Image TileImage TileImage TileImage TileImage TileImage TileImage TileImage TileImage TileImage TileImage TileImage TileImage TileImage TileImage TileImage TileImage TileImage TileImage TileImage TileImage TileImage TileImage TileImage Tile
Image size: 7168x9216 Scale: 35% - PanoJS3
Page overview thumbnail

Article text

LAW AND POLICE COURTS.
SUPREME COURT— CIVIL SIDE.
Tuesday, 18lA June.
FULLBU ?. HaNCB.
There were only eleven jurors in attendance. The trial
proceeded by content, until the arrival of the absent juror..
The Judge, on taking bis seat, requested Mr Nathan to
explain whether Mr H-w*un weie defending that action for
him, or by bis instructions.
Mr Nathan repeated, that the creditors gave him an un
dertaking, when Newbery absconded, to bear their pro
portion of any expense incurred in the prosecution of the
abjeonder; he (Mr Nathan; g-ve genera) instructiots to
Mr Hanson to cot duct the prosecution, and banded the
undertaking over to tbat gentleman. The paper put in
was that undertaking:
' Adelaide, May 15, 1819.
' We, the undersigned, agree to be accountable to Mr
Nathan, according to our amount*, for any expence he may
be subjected to in recovering our debts irotn Newbery and
DurLu, or either of then.
' Webb, Todi», & Co.
P. Levi
N Le Bba&
Geo. Bb*n
G. D. Gell.'
The Judge was of opinion that Mr Nathan's evidence
must be struck out.
Mr Hanson referred to the terms of the Act.
The Judge did not consider the words - whole or in part'
material. He objected to Mr Nathan's evidence, as he might
be considered a party to the record.
Air Hanson — Then, your Honor, I am to understand—
The Judge— Excuse me, Mr Hanson, 1 shall always be
happy to hear you, but 1 cannot be addressed in that
manner.
Mr Hanson — Perhaps your Honor will inform me
whether I am to argue for my client, or submit in silence
to everything your Honor says. 1 will do whichever your
Honor wishes.
The Judge— I wish you to argue the point ; but your
manner has the effect (unintentionally perhaps) of placing
me in antagonism to you.
Mr Hanson went on to show that the paper produced
was dated Moy the 15th, 1849, and could have no reference
to that action, as Fuller w-ta not examined until after
wards.
Mr Fisher maintained that, as Mr Nathan would defray
the costs of the action if unsuccessfully defended he was the
substantial party to the action.
Mr Hanson would, sooner than lose time, consent to have
the evidence struck out.
The Judge then rultd that the evidence of Mr Nathan
should be struck our, reserving to Mr Hansoa the light to
move on thut point.
Mr Bradford, dm absent Juror, here came into Court, and
pleaded the wretched state of the roads ant* an accitfsst to
bis hoisr, as the reason of his absence.
Mr Hanson then proceeded to comment on the plaintiff's
evidence in reply. He called attention to the singular tact
that Fuller should have all the correspondence that passed
between the plaintiffs and the firm of Newbeiy and Dutieu.
He bad all the necessary evidence in a singularly compact
form. Even the letters thit Newbery would naturally de
sire to keep for his own defence were handed over to the
plaintiff Fuller. It appeared Irons the evidence of Mr Bartley
that an arrai.gtment was effected on tne 9th of April, and
yet rhry had a letter not dated, but fortunately beating the
post-mark of the 11th April, which was evidently fabricated
for some such purpose as thut on which it was now pro
duced, us it absolutely asked for forbearance or a claim that
Mr Bartley declared was previously settled. Then came a
letter, which, as it had no post-murk, might as well have
been concocted when the plaintiff was with Newbery in
Sydney since he bolted from Adelaide us at uny other time.
It accused Mr Fuller of having acted scurvily to him (N«rw
bery). Now, gentlemen (8-id Mr Hanson), you have the
plaintiffs own case before you, and cin you say that New
bery had any reason to complain of scurvy treatment? Put
ting the evidence of Mrs Goldsmith, who stated thit Fuller
was at tint very time negotiating tor the passage of Newbery
and his accomplice Yatts from the colony — with that evidence
could they (the jury) come to any other conclusion than
that the letter was an aitful fabrication, intended to be
used on some such occasion as that action presented ? Tht-n
a complete answer was given to the case of pressure setup,
for they found two different sums of £44 and £66 puid,
for which there wnc, at the time of assert d payment, no
legal claim. Th?n Fuller's bank-book looked suspicious.
The first deposit was made on Febiuarj the 14th, 1848, and
no other transaction appeared until May the 8tb, a period
of nearly fifteen months. But about tbe period Newbery
commenced operations, his transactions with the Bank be
came more frequent. The learned gentleman again called
attention to the simple question which he already stated the
case merged into.
Mr Fisher submitted that it was not shown that the en.
dorsement of Mr Lee was made before the act of bank,
ruptcy; th*s, he insisted on tbe authority of Key v. Cook,
2 Moore and Payne, was a fatal objection.
The Judge said the point should have been taken earlier,
when tbe witness Lee was in Court. He (the Judge) would
then have set the matter at rest by asking him when he en
doiaed the bill.
Mr Fisher tben addressed the jury in reply. He said the
case set up by his learned fiend was mere chaff, and worse
than that, he absolutely cluffed them, the jury. (A latuh.)
The learned gentleman went on at greit length to contend
that the counsel for the defendant hud imagined ail sorts of
things to sustain h clnrge of conspiracy against the plaintiff,
for to tl.at the defendant's case amounted. He (Mr Fisher)
maintained that there w;-s no evidence to warrant such a
charge, and tbat the transactions bt-iwtenthe plaintiff and
Niwbeiyund Dutieu were ban* fide. The plaintiff 's case
was th t be plac.-d certain bills in the Bank for coi:ection;
that money was collected on the bills ; and he brought that
action for its recovery To thit it was set up that the bills
came into the possession of the plaintiff by the illegal pre
ference of an insolvent. It was for them to say whether
i hey were satisfied with the evidence adduced in support of
that defence.
The Judge in summing up said, hy an order made by him
on the application - of the Bank of Australasia, the
ground of a '/ion was plain enough. The plaintiff having
placed the bills in the Bai.k, was entitled to the proceeds
as his property, but it was alleged for the defendant that
the bills came into the plaintiffs possession, ether by way
of fraudulent preference, or to him as a friendly trustee for
fraudulent purposes. The two views were inconsistent. A
simple fr-.ud was very different from that of a fraudulent
preference. There were many things that would scarcely
amount to a fraud if it was not for the insolvent law, which
declared that the payment of any particular debts o the
detriment of other c: editors was a fraudulent preference,
however the debtor might consider himse f morally b-jund
?o discharge that particular ola'm. When a person at
tempted to impeach the conduct of another, it rested on
him to pr.ive. his case, and not to ciilll upon the accused to
disprove it ? that w«8 a general rule of law, and was neces
sary to separate suspicion from facts. His Honor, after re
capitulating some of Mr Hanson's arguments, went on—
How were they to separate wh-t was fraudulent from
what was bonafide ? If all was fraudulent there could be
no difficulty, but otherwise it mntleied not how much
fraud there was between the parties, unless there was fraud
in the bill transaction in question- It had been asked, how
came the plainiiff suddenly rich ! To that it w s replied,
he had received a considerable sum in a box of curiositiee.
He (his Honor) could not tell the jury to discredit that
statement, (is there, was no evidence given in contradiction
of it, and thete be would tell them that, when evidence was
put in by adverse parties, they were bound to take the
whole of it. They could not select a part for the purpose
of discrediting the witness, tie did not think it necessary
to refer to the evidence in detail, as a great portion of it
was hut sli.htly connected with the matter in hand. With
regard to the evidence of col usion in the removal of pro
perty, that, without doubt, would affect the plaintiff's
character, and might influence their decision.
Mr Hanson relied on the shipment of the brandy as an
tct v.f -nsolvency, and the evidence of Mr Phillip* con
nected the plaintiff with that shipment.
The Judge— The rniterial question was, was the plaintiff
cognisant of the object with wbi'h tbe brandy was shipped?
The evidence only showed tbatjFulltr carted it to the Port;
could that imply a knowledge of tbe circumstances ? .
A Juror ( Mr Bly th) said the impression of the Jury was,
that the btandy w*s in bond, and not carted to the Port.
Mr H»nson slid such was the fact.
The Judge — Then, gentlenen, the plaintiff is not con
nected with it.
A J'-ro (Mr Young)— Yes, yuur Houor, he give direc
tions concerning tbe shipment.
The Judge confessed be bad nearly orerlooked that point,
a matter the less to te wondered *t, as the learned counsel
'or tbe plaintiff had not Hd-^ressed himself to it at all. If
Fuller wai cognizant of the object of the removal of the
property, and the commission ot nn act of insolvpT-cv, he
coutn i ot r«0y on any transaction with Newbery after that
-*Hy He ronfrsifd be -*ou'd derive no ex»ct proof of fraud
flora the shipment, as he had no proof ol Newbery's dealings
with Sydney. His absconding afttrw-itrfg to tbe same placu
looked suspicious, but then it win said that his absconding
was in consequence ot a criminal charge which he was mixed
up in; if that was true, it wouid go to rebut the forme idear.
He would leave it to them to sy wheiner the pln'n-tiff h ii
cogn'zanvTe of Newbrry** in'ention to del mud Ms ere- j
ditors by, the shipment of the b;*udy; ii t ey thought ?
so, it. wou'd be a ground on which tbey o u'd . fi.-.d (or
the defendant Then would come the inquiry, had i he
plaintiff and Newbery such a knowledge of the bank
rupt law, as to enable them not only to makeup a case with
great nicety, but even to make a catspaw of suuh a shrewd
lawyer u Mr Bartley. If so, it was not only a most in«enious
scheme, but one that to him (his Honor) appeared extra
ordinary ; such indeed, as he had not met before. He
thought they were bound to take the statement of the
plaintiff in the insolvency proceedings, that the bill for
£1 12 was received from Yates. and that he (Fuller) gave a
consideration for it.
Mr Hanson asked if his Honor would not direct the jury
that the settlement at Mr Bait ley's could not be a bonafide
one, as the money was not due.
The Judge— It has been settled that a person can press
for payment of a debt not quite due, if he has reason to fear
the removal of the debtor.
Mr Hanson—Has it been settled, your Honor, that £44
more than is really due shall pass, and yet the transaction
be a settlement 1
The Judge confessed that look curious.
Mr Fisher said the defendant had an opportunity to elicit
an expUnuiion on tbat point from the plaintiff when he bad
him under examination.
The Jury retired for half-an-hour, and return d with a
verdict for the dfcfendnnt, on the penenl ground that tbe
plaintiff's transactions in the maUer were fraudulent.
The Judge — Thtn your verdict is not grounded ou the
fraudulent shipment of goods.
A juror (Mr Young)— Not solely on tbat, your Honor.
Mr Hitn-on applied to the Judge to certify that the action
was a fit one for a Special Jury.
The Judge certified.
Hart ». James.
Before a Special Jury.
Special assumpsit. Damages claimed £510. and atten
dant expenses, being the amount of defendant's guarantee
on a bill of exchange for £1500 on London, returned dis
honoured. ?
Mr Hanson end Mr Parker for the plaintiff; Mr Fisher
for the dt fendant.
Mr Parker opened tbe case by reading the pleadings.
There were several pleas averring rion-assumpsit— denial
of purchase by the plaintiff* — denial th tt the kill was re
turned dishonoured, as alleged in tbe declaration, and
averring tbat £809 had been accepted as lull discbarge tor
the bill of £1500.
Mr Hanson said that was an action by John Hart, a well
known capitalist in Adelaide, pgiinst Wilihm J lines, tin
tqutlly well-known solicitor of Adelaide also. A person
named Henty Jones, of Rapid Biy. was desirous o( nego
tiating h bill on fats lather iu London lor £1500, Frederick
Jones, the defendant, undertaking (o guarantee puyment in
ca?e the bill returned from England dishonoured to tbe ex
tent — Jones £1000 and proportionate exp( rises, and tbe de
fendant for £500 and attendant, (xpenses. Fur that latter
turn the action was instituted. The whole facts of this
case have already been published in this paper, in the re
port of the action of 3unce v. J-ines.
J, Brown, merch int, stated tint he was a partner in the
firm Bunce Brothers & Co. Proposals were inside to the
firm in the month of September. 1818, by Mr Henry Jones,
to endorse a bill for £1500 on his father in London. They
hf ard that the Bank ot Australasia was pressing him for a
settlement of his account at th it time, and, as he owad the
firm ot Bunce Brothers upwards of £500, th^y also pressed
him for a settlement. He said, if he could negotiate a bill,
he would eet'b with them.
Mr Fisher objected to hearing what Mr H. Jones said.
The JuJge overruled the objection.
Witness continued — He said ho would pay if he could
nepociate a bill on bis father, Thomas Jones, of London, for
£1500. During the negocution he proiuet-d the under
taking put in; it was written by the defendant, and the
signature, W. James, was his. He w*s not to witness's
knowledge present at any of tho conversations that took
place between the firm and H Jones ou the subj ct. Tbe
Tbe bill for £1500, put in, dated 20 th September, wie then
endorsed by the firm Bunce Brothers, but the Bank of Aus
tnla«ia wou'd not uke it without Hiiother ondorsation, and
H. Jones took it to Captain Hart, who had cor.senled to put
his name to it. When the hill was negotiated, Bu:.ce
Brothers received £400 of the°'r claim. It b--.d I.een origi
nally arranged that t Ivy were to receive a great r!eul more.
By Mr Fisher— Bunce Brothers smd Co. were tbe pur
chasers or the bill in the -i-st instance.
Mr Hanson said his Honor had formerly refined to allow
that question to be answered, holding that tbe purchaser
was to be ascertained by nn inference of law.
The Judge considered it was also a question of fact.
' Cross exBn,in:ttlon continued — There b--d bepn en uction
insti uted by Bunce Brother Hjjiina: thr delendant. Mr
Hanson acted in it and received his instructions from Bunce
Brothers. He (witness) knew that a bimiiar action had
been btought against Mr. F. .'on:1.*, but i:ouM nor say that
it was still pending. . Understood the fate of one action
ruled the orher. Could not say what amount o! aats hud
been paid to Mr James. Hs kuew that a cerium amount of
taxed costs had been paid, but never saw tbe account nn-i
could not say whether they rele-ierl to one or two notions.
He took Mr James's word for the amount, and gave him n
bill for it. He (witness) was not in court when dipt .in
Hait, the present plaintiff, whs examined on a former trial.
The original proposition of Mr H. Jonrs wis to Settle with
the Bink, several other creditor!:, tied with Bunce Brothers.
It was first undersold that the Bank would take hut naif its
claim and give time for the remainder, hut the Bnnk prefer) cd
taking the whole of its debt. Mr U. Jones's intentions were
thus not carried into effect. Bunce and Co. were to have
£1000, and they were to satisfy certain creditors out of it.
Witness could not say \vh«t were the intentions of the guv
ranters; it was made out before the bill was created. It
was understood that Captain Hart would endorse the bill
after tbey had done so, and then the Efuik would discount
it. Wituess believed Captain Hart ind a commis ion for
patting his name on the back of the bill. Witness hid an
account with Herny Jones but never debited him \uih that
bill. Bunce Brothers received the £1000 from Captuin
Hart on the 20th September Witness thought thit, in ao
account of what Ilciuy Jonrs owed to the firm, in a letter ot
licence, the nmount of that bill nag included. After the
notice of tbe dishonour of the hill C»pt-tin II* t auplie.i to
them; for payment] as the next endorsers. Tbey requested
time to endeavour to get payment from the gu;ir«nteer, but
on the Gth September 1840 (hey gave Captain Hart a bill
upon England tor £1160, leaving a balance to be afterwards
adjusted. That being a bonii fide draft, ot course it was
understood that it was sufficient for that amount, and that
Captain Hart would not sue until returns from Knglsnd had
been received, but there vvis no special xriangetnetit on the
su'j.'Ct. The t'iil for £1500 was in the possession of
C-pt»in H-rt. There was no arr. ngen.ent between them and
Ciptain Hart as to tbat action. Tre «ction would he for their
benefit, but he could not nay that th*-y requested Captttin
Hart to bring it. He, as holder of the bill, had his choice
of temedes. They held the guarantee in the first instance,
but it passed with the bill to Captain Hart. He (witness)
did not know that of his own knowledge. He never heard
Captain Hirtsay that he never saw the gu rantee until after
the bill returned dishonoured. It was understood tbat
Captain Hart should close the account of Mr H. Jones at
the B nk and hind them the balance. Cat tain Hart held
the proceeds of the bill alter ptyrrent of the Bank debt at
their disposa1. Henry Jones received the balance of the
proceeds of the bills after payment of the Bank and
the £400 to them. It amounted to very few pounds.
He thought it possible Ctptain Hart might have advanced
Jones a few pounds before the existanre of the bill. H.
Jones proposed that Captain Hart should end -.rse the bill.
Witness never heard that the B-mk seleced_ him to do so.
Thought there was little choice in the matter; few wouid
be willing to do it. There was a pionerry 'rortgiged to Mr
Morphett. It was intended* to pay thit off from the pro
ceeds ot the hi 1, and mortgage it. in security for the gua
rantees. That security was never given. Mr Jjnes could
not do so, in consequence of the decision of the Bank. On
a former occasion Bunce Brothers gave t ills on the under
standing that he would apply them to the release oi the
mortgage to Mr Morphett. Discounted the bills elsewhere,
and did not discharge the mortgage.
Mr Hanson objected to tbat examination ; it was not in
the it*i:e.
Mr Fisher said it waa in the issue ; it was ? fraud on the
gu-rantees.
Mr Hanson — Then it should have been specially pleaded.
The Judge assented.
By Mr Hanson— No money pasted direct from them to
Henry Jones on tbe biil.
Mt H:na n put in the bill and the protests for non
acceptances and non payment, and the guarantee whereby
the defendar t undertotk to pty £500 and one thi;d of the
eofif, if the bill was returned dishonoured.
Arthur Jennings Smith, accountant of the -Bank of Am
traiasin, ntntrd that the bill produced hed been dinrouriid
by th^ B«ik of AHstrnlasii, and placed to the credit ot
the plaint ff. Mr Henry Jon*s owed £1017 10*. to the
Bank at tbat t me. It w*« paid hy Captn-n Hurt en the
day the bill wii discounted. The te exchange en thit
bill would be £300. The interest oh the bill and. re-
txchinge would be £139 14*. Ic was usudl for the Bank
to calculate interest on the. re-exchange.
By Mr Fisher— Witness wss examined in tbe nct'on
Bonce v. James. The interest was charged od the re.
exchange if it was not paid on the day of the bill'* return.
The re- exchange was ? penalty 'for the noi- payment of
the 1-ii. ..,,._:?
The Judge— It is intended to cover the loss and espente
of sending over money to meet the bill.
Witness continued— He heard CapUin H«rt enrolled on
the former trial, but did not hear him say that he hail not
purchased the bill; Could not reeeollect what he Mid with
regard to the purchase of the bill. Could net aay who took
tbe guarantee in the first it.sta- Ce to the Back. The Bank
held the guarantee when the bill was returned. The pur
chaser of a bill v-*8 the person who gave va'ue for it. . Tne
guarantee was in tbe possession of the Bank until the bill
was returned.
Tout wa« the plaintiff's case.
Mr Fisber sHbrnittt-d he trust be nonsuited on several
ground*. The learned gentleman h»re read from the decla.
rt-tion a passage to show that the promise of the bill was to
precede the grurautee. whereas the guarantee preceded the
bill, heinvr dated en the Uth, the bill on the 20th of Sep.
tember. Then the declaration was framed on an implied
promise from the defendant to guarantee him, the plaintiff.
The guarantee did not sustain thit. To sustain an action
on a direct promise there must be a privity between the
party making tbe promise, and the parly to whom thi- pro
mise was made. The guarar.tee was not to the plaintiff, but
to the person purchasing tbe bill, whoever that miwht be,
and it could only be liable to one purchaser. He (Mr Fisber)
bad on tbe former trial pleaded non-mutuality. He was
Mns-vered by a reference to un advertised reward, which was
said to be parallel. In all advertisements oi ft reward, a
condition was implied ; the plaintiff proved the perform
ance of the condition, and --o made the advertiser his debtor.
He referred to a case where it was held thpre was no criminal
privity between the patt'es. That was an action against
a guarantee, or surety — if the original party waa discharged
the surety was discharged. There were two grounds upon
which he (H. Jot es) was discharged. It was not ehown
that he Ia1 nirije of ncn-bccepthiice and dishonour.
The Judge— It has never been so held, Mr Fisher.
Mr Fisher — A parallel never arose; then time waa given
to parties )-y Captain Hart; tbat discharged tbe guarantees.
Mr Hanson replied tV.t the kuamntee supported the de
c'aration on the 0 st point. With regard to other points,
he maintained that everything should be declaied on accord
ing to their legal effect. The person who performed the
conditions of the guarantee must be considered the person
to whom it was tfiven, and way be so described in tbe de.
claration. Had the declaration been drawn up in any other
f-rm, the plea of the defindunt mus-t still be the same. He
thoui ht the last poiist scarcely required an answer.
The Judge considered the first point was the most im
portant. He had smre the last action looked to a case
(Batem -n v. Jones) cited, and found that there were several
special pleas, but that case failed as a nudem pactum. He
had some doubts about the declaration, but would not pre
clude Mr Hanson from amending.
Mr Hanson would rather the Jury should find specially.
The Judge would either »ive Mr Fisher leave to move for
a nonsuit, or give Mr Hanson leave to xrnend, and postpone
the case, as it w*s almost certain he (the Judge) would not
long be alone on the bench, and the case was a very im
portant one
Mr Fisher submitted that was not a case thit could be
amended. It was a mistaken form of astion. It should
have been a special as8umpsit,am! not an implied assumpsit.
The Judge — It is a special assumpsit. Mr Fisher. I shall
feel bound to give the plaintiff the benefit of an amendment,
of course on terms, for I am bound to look to your iutereat
also.
Mr Hanson proposed that the question of fact should be
referred to the Juiy, and the legal points reserved for after
adjudication.
Mr Fisher, on referring to the Act, admitted that course
could be allowed.
The Judge, having referred to the Act, said the only ob
jection he had was to the nicety required in finding a ipscial
verdict.
v]r Hanson imagined the only questions for the Jury
would be— did Captain Hart purchase tbe bill, did be give
v .lue for it, and i he amount of damages.
Mr Fisher thought the best plan would be to let the
Jury find hh to the factt.
Mr Fisher then addressed the Jury, saying that one
experiment hxd alrtaiy been made upon hit client, and
this was nnotber attempted upon him. The question was
whether C*pt. Hart was or was not tbe purchaser of the
bill. Counsel cou;d poove that Capr. Htrr, on a former
occasi-Hi, swore that he was not the purchaser. Capt. Hatt
gets £30 for putting his name to the Lark of it, but (he
Bank, wnich discounted it, was the real purchaser ot the
hi. I. They might as well argue that Bunce Brothers *ere
th.^ purchasers, for tbey also pnt their nume* on the back.
Mr Fisher rerunded the Jury of the Judge's opinion ex
pressed on a former oec.sion, th*t the 3ank was the pur
chaser, and contended thit the Iitb:lity that tell upon tbe
purchaser when the bill w;u returned could not be trans
ferred to n ihu-' paily Capt. Hatt never saw the guarantee
till after (he hill wts returned, end never intended to make
hinnelf 1 ab'e ; mid it the proceeds of the bill were applied
to the diff*ieiit purposes specified in the guarantee, tbe
parties to that document were warranted in denying their
liability f jr the pay meat of ihe amount.
Mr Fi -her called
Edward William Andrews, Tavistock buildings. Was pre
sent at the tiial, In November last, of an action by Bunce
and others f. Junes, and heard Capt. Hart give bis evi
dence. He said he could Scarcely be ctlicd the purchaser
uf the bill, bs ha only endorsed I. for a commission ; that
he could nor dispose of the proceeds without the authority
of Messrs Bunce Brothers, and that he had not seen tbe
gu*ra» tee til after the return of the bill— that the gua
rantee was given before tbe application made to him to en
r!o.*e ihe bill.
By Mi H.nson — He did not say, that when the applica
tion w -s made to him he replied that be would not endorse
the bill without another name on it ; although he said, if he
had been asked, that most likely would have been his
answer. He said the guarantee had bfen mentioned, but
he had not seen it till after the letutn of the biil. He
might hbve said lit; did not think he hid seen it till that
time, but wituess believed he spoke positively
Mr Hiii son addressed the Jury for tbe plaintiff. It whb
cletr tliur, by the production of the bil , Captain Hart had
paid the amount, mid on the faith of the respectable names
attached to it, Mr Jones had £1400 of Captain tJ art's money,
and (heir excuse for resisting payment now was, not that
Mr Ii. J»ms d:d no: restive value, but upon a mere techni
cality. The only question tor them to consider wonld bt,
did CaptHi'n Hart purchase the bill and did he give Mr H
Jones value for it. If he did give value he would be
entitled to a verdict. His client claimed £6J7 1 7s. iOd.
The JuH^e directed the Jury to confine their attention to
the pleas respecting tbe guarantee, and whither it was made
with wo ds f et forth in the declaration ; but then the quet tion
would aris' , wai the guarantee made to the plaintiff, which
would depend upon the circumstance of Captain Hart
having purchased the bill, relying upon the names on the
guarantee. - -
The Juiy, after retiring for about a quarter of an hour,
returned with a verdict that Cantiin Hart puichnsed the
bill, relying upon the names to the guarantee, and give
value for it, and that the plaintiff was entitled to£€47 IOs.2d.
On the application of Mr Hanson the Judge certified for
a Special Jury.
The Court then adjourned till ten o'clock to-morrow
morning (this day).
$