The Statesman.
London, England, 1812-01-25 00:00:00

BATH V. TAYLOR.

Mr. hails applied to have the verdict in this case
set aside. It was an action en a Bill of Exchange,
and was tried before his Lordship at the last Sittings
after last Term, at Guildhall, when a verdict was
found for the Plaintiff. The sole question was, whe- ,
they, where an alteration was made in a Bill of Ex-
change,
a new stamp was not necessary ? The De-
fendant was the acceptor, and the Plaintiff was the
second indorser of the Bill of Exchange on which
the present action was brought. The drawer of the
Bill was a person of the name of Ledger, who was
examined as a witness on the trial. He stated, that
when he made the Bill it was dated the Ist of Au-
gust, and that, to accommodate the Defendant, he
altered it to the 21st. It had never at this time gone
forth out of his hands. He told the Defendant of
the alteration on the day he had made it, either be-
ttor. or after he had made it. He told him either
that he had done it, or that he would do it. The
Defendant did not desire Ledger to make the alters-
tion, but he thanked him for making it. It immedi-
ately, on the trial, occurred to his Lordship, that
this ease was similar to that of Cursbaw n. Cox, in
3d Espittasse, where there was an addition made to
tie Bill, after it had bein drawn, of the words " or
order." He (Mr. Jervis) now submitted, that the
present case was clearly distinguishable from that to
which he had just alluded ; and in support of the
argument which he should have to submit to their
Lordships on this head, he begged to refer to three
decided cases, which he conceived would be found
to be exactly in point. The first of these was the
case of Caldwell e. Martin, 16 9th East, and which
vas also very well reported in Ist Campbell, p. O.
The second case was that of Wilton v. Justice, which
would be found in Mr. Justice Bayley's book on
Bills of Exchange, ,page 24, Note A. And the
third case was that of Beaumont v. HMOs/ in adl
Term Reports, p. 537.
Lord EcLassonouon said, the Learned Counsel
might take his rule.

COMMON PLEAS, Jaw, 21.

HUSSEY V. ?RICKETS:

Mr. Serjeant VAUGHAN in this case, which was
tried the last Sittings after Term, at,Gnildhall, Lon- i
don, and a verdict obtained in favour of the Plaintiff;
moved for a rule to show cause why the verdict I
should not be set aside, and a new trial be granted.
The Learned Serjeant stated, that the action arose
out of a wager, made between the Plaintiff and D.
tendant, two gentlemen of the law, as to the state of ,
their respective ages. The wager was for " a round
of beef and trimmings," which was won by the Plain-
' Defendant demurred to the payment ; but
Plaintiff being determined to take the full advantage.;
of his good fortune, ordered a splendid dinner for
himself and a few friends, at the London :Tavern, for
which he paid, and then brought his action against
the Defendant for 181. the amount of the bill for the
said dinner. The Jury 'who tried the cause not
abiding by the charge of the Judgetwho held that a
verdict could not legally be givenso • fainur of the.
Plaintiff, found in his favour) to the full amount If
the damages laid.
Sir JAPES MANSMILD.—" J recollect the case, I '
sowt confess I was surprised at the verdict.—Take a.
Male to show cause."

.

..r'~3Nr~~.tl`-

wiy,,,,A..• 0.

. _

61", •