Wheeling daily intelligencer. [volume] (Wheeling, Va. [W. Va.]) 1852-1859, 1853-02-23
Interesting to Commercial Men.

A very interesting case, that of Gleason VS. Ed
wards; was under investigation in Judge Carter's
Court yesterday and the day before. The plaintiff
claimed on the acceptance by defndants conf
dental clerk of bill of exchange. HIS counsel
CWarden q Paddack) contended that, though a
persons acting as clerk to merchant does not
authorize him to accept bills in the name of his
employer, yet such authority may be by verbal d.
rections, or may implied from certain relations
proved to exist between the actual acceptor and
him for whom he undertakes to act. 1tappeared
that the clerk had twice before accepted bills, and
he testified that he was well acquainted with
defendants affairs as defendant himself. The
was dispute, however, as to the effect of the evi.
dence Of defendants knowledg of the previous &C
ceptance. On the part of the defendant, Isaac
g. Collins Esq, Insisted that even two previous
acts OF signing by the clerk, with the knowledge
Of his employer, would not be sufficent-that there
must be habit OF signing. There were other points
and grounds of recovery and defence in the case,
but these were the matters of commercial interest.
The court Judge Carter charged the jury:
l. That the authority of the clerk to accept the
bill OF exchange in this case was question of
| fact for the jury. which they to determine
| from all the evidence offered by the plaintiff.
ii. That If the jury concluded, under the in
sructions of the Court here given them, that
| there was an acceptance, then in the absence OF
any defence they would find verdict for plaintiff
to said bill of exchange, with interest from the last
| day of grace.
| i'll. That if the jury concluded that there was
| no acceptance of the bill of exchange, then they
| SuOulu Tue COHulOu COuHIS Vi INC
declaration in this case, whether there was proof
of any amount due to the plaintiff by the defen-
dant and if they concluded there was, then i'll the
absence of any defence they would give verdict
| for the amount, with interest.
| ~. But whether this writ could be predicted
upon the acceptance + Bill of Exchange amount
due alumde, it the duty of the jury 10 examine
carefully the testimony and ascertain the rela-
tons of the parties. whether they were acting UNI
der general special contract, or merely as vendor
and purchaser.
| v. That the set-ofTs claimed by the defendant
for expenses incurred in the services, &C., depends
ed upon the relation of the parties. If the parties
were under contract. then this should be consider
ed. If not, then on whose account were these ex-
penses incurred, If on account of plaintiff, then
they were proper set offs, if proven. If on account
of defendant, then they were not, and could not
! be allowed in this case.
vi. As to the claim of the defendant for DANA
ges, in non performance of contract in this case,
as set-oil, this could no be alowed-nor could the
principle of "recoupment' for defects or DANA
| ges, adopted into the common law by recent de-
cisons of Courts from the civil law, apply in this
! case. upon the testimony.
| = There were many other points Of law charged
\ by Judge Carter TO the jury at length; but the
above is deemed sufficient for a newspaper report
Verdict Tor plahintiff damages S779 21.-Cin
| Enquirer, Feb. 16.