The Statesman.
London, England, 1818-07-13 00:00:00

His Lordship then looked OM the Petitions and
appeare4 to doubt.
Mr. HART— -64 We have been told at the Council
Office that a similar • has beets issued."

process
The LORD CIIANCRLFORS6 This Court has
nothing to do with the made of transacting besisess
in the Council Office. Yoe may take the process of
this Court as far as it is prayed for, and make what

use of it yoo no."

INJUNCTION.
WHITAKIR V. PIRRYMIAD.
Sir SAMURL ROIRILLY moved for an Injunction to
restrain the Defendant from collecting the partner.
ship debts of the Plaintiff and the Defendant, and 1
from disposing of any of the partnership property,
under the following circumstances Plaintiff
and Defendant entered into partnership as chymists
end druggists, in the year 1813, for the term of
twelve years. There was a clause in the deed of
partnership, that if either of the partners lined ne•
gociable paper for any other purpose than of the con-
cern, that the other was at liberty to dissolve tha
partnership. The Wilms, was carried on be the
Defendant as the manager of both parties. The Plain.
tiff had friend out that the Defendant had given an
accommodation bill, in the name of the firm, to a
third person, for the sum of 3001., and that be had
received several sums of money on account of the
concern. which he had applied to his own use, in
direct violation of the articles of partnership. The
I'laintiff had in consequence served him with notice
of the dissolution of partnership on the sth of the
present month. Under these considerations he (the
Learned Counsel) had no doubt but his Lordship
would grant the motion.
Mr. RAITHIT, Counsel for the Defendant, said,
it was impossible for him to oppose the Injunction ;
at the same time, he was certain that his Client could
put in a full answer to the Plaintiff's bill, which
would be done in a few days, and in the mean time
he trusted that his Learned Friend (Sir Samuel)
would be satisfied with an undertaking that oo waste
would be committed, which would make the appoint-
ing of the receiver unnecessary.
The Loan CHAItCELLOI--" You cannot say a
word against the Injunction. I mast grant the mo-
tion as prayed for. You say the answer will be pot
in in a few days; then you can move to dissolve the
Injunction. Although the receiver is granted, he
cannot be appointed before the time you have men-
tioned. In which case, if your instructions are Mu-
rect, your Client cannot be injured."
Motion granted.

.....milla
COURT OF KING'S BENCH, Jose 11.

DROWN AND MIMI V. WiLLIAMs.
An action upon two bills of exchange specially ac-
cepted : the one for 2001. drawn by Ebenezer Wild,
at Palermo, at 30 days sight, payable to the order
of A. Gibbs and Co., accepted by the Defendant on
the 29th July, at 90 days, and endorsed to the
Plaintiffs; the other for 4001. between the same par-
ties, and accepted in the same manner.
The acceptances did not appear on the face of the
bills; but on the part of the Plaintiffs, Mr. MAR-
! WIAT put in two letters, containing, as be argued, a
special acceptance of the bills by the Defendant ;
that principally relied upon bore date on the 2d
August, 1817, and contained the following sentence
—" I have accepted the bills, the holder being coo•
tent to receive them at 90 days."
On the part of the Defendant, Mr. SCAILLSTT ed.
milted, that as the law stood, an acceptance might
exist, though it did no appear upon the face of the
bill ; but he argued that the sentence relied upon,
was to be understood conditionally, as if the De.
fondants had said, 614 I have agreed to accept your
bills, if the holdet is content to receive them at 90
days," for the bills had been drawn at 30 days,
which did not suit the Defendant's convenience.—
The holders, who were the Plaintiffs, however did
not choose to eatend the time of payment, and con-
sequently there had been no acceptence, either special
or otherwise. To show this fact, be called a Notary,
who proved that the Bills were presented on the 29th
July, when the answer was given that they would
be accepted et 90 days; but the Plaintiffs not consent.
ing, they had procured them to be protested. It also
appeared in evidence, that notwithstanding, on in.
telligence arriving on the Bth of August, of the death
of A. Gibbs, one of the endorsers, the Plaintiffs
again presented them, bet the Defendant then re.
fused to put his name upon the bills, as the Plain•
tiffs would not concur with his proposal at first.
Mr. Justice Annoy observed, that it seemed
evident that the words used in the letter, " I have
accepted," were a mistake by the Defendant, who
had actually refused to accept; but one of the Jury
entertaining some doubt upon the point, Mr. MAI.
avArr addressed them, insisting that, although the
Plaintiffs bad protested the bills on the 29th July, it
was only done as an additional security against the
other names upon the Bills, and not because they
considered that the Defendant bad positively and
definitively refused to accept. .
Mr. Justice Assoc, in summing up, observed,
that he was one of those who deeply regretted that
special acceptances, either by letter or otherwise,
bad crept into the law-merchant of this country, and
he sincerely wished that nothing had ever been deem.
ed an acceptance by our Courts bet the actual au.
pearance of the name upon the face of the bill. He
then left the question to the Jury, whether they
thought that the words " I have accepted" had or
had not, been written ender a mistake; if so, then
the Defendant was entitled to a verdict.
The Jury retired to consult, and in half an hour
found a verdict for the Defendant.
SAMS MILLS V. IagADAII, (MVOS, AND MSS.
An action for a libel. The declarstion, as stated
by Mr. CIIITIN set eat the stet. 66 Cr, 111