such time of absence, or to make satisfaction for it; and in default of such satisfaction, to commit the apprentice for the remedy given to the master by the latter stat. is cumulative to the punishment inflicted on the apprentice by the former stat. for his offence. Gray v. Cookson and Clayton, T. 52 G. 3. Page 13 2. The stat. 5 Eliz. c. 4., avoiding all indentures of apprenticeship other than for 7 years, is to be construed as rendering indentures made for a less time voidable only, and not void. cannot ib. be 3. But such indenture ib. 5. So a refusal of the apprentice to return into the service of his master, when urged to it by the magistrates themselves in the course of the inquiry, upon the complaint of the master, on a prior absenting himself by the apprentice from the service; is not available in support of such action against the conviction. 6. But where the master had agreed by indorsement (unstamped) on the indenture to cancel it, "provided the apprentice made no engagement or entered into any person's service in the town of N.;" it was held that the apprentice setting up a trade for himself in N. was a breach of the condition, which entitled the master to recal him back into his service. ATTORNMENT. See USE AND OCCUPATION. AWARD, See PLEADING, 2. ar Where the parties named two bitrators, who were to choose a third, and the award was to be made by the three or any two of them; and each of the arbitrators proposed to the other a third, who was admitted to be a fit person, but not being able to agree which of the two proposed should be selected, they agreed to decide the choice by lot: held that this was within their authority, and that an award made by such third arbitrator in conjunction with the one by whom he had been originally proposed, could not be impeached on that account. Neale v. Ledger, T. 52 G. 3. Page 51 2. Bail having rendered their principal ib. in time, according to the practice of the Court, are entitled to stay the proceedings in an action on their recognizance, without costs, though the plaintiff commenced his action before he was served with notice of the render. Smith v. Lewis, T. 168 52 G. 3. 3. The Court will allow time to the bail to surrender their principal, where, the principal being in custody under process of another Court, it appears on the return made to a habeas corpus issued by the bail in order to render him, that ib. AWARD, 1. Third persons holding the acceptance of a trader who was known to be in bad circumstances, agreed with the defendants, as a mode of covering the amount of the bill, that it should be indorsed to them, and that they should purchase goods of the trader, which were to be paid for by a bill at three months' date, or made equal to cash in three months, (before which time the trader's acceptance would be due,) but without communicating to the trader that they were the holders of his acceptance: held that the trader having become bankrupt, and his assignees having brought assumpsit to recover the value of the goods sold and delivered to the defendants, the latter could not set off the bankrupt's acceptance, which they did not hold in their own right, but in effect for such other persons. Fair v. M'Iver, T. 52 G. 3. 130 2. In an action against a bankrupt. who has obtained his certificate under a second commission, the certificate is no bar unless it appears affirmatively that his estate has produced 15s. in the pound; evidence that it probably will produce so much is not sufficient. Coverley v. Morley, M. 53 G. 3. 225 3. Where separate commissions of bankruptcy were issued, against three of four partners, to which they conformed and passed their examination, and an order was made for allowing the joint creditors to prove their debts under the commission of one of the three, under which commission the plaintiffs 4. proved their joint debt, and afterwards sued all the partners for the same debt, and arrested one of the other two under whose commission they had not proved: Held that he was not entitled to be discharged out of custody. Young v. Hunter, M. 53 G. 3. Page 252 In an action by the assignees of a bankrupt, underwriter, against defendants, insurance brokers, for the balance of an adjusted account between the bankrupt and defendants, and also for premiums of insurance on policies underwritten by the bankrupt with them as brokers, before the bankruptcy, the brokers are not entitled to deduct for returns of premium due on policies, the premiums of which policies formed a part of the adjusted account, but where the events entitling them to such returns were not known till after such adjustment: nor can they deduct for returns of premium on some of the policies, for the premiums of which the action is brought, the events entitling them to which returns happened before the bankruptcy, but the returns were not adjusted; nor can they deduct for returns on other policies for the premiums of which the action is brought, the events entitling them to which returns happened since the bankruptcy but before the commencement of the action; the brokers not having a commission del credere, nor being personally interested in any of the insurances, Parker v. Smith, M. 53 G. 3. 382 BILLS OF EXCHANGE AND PROMISSORY NOTES. 1. Where one draws a bill of exchange with a bona fide reasonable expectation of having assets in the hands of the drawee; as by having shipped goods on his own account which were -428 BILLS OF EXCHANGE AND PROMISSORY NOTES. were on their way to the drawee, but without the bill of lading or invoice; the drawer is entitled to notice of the dishonour, though in fact the goods had not come to the hands of the drawee at the time when the bill was presented for acceptance, (for he had rejected them) and he returned it marked no effects." Rucker v. Hiller, T. 52 G. 3. Page 43 2. The holders of a bill of exchange having presented it for payment to the acceptor without effect, gave regular notice of the dishonour to the drawers, who lived at a distance, but informed them at the same time, that having reason to believe that a friend of the acceptor's would take it up in a few days, they would, in order to save expense, hold the bill till the latter end of the week, unless they heard from the drawers to the contrary: Held that such notice gave the holders a remedy upon the bill against the drawers, though no further notice of non-payment was given to them at the end of the week but if the construction of the letter bound the plaintiffs to give such further notice at the end of the week, they were only answerable for the neglect in their implied character of agents for the drawers, which they had taken upon themselves, without disturbing their remedy upon the bill itself. Forster v. Jurdison, T. 52 G. 3. : 105 3. Payment of a promissory note, made payable at a certain place named in it must be demanded there before the makers can be sued on it. But upon such demand proved in an action by the holder against the makers, it is no objection to the plaintiff's recovery that one of the makers, whose real name was John Key, (who had suffered judgment by default,) was 4. Though where a promissory note is made payable at a particular place, a demand of payment must be made there, in order to give the holder a cause of action; yet if the makers (who had become insolvent) shut up and abandon their shop, that is evidence of a declaration to all the world of their re fusal to pay their notes there. Howe V. Bowes, T. 52 G. 3. 112 5. It is no objection to an action on a promissory note, that it was given as part of the consideration of an indenture of apprenticeship for less than 7 years, by being antedated : such indenture being only voidable. Nor does the consideration of the note fail because the apprentice was discharged by a magistrate after two years on account of the master having enticed him to commit felony, particularly when the apprentice-fee was to be paid in the first instance, though in case of the defendant a note was taken for part of it, payable at a distant day. Grant v. Welchman, M. 53 G. 3. 207 6. Where the plaintiff in Yorkshire on the 26th of December received a bill of exchange, payable in London, which became due on the 28th, and kept it in his own hands until the 29th, when he sent it by post to his bankers at Lincoln, who duly forwarded it to London for presentment, and the bill was dishonoured: honoured: Held that the plaintiff, by keeping it in his hands until the 29th was guilty of laches. Anderton v. Beck, M. 53 G. 3. Page 248 7. A warrant of the Lord Chancellor for the commitment of a person, appointed a receiver by the Court of Chancery, for the nonpayment of a balance certified against him, is only in the nature of a civil execution; therefore where D., being appointed receiver in a suit in Chancery, was in custody of the officer under such warrant, and the defendant, in order to procure his discharge, joined with him as surety in two promissory notes to the plaintiff, who was a party to the suit in Chancery, and his solicitor, who sued out the warrant, for the amount of the debt and costs, and was thereupon discharged by the direction of the solicitor: Held that the discharge was a legal consideration for the notes, and that an action might be maintained on them; and although there were other parties to the suit in Chancery, who did not concur in the discharge, and therefore D. remained liable to be taken again, yet the consideration had not failed; and that it was no objection to the validity of the notes, that the sum given to cover costs exceeded the costs due, no fraud being intended. Brett v. Close, M. 53 G. 3. 293 8. The acceptors of a foreign bill of exchange, who, after presentment to the drawees for acceptance, and refusal by them to accept, and protest for non-acceptance, accept the same for the honour of the first indorsers, are not liable on such acceptance, unless there has been a presentment of the bill to the drawees for payment, and a protest for nonpayment. Hoare v. Cazenove, M. 53 G. 3. 391 BRIDGES, See INDICTMENT. BROKERS, See BANKRUPT, 4. BUILDING ACT. The 14 G. 3. c. 78. s. 96. (building act) does not enable the district surveyor, who lodges a complaint before two justices on account of a projection made in front of a house, contrary to the provisions of that act, to appeal to the quarter sessions against the dismissal of such complaint by the two justices. Rex v. The Justices of Middlesex, M. 53 G. 3. Page 310 A CARRIER. public notice given by carriers that they will not be answerable for certain specified articles or any other goods of what nature or kind soever above the value of 5l., if lost, stolen, or damaged, unless a special agreement is made, and a premium paid, such value to be entered at the time of delivery, seems not to extend to goods which do not fall within any of the specified articles, and which from their bulk and quality, communicated to the carrier at the time of delivery, must be known to them to exceed the value of 51.: and therefore it seems they will be liable for any damage to the goods arising from the carriage, although no special agreement be made, nor any premium paid; but at all events they will be liable for damage arising from gross negligence notwithstanding such notice. Beck v. Evans, M. 53 G. 3. 244 CHARTER-PARTY. Where the master of a ship covenanted in a charter-party to go to a certain port port of America and receive a loading from the freighter, alongside the ship, and bring home the same; with an exception of the restraints of rulers, &c.: but the freighter covenanted absolutely to provide the loading without any such exception; it seems that an embargo in the American port, which prevented the freighter from loading the ship did not discharge him from his covenant but the plea alleging that the defendant did provide a cargo, and was ready and willing, and offered to send it alongside the ship, but that the plaintiff refused to receive it there, and discharged, the defendant from sending it alongside, on which issue was taken by the replication, was held not to be sustained by evidence of the master's written acknowledgment of the defendant having offered to load the cargo on board, on his (the master's) being ready to take it, for the purpose of raising the question of law on the embargo. Sjoerds v. Luscombe, M. 53 G. 3. Page 201 CHURCHWARDENS AND OVERSEERS. See SETTLEMENT BY APPRENTICE SHIP. The 50 G. 3. c. 49., which requires the churchwardens and overseers to submit their accounts to two justices at special sessions to be holden within the 14 days appointed by the 17 G. 2. c. 38. for delivering in the said account to the succeeding overseers, is not a substitution in lieu of that provision in the 17 G. 2., but is cumulative, and if the overseer refuse to deliver in such account to the succeeding overseers within the 14 days, he may be committed by two justices for such refusal. Lester's case, M. 53 G. 3. 374 CONTEMPT, See BILLS OF EXCHANGE, 7. CONTRACT, See SALE, 1. The defendant, on occasion of there being a great run upon a bankinghouse, went to the bank, and told the holders of notes issued by the bank, who were waiting for payment, that he had come to a resolution to support the bank with 30,000l., at which the holders then present were satisfied, and said they would take no more money than was necessary, and would keep the rest of their notes till they got again into currency; and afterwards the defendant signed the following written paper, "I do hereby authorize G. B. to assure the inhabitants of Pembroke and its vicinity, that I do hereby undertake to be accountable for the payment of the notes issued by the Milford Bank, as far as the sum of 30,000l. will extend to pay:' Held that the bank having afterwards stopped payment, the defendant was not liable upon this undertaking to an action by an individual holder, who had taken the notes after notice of such undertaking, but before the stoppage. Phillipps v. Bateman, M. 53 G. 3. Page 356 |