Law Report.
The Times, 1824-08-07T00:00:00

asumc , wsicn was Pztay heard on a toriner oary, was reguias. qiS WfornitR. It was ati applicatior. to set aside avn order made by tne Viee-Cbancellor under the following eircumstances :-The plaintiff Rcwley,, who is a you ig mastof considerable fortune, hlad some years ago, whilo in Paris, accepted a bill of exchange for 26,001. payable seven years afte date. In the course of some time, the bill carn intto the 'iuaudi of teh defcnd ants. In the year 1821,the plaindffappliea for and obtained from his Honour the ViceCluman- cellor, an order to prevent the negotiation of the bill, on the gronnd that it had been fraudulently obtained from him, and that fio ctol- sideratlon had ever been given for It. The bill wsa t lengtb brought iiito eourt. Before it became due, an application was made, that it eihould be taken out for the purpose of being presented to theacccptor Rowley for payment, Rowley being at that tine in France Thebill was aIlowed to be ta en out, the defendants giving an undtertaking that if payment-eore refused, it shouild be retutend by their solicitors. It was then handed over to the house of Mlellibl -and Co., who trans- snitted it to gileir correspondent, a Alonsieur Quesnel, R (nercihant at Paris, who presented It for payment. It appeared, lhowever, that there was some irrfermality in the bill. it wma not drnwn on a pro- per stanm, andl had not been registered, as it should havebheen, ac- ording to the French law. Thie bill was afterwards seen by thc Frgnch Contmnisioner of Stampq, whlo claimed a fine, amounting to 1 4001., for the infonnality. For this M. Quesnel became responsi. bie before the bill could be returned. It was at length returne4d to Mealbilh and Co., vith a strict injunction on the part of Queanel, and an undertaking on their part, that thley should itot part witth 1! until they had received the 1,4001. for which he (Quesnel) had be. come responsible. The defendants' solicitnrs refused to pay this ,um, and AIlellish and Co. refused to deliver up the bill until that sumn was paid. At length the plaintiff called upon the defendlants to make good their undertaking, and retutn the bil into court; and a .-o-ion was made before the ViceXChancellor to that effect. The VIce-Chancellor, after hearing the case argued, ordered the dlefentl. ants to bring in the bill, as they had given an unconditional under- taking so to do. It was to sct aside that order that the present-mo. tion was muade. MIr. HoRNE conterded that the defendantt were not bound to re. turn the bill until they weTe paid tbe exprn esa which had been in. .urred bv its presenttation in France. The informality in thc bill could noi have beeni known to the defendLants. ft was the fault ol the plaintiff-nmusg have heen k:nown to him, and he alonc oughit to be made may the penalty which had accrned in consequence. Ar. E,nD, for the plaintiff, argued that thiit canose hai* arisen in a grosa fraud on his clientthat his HonouT thc Vice-Chanelellr. who had gone into the merits of the case, had in the first instance made an order restraining the defendants from negotiating-the bill, and in the next place, ordering them to bring the bill into court, purruant to tileir undestaking. lIe trusted that, under those cir- umnstances, his Lordship would not rescind the order. Tle LoanD CR%AxCELLOR said that lie had nothing to do with tlle merits of the casc* they were not befoic him: all he bad to (lo with, was the undertakbig of the defendants ; and he saw no gronnd why they should be exempted from making it good. They must bring the bill into Courn. Mlr. HOR)ZE observed, that his rordthip was mistaken if he sup- posed thst liis clients liad the bill. It was&* pmsession of " Al cl- ish and Co.," and they refused to deliver it up until they were in- demnified. The LotnD CHANCELLOR said he had nothing to do with that now. The defendants must produce the bill; but tvihen it was in Cou;rt, he would take care that it did not get out of it, until he had heard the parties with respect to the 1,4801. which had been claimed. lie would hear any application which the parties might make re. apedting it after the bill shou2ld be brought into Court. FRnlDAY, AUGUST fi. The LORD CHANCrzi,LOR was occupied until past one o'cleck tIlts day, in hearing motions, hut none of them were of' any Interest. .. P; I ZAW wpflahy" COURT Q1' CHANCERY, T-ivrasDAY, AuGUST a, ,,, ,, - LOlLEY V. EOCLtS.