whole of
their demand, and that it was more expedient fur
them to appear to assent to the composition with
the rest of the creditors, and therefore they agreed
to sign the deed of cerniersition, and se to re.
tease Messrs. Kirby and Wallis apparently, but
they insisted on securing to themselvtl the differ.
encc between the amount of their debt, and that
of the composition ; and, to induce Messrs. Kir.
by and Wallis to give this note, they offered to
give'tweuty-ime months time for the eayment of
it; which, from the pressure of their circum.
stances, and dreading that the effect of their re..
fusal•might be that of preventing all the rest of
their creditors from assenting, and m:ght lead to
their insisting upon payment of the whole of their
demand, Messrs: Kirby and Wallis were induced
to sign it. Thus, then, this note %as at fraud
upon the rest of tie creditors, and Messrs. Ward
could never enrolee pat ment of it in any Coed
of Justice; nor e :uld Mr. Birkit either, if lie
knew that this wis the consideration for it. Thal
he had that knee 1. dee lie maintained tie be clear,
since he was etterney for Messrs.. Ward before,
and at the very eeried when he toek this note of
them ; :i.‘. hr reetended that this was corral*.
i stet! by Mr. Bit ki.'s answer 49 a bill filed against
him in Chancery, ua account of this trail:tractive.