7. The drawer of a bill accepted for his
accommodation, indorses it for value to
his bankers, and before the bill becomes
due, becomes bankrupt. The bankers,
who knew that the bill was accepted for
the accommodation of the drawer, can-
not recover from the acceptor more than
the amount of their balance, as between
them and the drawer at the time of his
bankruptcy. Jones and others v. Hibbert.
8. The indorsee of a bill in an action
against the acceptor, alleges that the bill
was directed to the defendant; this alle-
gation is not supported by proof that the
drawer drew the bill payable to his own
order, at a specified place, although the
defendant, when it was presented there,
wrote his name upon it as the acceptor.
Gray v. Milner.
9. On the day after the drawing of a bill
of exchange payable at sight, the payee
leaves it with the drawer for acceptance;
a month afterwards, the payee states that
the drawee has refused to accept the bill,|
and resorts to other measures for obtain-
ing payment of his debt from the drawer;
in ten days after this the drawee an-
nounces to the payee that he has de-
stroyed the bill, conceiving it to be of no
use. The drawer is not liable as the ac-
ceptor of the bill, (by the three Judges,
Lord Ellenborough, C. J., dissentiente.)—
Evidence of the time of birth. Jeune v.
Ward.
10. The drawer and payee of a bill of ex-
change, after it has become due, indorses
it to B., on condition that he will take up
certain bills discounted by the payee. B.
does not take up the bills, but transfers
the bill in question to C., the latter may
recover against the acceptor. Wright v,
Hay.
398
11. Semble, the drawer of an inland bill
of exchange is liable to pay interest on
the bill which has been noted for nonac-
ceptance, but not protested.
Andrews.
or by the bankruptcy and certificate of
the maker, which intervene between the
date of the note and the time of its de-
livery to the payee. Savage v. Aldren. 232
14. A., the drawer of a bill of exchange
payable to his own order, being indebted
to B. on another bill, for which he is
bound to provide, indorses the first bill
to B. to enable him to raise money upon
it, in order to take up the second bill;.
this is an available security in the hands
of B. in reduction of his demand on A.,
and he may recover upon it against the
acceptor. Walsh v. Tyler.
15. The indorsee of a bill, in action against
the acceptor, having called a witness to
prove the indorsement, who disproved it,
the plaintiff was afterwards allowed to
call the indorser himself to prove his
own indorsement. Richardson v. Allan.
16. The maker of a promissory note by a
note at the foot makes it payable at a
particular place, an allegation (after
stating the promise to pay in the usual
manner) that the defendant then and
there made the note payable at the par-
ticular place, does not amount to a mis-
description of the note.-A promissory
note is made payable at G., a present-
ment at a banker's at G., the maker being
absent from G., when the note became
due, is sufficient evidence of a present-
ment to the maker at G. as alleged in the
declaration. Hardy v. Woodroofe.
17. Action by the indorsee against the ac-
ceptor of a note, the date of which ap
pears to have been altered by the ac-
ceptor, it lies on the plaintiff to show
that the alteration was made previous to
the indorsement of the note by the drawer,
to whose order it was made payable.
Johnson and others v. The Duke of Marl-
borough.
18. Although a bill drawn by a prisoner of
war in France in 1795, upon a person re-
sident in England, in favor of an alien
enemy, could not have been originally
enforced, the drawer is liable on a sub-
sequent promise in time of peace, to pay
principal and interest. Duhammel v.
Pickering.
19. Goods sold at three months' credit, the
vendor agreeing to pay the vendee's bill
of exchange at three months' date, at the
end of the first three months, if he wished
for further time. Unless the vendee give
such a bill at the end of the first three
months, the vender may bring his action
immediately. Nickson v. Jepson.
12. The holder of a bill of exchange ap-
plies to the drawee on the day before the
bill becomes due, who informs him that
he has no effects of the drawer's in his
hands, but that they will probably be sup-
plied before the next day. On the next day,
the drawer informs the holder that he
will endeavor to provide effects, and will
call upon him again. This does not su-
persede the necessity of a presentment
on that day. Prideaux v. Coll er.
13. A promissory note is made more than
six years ago, and deposited with a 20. An acceptor of a bill of exchange can-
banker, to be delivered to the payee, on
his producing a certain other note can-
celled. The cause of action to the payee
on the first note, accrues on receiving it
from the banker, and is not batred either
by the lapse of six years from the date, 21. In an action by an endorsee against the
not avail himself of a renunciation on
the part of the holder of his claim upon
him, unless it be express, and founded
upon some consideration. Parker v.
Leigh.
acceptor of a bill of exchange, the de-
claration alleges an acceptance, and an
appointment by the acceptor to pay at a
particular place, and a promise to pay
according to the tenor and effect of the
acceptance, and a special presentment;
semble, the allegation of the presentment
may be rejected as surplusage. Mac-
bridge v. Woodruffe.
22. After a bill of exchange has been ac-
cepted, and whilst it remains in the hands
1.
of the payee, he alters it by making it
payable at a particular place; this alter-
ation will not vitiate the bill. Jacobs v.
Joseph Hart.
45
23. The acceptance of a bill of exchange
purports to bear the signature of the ac- 2.
ceptor's Christian name as well as sur-
name; proof of the letter, by a witness.
who never saw the acceptor write his
Christain name, and had seen him write
his surname once only, is not sufficient.
Powell v. Ford.
24. The drawer of a bill payable to his own
order, after the bill becomes due, settles
with the acceptor, and gives him a receipt 3.
in full of all demands. The drawer being
afterwards in possession of the dishonored
bill, an indorsee from the drawer cannot
maintain an action against the acceptor.
Thorogood v. Clarke.
25. A plaintiff suing upon a promissory 4.
note, which purports to be payable to a
person of a different name, may show by
evidence that he was the person intended.
Willis v. Barrett.
26. Freight is to be paid for in good bills;|
and bills are given by the charterers,
which are put into circulation by the ship-5.
owners. This amounts to an acceptance
of the bills and discharges the lien; and
an application to renew such bills on con-
dition that the lien shall remain, will not
operate to the continuance of the lien, 6.
unless the charterers knew that the bills
had been circulated Horncastle v. Far-
590
1. A. consigns to B., a broker, a quantity
of hides, desiring him to act according to
his discretion, and soon afterwards draws
upon him for the amount, and B. accepts
bills for the amount; B. is not entitled to
pledge the goods in order to raise money
to meet these bills, although it has been
the usual course for A. to draw bills, and
for B. to accept them, upon consignment
of goods. Although notice has been given
to the plaintiffs to produce certain letters,
the defendant cannot cross-examine the
plaintiff's witnesses as to their contents.
Graham and others v. Lyster.
A promise made by the book-keeper of a
carrier at the office, to make compensa
tion for the loss of a parcel, is not bind
ing upon the carrier, unless the book
keeper be shown to be his general agent
Olive v. Eames.
In order to effect one who sends goods
by a carrier with notice of the terms o
which he deals, it is not sufficient to
show that a printed notice was exhibited
in the carrier's office, where the goods
were delivered by a porter, although the
porter could read and had seen the notice,
if in fact he had never read it. Kerr v.
Willan.
53
A greyhound is delivered to a carrier,
who gives a receipt for it; the greyhound
being afterwards lost, the carrier cannot
set up as a defence that the dog was not
properly secured when delivered to him.
Stuart v. Crawley.
323
A carrier, in order to avail himself of a
notice limiting his responsibility, must
bring notice of his intention home to the
mind of the party. A notice stuck up in
the office is insufficient, where the party
cannot read. Davis v. Willan and others.
279
In an action of assumpsit against a car-
rier for the loss of goods, where a con-
tract is alleged to carry them from 4. to
B., a variance in evidence as to the ter-
mini is fatal. Tucker v. Cracklin. 385
A carrier, who gives two notices limit-
ing his responsibility, is bound by that
which is least beneficial to himself.
Munn v. Baker and another.
255
7. In an action against a carrier for not
taking care of and safely carrying goods
according to his promise, it appears that
he had limited his responsibility as a
carrier, by means of a notice, of which
the plaintiff was cognizant, the plaintiff
having declared against the defendant as
a carrier in the usual form, cannot insist
that the goods were lost from the defend-
ant's warehouse before the actual car-
riage of the goods commenced. Roshel
v. Waterhouse and another.
21 1. In an action by the owner against the
freighter of a chartered ship for not sup-
plying a cargo according to the terms of
the charter-party, the freighter cannot
insist upon the precise burthen stated in
2. A broker, who procures a charter-party
for a vessel to Rio Juniero, where a gross
sum is to be paid for the voyage out and
home, is entitled, on a quntum meruit, to
to the ground by means of posts. Ad-
ministratrix of Penry v. Brown. 403
demnify B. against his obligation to C.
if the money be not paid before a certain
day. B., in an action on the bond for
not indemnifying, is entitled to recover
the amount of the penalty of the bond.
Wood v. Wade.
167
2. In an action for not supplying a cargo 3. A. binds himself under a penalty to in-
under a charter-party, according to the
terms of which different articles of freight|
are to be paid for at different rates by
weight, and the freighter is at liberty to
supply which articles he pleases, an
average value of freight, calculated upon
the various rates of freight in the propor-
tion of different articles usually carried
on such a voyage, is the proper measure In an action for criminal conversation, proof
of damages. Thomas v. Clarke and
Todd.
1. A., a creditor of B., executes a composi-
tion deed, without specifying the amount
of his demand, he thereby binds himself
to the extent of his claim, although the
terms of the deed are, to take the compo-
sition for the sums set opposite to the
respective names of the creditors who
execute the deed. Harrhy v. Wall. 195
2. If one creditor, by undertaking to dis-
charge his debtor, induce another credi-
tor to discharge that debtor on receiving
a composition for his debt, he cannot af
terwards recover from that debtor. Wood
v. Roberts.
417
COMPETENCY.
See EVIDENCE.
that a letter produced corresponds, as to
its contents, with a letter which the wife
wrote to her husband, whilst she was ab.
sent from him, (before the criminal in-
tercourse,) upon a visit at the house of a
friend, and which she read over to the
witness, is sufficient to warrant the re-
ception of the letter in evidence, although
no explanation is given of the cause of
their living apart, there being no ground
to suspect collusion.-The judgment
which a witness forms from the conduct
and expressions of the wife to her hus
band whilst she lives apart from him, as
to her affection for him is evidence.
Trelawney v. Colman.
191
1. The purchaser of a warranted but worth
less watch, is entitled to maintain an ac.
tion for deceit, although it is stipulated,
that if he dislikes the watch, the vender
shall exchange it for one of equal value.
Wallace v. Jarman.
Semble. A constable is not justified in ap-
prehending and imprisoning a person,
on suspicion of having received stolen
goods, on the mere assertion of one of
the principal felons. Isaacs v. Brand and 2.
others.
The vendor of a ship represents her to
have been built in 1816, although in fact
she has been launched a year earlier;
the vendee is entitled to recover damages
for the deceit, although the ship was to
be taken with all faults. Fletcher and
another v. Bowsher and others.
561
1. On non est factum pleaded to a bond, it
is not sufficient to prove the execution
by a person who executed in the name
of the defendant without proof of iden-
tity. The agent of the defendant's at-
torney cannot be examined as to com-
munications with the defendant on the
subject of the action in order to prove
his identity. Declarations made by the
attorney of a party in conversation are
not evidence against his client. Parkins
v. Hawkshaw.
293
2. A tenant of a house covenants to keep
in repair the premises, and all erections,
buildings, and improvements erected on 2.
the same during the term, and to yield]
up the same at the end of the term, can-
not remove a viranda erected during the
term, the lower part of which is affixed]
Upon non est factum pleaded to a bond
for the performance of certain condi
tions, breaches of which are assigned in
the declaration, the jury who try the issue
may assess the damages under the com
2. The plaintiff is entitled to recover in
ejectment, although it appears that the
defendant, who is in possession, is the 4.
mere servant of another by whose per-
mission he entered into possession. Doe
dem. Cuff v. Stradling.
187
3. A lessor ir ejectment, who claims title
as a purchaser from the sheriff who sells 5.
by virtue of a fieri facias, at the suit of
such lessor, must prove the judgment as
well as the writ. Doe dem. Bland v.
Smith.
199
4. After the plaintiff, in ejectment, has
proved his title to a verdict, the Court
will not try the question of the precise
extent of the plaintiff's claim as defined 6.
by particular metes and bounds. Doe on
the demise of the Drapers' Company v.
Wilson.
One who is employed at a yearly salary,
under the appellation of accomptant and
treasurer to the overseers of a township, 7.
whose duty it is to receive all monies re-
ceivable or payable by them, is a clerk
and servant within the stat. 39 G. 3. c. 85.
Rex v. Squire.
349
1. The prosecutrix of an indictment for an
Upon the trial of A., B. and C. for a
conspiracy, where after the case on the
part of the prosecution is closed, C. only
calls witnesses and examines as to a con-
versation between himself and A., the
counsel for the crown may cross-examine
such witnesses as to any other conversa-
tion between A. and C. although the evi-
dence tend chiefly to criminate A. Rex
v. Kroehl and others.
343
Evidence of a particular collateral fact
cannot be adduced in any case, whether
civil or criminal, in order to discredit a
witness. The only modes of impeaching
the credit of a witness, are by cross-ex-
amination, by producing the record of his
conviction of some crime, or by adducing
general evidence that he is unworthy of
being believed upon his oath.-If a wit
ness be asked as to a collateral fact his
answer is conclusive. Rex v. Watson.
In an action against a certificated con-
veyancer for negligence in managing the
purchase of an annuity for the plaintiff,
a joint purchaser is a compenent witness
for the plaintiff. Rothery v. Howard. 68
One who has been mortgagee of certain
premises afterwards takes a conveyance
in fee-simple, in which the same premises
are described as unincumbered, from a
vendee of the mortgagor; this, in the ab-
sence of fraud, is conclusive evidence to
show that the amount of the first mort-
gage was paid. Jones v. Williams.
Assumpsit against several as partners,
the question of partnership being doubt-
ful upon the plaintiff's evidence, the de-
fendants go into their case; and in order
to render a witness competent produce a
release executed by all of them; this in-
strument is to be considered as in evi.
dence for all purposes. Gibbons v. Wil-
The defendant cannot, in the course of
cox, Oberry and another.
the plaintiff's evidence, cross-examine
the plaintiff's witnesses as to the con
tents or written documents, although no-
tice has been given to the plaintiff to pro-
duce them and he refuses to produce
them in that stage of the cause.
ways v. Dyson and another.
assault with intent to commit a rape, 8. In an action by A. against B. for falsely
having been cross-examined as to crimes
committed by her several years before
the alleged offence, evidence may be ad-
duced to show that her character has
since been good. The fact of her mak-9.
ing complaint of the outrage, and the
state in which she was at the time of
representing C. as trustworthy, in conse
quence of which A. gave credit to C,
the latter is a competent witness. Smith
v. Harris.
In an action of tort against a minor for
the negligence of his agent, (semble) his
gurdian cannot render the agent com
petent by releasing him. Fraser v.
Marsh.
41
10. A defendant who has worked coal-
mines without interruption, in pursuance
of an agreement with the owner, cannot,
upon the trial of an action against him
for a breach of the agreement, compel a
third person to produce his title-deeds,
by virtue of which he is entitled to the
legal estate, in which the premises are
situated, as a trustee. Roberts v. Simp-
the plaintiff from maintaining the action.
Latour v. Bland and another.
382
16. Evidence that the son of the defendant,
a minor, has in three or four instances
signed bills of exchange for his father, is
sufficient, in an action against the father
on a guarantee, to warrant the reading
of an instrument, purporting to be a
guarantee by the father in the hand-writ-
ing of the son. Watkins v. Vince. 388
17. In trespass q. c. f. the defence is, that
203 M. P. was the owner of the locus in quo,
11. Upon the question whether A., after and that the defendant entered, by the
executing a conveyance of property to direction of M. P., a declaration by M. P.
trustees for the benefit of his wife, had made subsequent to the act complained
the disposition of the property, evidence of is inadmissible. Garr and another v.
of his making an assignment of it, is not Fletcher.
admissible against the trustees, unless
they were privy to it, or unless the pro-
perty was delivered, and the assignment
acted upon.-Semble, a letter written by
an attorney to his client, and produced
with the client's signature indorsed upon
it, is evidence against the client.-Where
the question is as to the solvency of a
party at a particular time, the general
result as collected from sufficient sources
may be given in evidence.-And Semble,
the accounts rendered by a bankrupt of
his affairs to the commissioners are com-
petent sources. Meyer v. Sefton and
18. A great number of placards announc-
ing a public meeting in Spa Fields hav-
ing been printed, the prisoner takes
twenty-five of them away from the prin
ter's, one of the remaining placards may
be read without any preparatory evi
dence as to the original manuscript, and
without notice to the prisoner to produce
the twenty-five copies. Rex v. Watson.
19. In order to indentify a person in court
with one whom the witness has described,
the attention of the witness may be di
rected to the person in court, and he may
be asked whether that is the person of
whom he has spoken. Rex v. Watson.
20. Papers found in the lodgings of a co-
conspirator at a period subsequent to the
apprehension of the prisoner may be
read in evidence, although no absolute
proof be given of their previous exist-
ence, where strong presumption exists
that the lodgings had not been entered
by any one in the interval between the
apprehension and the finding, and where
the papers are intimately connected with
the objects of the conspiracy as detailed
in evidence. Rex v. Watson.
21. A witness for the Crown cannot, on
cross-examination, be compelled to state
through what channel he made a disclo-
sure to government, either immediately
or mediately. Rex v. Watson.
135
258 22. In an action by one defendant in as-
274
12. In order to warrant the admission of a
deposition of the deceased against the
prisoner, on an indictment for murder, it
is not necessary that the prisoner should
have been present the whole of the time
during which the deposition was taken,
the deponent having been re-sworn in
the presence of the prisoner, and the part
of the deposition, which had already been
taken, having been read over to the pri-
soner and sworn by the deponent to be
true. Rex v. Smith.
208
13. The opinion of one conversant in the
business of insurance, as a matter of
judgment, whether the communication
of particular facts would have enhanced
the premium is admissible evidence; but
he cannot be asked what he himself
would have done in the particular case.
Berthon and another v. Loughman.
14. A copy of a judgment in the Supreme
Court of Jamaica, made by the chief clerk
of the court, is not receivable in evidence!
here, although it appears that such copies
are usually received as evidence in the
island of Jamaica. Appleton v. Lord
Braybrook.
sumpsit against a co-defendant, the postea
is evidence to prove the amount of the
damages; but (semble) the indorsement
of the costs, with the master's allocatur
on the postea, is not sufficient to entitle
the plaintiff to recover half of the costs,
without producing the judgment. Foster
v. Compton.
364
In treason and felony, evidence may be
given of the finding articles secreted, al-
though they were found at a time suose-
quent to the prisoners' apprehension.
Rex v. Watson.
24. Where a minor sues by his guardian,
the declaration of the guardian is not
|