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

THE` STATES,

mare matter or accommodative, and only one
out of many which had passed between these par-
ties.. But if it were possible that he should fail in
this, he should prove an acknowlalgment of the
Defendant, of his own liability to pay this bill
three months after its dishonour by the acceptor.
The reason why ho was nut applied to sootier was,
that he conkd not be found.

John Thomas proved the siznatnre to the bill
to be the hand-writing of the Dofetillant.
Alexander Miller, the Plaintilt's clerk, proved
that lw and Mr. Cleland, the person who held the
bill in question, and who hid indorsed it over to
the Plaintiff, went to the Defendant about three
months after the bill had been dishonoured, and
urged the liefentlant to pay the bill, when he said
he thought that Jones had paid it ; on being told
the contrary, he promised to pay it himself, say-
ing, they need not do what they said they would,
deliver it to an attorney, for that he would call
and settle the matter that very day with the
Plain till.
Mr. Cleland's indorsement being proved,

Mr. GAttitow proposed to a% a witness
to substantiate the facts sworn to by the Plaintiff's
clerk.

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL objected to him, as
an incompetent witness, on the ground of his be.
ing interested in the event of the canse—for, if the
verdict should be against the present Plaintiff, the
witness might become eventuaay liable to pay the
bill, as indorser of it to the Plaintiff. If it went
for the Plaintiff, he would be exonerated, bccause
then the drawer would be liable; bat

Lord ELLENBOIIOUGII hold, that this person
MO a competent witness, and observed that he
could not be excluded from that character, tt ithout
laying dossing a principle by which would be cx.
eluded every person whose name appeared upon
the back of a bill. and who came to assist, by his
testimony, the Plaintiff to recover his demand
upon such bill.
Mr. Cleland was therefore examined, anti he
corroborated the testimony of the Plaiuttlf's clerk
in-every particular.
The ATTORNET.GENZnAL, on behalf of the
DefeoLot, admitted the law to be as stated by
Me. Garrow ; that where the drawer had no effects
ht. the 'lmplores hands, the drawer was not enti.
tird to Notice of the dishonour of a bill, because a
man wanted no notice of to event wlticit he was
able to' anticipate. But that was not the Pled
lure, for ha should prove, that at the time of the
dishonour of this bUI, the drawer hadeffects in the
hands of the acceptor, and therefore he was enti.
t!ed to notice. Ho had received none, and there.
fore was entitled to a verdict. But it won!J be
said for the Plaintiff, that this was done away hy
the suhseqtsent acknowledgment of the Defendant,
of his own liability.. To that there was a de.
eisive answer,. namely, that at the time of the De.,
fetidant's etakitsg that acknowledgment, he wits
ignorant of a ceri!tin fact, which bad entitle
him to his notice, which was, that of the Plaintiff
having given lime to the acoeptor to pay the bill
after it became due. To establish this cast. on
the part of the Defeadaut, be called the acceptor,
Junes.

Mr. GARROW obji•cted to him, u an interested
Wiltlei.: but

Lord ELLENIOROUGII held, that he was com.
Went, because an acceptor must always be liable i
to somebody, untilthe bill be paid, and therefore.',
1M must be matter of indifference to Lim which '
way the verdict went.
Jones was therefore examined, and he swore,
1 ' that at the time when this bill was drawn, and
also when it became clue, he as indebted to the
Defendaut, upon the balance of accounts, to the
amount of between 4 and 5001. That when it
was presented, he called on the Plaintiff, and pre_
tailed on him to give six weeks further time for
the payment of it, and that when that time was
txpired, be applied for more, and was indulged
with it. 11:i believed, but was not sure, that he
applied a third time fur iudulgence.
Cross-examined by Mr. Gaitaow—lle gave a
long account of himself and cunuexions with the
i Defendant. lle had been his Agent in some Am -
rican shipping concerns; lived in Temple-place,
within the Rules of the King's Bence Prisms ;
had claimed a balance of 20001. due to himself
.
'iron the Defendant on the statement of accounts,
but that was an erroneous account made out by
his clerk, and the error had been detected, al-
though never, until this hour, publicly stated;
and on the fair statement of the accounts the
Defeadant hail a claim on him to the amount of
between 4 and 5001. such was the state of the
accounts at the time when the bill became due.
lie admitted, however, that he had called on the
Defendant about 10 days, or at most a fortnight,
after he had obtained time, of the Plaintiff, for
I the payment of the bill. This knocked up the
defence; for, as the Defendant's undertaking
.to
pay the bill was subsequent to this notice being
gi-eti to him, of the acceptor being indulged with
further tints to pay the bill, the liability of the
I drawer upon non-payment by the acceptor was
! revivieli and the Jury, after • reply frous Mr.
(iAaatiw, and a charge from lord ELLENBO-
'MUGU, found a verdict for the Plaintiff—Da-
; wages 1581.
1 II ITMAN AND OTIITIIS V. NEAL.

The ArroavLY•CeselAL stated this to be a
case in which thellaietiti sought to recover 42861.
14s. 9d. being the amount of the value of a cargo►
of Riga It. hemp, of a good and merchantable
quality, which had bean lauded at a wharf, ac.
cording to Defendant's direction, fur which the
Defendant had undcrtakc►i to give hii bill of ex-
change at three maths, according to the custo.
nary mode lin these cases. The hemp had been
warehoused pursuant to the directions of the De.
fend.int ; but the market looking downwards in
the prico of this article, the Defendant had refused
to take the hemp.
The first part of the defe►ce was, ig That the
contract was nut binding in thif case."—Secondly,
►► That the hemp was not of a merchantable
quality." And upon this point Mr. rum in.
slated. The Broker, who was the middle man,
and who made the contract betn►en the parties,
swore that the hemp was not of a merchantable,
quality km this case.