BROWN v. LORD GRANVILLE, M. T. 1833. C. P. 10 Bing. 69. A LOCAL watching and lighting act authorized a rate on all build ings The Court held, that sheds which covered engines for the working of mines were within the act. CANE v. CHAPMAN, M. T. 1826. K. B. 1 N. & P. 104; S. C. 5 A. & E. 647. In case against the clerk to paving commissioners, for non-payment of an annuity granted to the plaintiff out of the rates under the local act, for the purposes of the act The Court held, first, that a plea, that it was not the duty of the commissioners to pay, &c. was bad, as putting matter of law in issue; secondly, that the charge being made on the rates by virtue of the act, the non-payment of it concerned an act done in pursuance of the act, and the clerk therefore liable to be sued; and, lastly, that the commissioners having neglected a duty in not disposing of the funds raised in the mode prescribed by the act, and not being personally liable or contracting parties, the action was properly brought in case. Pawnbroker+. TREGONING v. ATTENBOROUGH, M. T. 1830. C. P. 7 Bing. 97, overruling FITZROY v. GWILLIM, 1T. R. 153. A PAWNBROKER advanced 2007. to a needy trader, upon a de- Whether the posit of goods, entering the transaction in his books as a loan of pawnbroker has * A paving act provided that, in case the treasurer, collector, officer, or other person, should die or become bankrupt, having money of the commissioners in his hands, that the commissioners should have a priority of claim, and that the collector should sue in his own name for the recovery of any penalty, rate, or other sum, due or payable by any person:-Held, that it did not restrain them from suing in the name of their clerk for mere penalties and rates, but that they might sue the assignees of the bankers for the amount of monies in their hands. (Frost v. Bolland, T. T. 1826, K. B., 5 B. & C. 611; S. C. 8 D. & R. 384; abridg. tit. Bankrupt). † See 39 & 40 Geo. 3, c. 99; 5 & 6 Will. 4, c. 62; and the 2 & 3 Vict. c. 37, s. 3, which provides that nothing in this act shall extend or be construed to extend to repeal or affect any statute relating to pawnbrokers; but that all laws touching and concerning pawnbrokers shall remain in full force and effect, to all intents and purposes whatsoever, as if this act had not been passed: continued by the 3 & 4 Vict. c. 83. A pawnbroker received a parcel of goods on one day, and on that and several subsequent days he advanced sums of money, each not exceeding 107., as on different parts of the parcel, and received pawnbroker's interest of three pence in the pound per month on those sums:-Held, that it was a question for the jury whether this really were one transaction or a mere contrivance for obtaining the higher interest on the whole sum, in which case it is void, or whether the advances were really distinct. (Cowie v. Harris, M. T. 1827, N. P., 1 M. & M. 141). A pawnbroker is not entitled, under the 39 & 40 Geo. 3, c. 99, s. 2, allowing the rate of one-halfpenny a month for the loan of 2s. 6d., to charge by monthly rests, as on a monthly contract; and quære, where the interest involves the fraction of one-farthing, if he can demand the full farthing. (Rex v. Goodburn, T. T. 1838, Q. B., 3 N. & P. 468; S. C. 8 A. & E. 508), advanced more than 10%. per day is a question for the jury. But it will be inferred that the contract was intended to be on the usual terms. Where dupli cates are pretended to be lost, and memorandums given, the pawnbroker is entitled to a reasonable time before he gives up the articles. several sums, each under 107., in order to obtain the larger rate of interest. The trader becoming bankrupt Tindal, C. J., left it to the jury to say, whether or not the goods had been deposited with the defendant upon a contract to receive more than 57. per cent. interest. The jury found in the affirmative, and accordingly returned a verdict for the plaintiff. Per Cur. The question was proper for the jury, we cannot interfere. NICHOLSON V. TROTTER, M. T. 1837. Ex. 3 M. & W. 130. TROVER for watches. Plea, that they were deposited with the defendant, a pawnbroker, for security for money advanced by him, which had not been repaid. Replication, a usurious contract for a loan exceeding 107., upon which more than lawful interest was to be paid; and on which it was agreed, "that the defendant should forbear, and give day of payment for a certain time, to wit, until the expiration of one year." At the trial, it was proved that no time for forbearance was mentioned: but the Judge amended the record, by inserting, after the words "until the expiration of one year," the words "redeemable in the meantime;" and the jury found a verdict for the plaintiff. Upon motion to enter a nonsuit on the ground that this was not a contract within the 39 & 40 Geo. 3, c. 99 The Court held, that it was a question for the jury, whether the parties did not intend to apply all the ordinary terms of a pawnbroker's contract to the transaction, although the sum advanced by that pawnbroker exceeded 107.; and unless the contrary be shewn it will be intended to be on the usual terms. VAUGHAN v. WATT, E. T. 1840. Ex. 6 M. & W. 492. IN trover, it appeared that on the 24th of July goods were pledged with the defendant, a pawnbroker, in the name of Mary Warne, and the duplicate was made out accordingly. She was, in fact, the wife of the plaintiff, Vaughan, but it did not appear that this fact was then known to the defendant. A few days after, the same person applied to the defendant for a copy of the duplicate, and a form of declaration of the loss of it, pursuant to the stat. 39 & 40 Geo. 3, c. 99, s. 16, and 5 & 6 Will. 4, c. 62, s. 12. On the 6th of August the plaintiff produced the duplicate to the defendant, and demanded the goods, tendering the money advanced on them and interest, but the defendant refused to deliver them, on the ground of the declaration having been obtained. The plaintiff applied to a magistrate to compel him, and the defendant then (on the 9th August) learnt that the party who pledged the goods was the plaintiff's wife. The Court held, that a party who obtains from a pawnbroker a form of declaration of the loss of the duplicate is bound to go before a justice of the peace immediately, in order to prove his property in the goods pledged; and the pawnbroker is not justified in refusing the goods to a person who presents the original duplicate, if a reasonable time has elapsed for verifying the declaration. The mere detention of the goods for a reasonable time, with the view to ascertain the real owner, is not, in point of law, a conversion of them. FERGUSON v. NORMAN, M. T. 1838. C. P. 5 Bing. N. S. 76; 6 Scott, 794. pawn THE inquiries specified by the 6th sect. of the 39 & 40 Geo. 3, c. 99, (Pawnbrokers' Act), and directed to be made by the broker forthwith, and before he shall advance any money on the pawn or pledge The Court held, to constitute a condition precedent, and, if not duly made, the contract is illegal. No property in the thing pawned passes to the pawnee, and his right of lien never attached. ARMSTRONG v. LEWIS, M. T. 1834. Ex. Chamb. 2 C. & M. 274; Two carried on business under a partnership deed as pawnbrokers, but one only took the license, and used his name in the business. The Court held, that although they might have rendered themselves liable to penalties, yet the agreement containing no stipulation for any infraction of law, it was not void; but aliter, if it had, and that no rights would have been conferred on either party. REX v. CORDING, M. T. 1832, K. B. 1 N. & M. 35; S. C. 4 B. & Ad. 198. A QUESTION arising upon the construction of the Pawnbrokers' Act, (39 & 40 Geo. 3)The Court held, 1st, a justice of the peace has no power to proceed against a pawnbroker under the 39 & 40 Geo. 3. c. 99, in a case where the goods pawned have been accidentally destroyed by fire; and 2ndly, that a justice has no power to proceed under the above act in any case in which the goods have been lost, unless they have been lost through the default of the pawnbroker. TATE v. CHAMBERS, T. T. 1834. K. B. 3 N. & M. 523. A. HAVING deposited with B. certain goods as a security, a dispute arose concerning the goods, upon which B. obtained from C., a police magistrate, a summons, requiring A.'s appearance on a day named. Upon the appearance before C., he made oath to a written information that he believed the goods to have been illegally pawned or disposed of by A. C. gave a further day to the parties, when, after evidence being gone into, C. committed A. for re-examination on a charge of suspicion of having unlawfully disposed of the goods of B. The Court held, that the charge was not sufficiently made, so as to give the magistrate jurisdiction over the matter, under the 8th section of the Pawnbrokers' Act, (39 & 40 Geo. 3, c. 99). * See 5 & 6 Will. 4, c. 62. Where a pawnbroker's servant, having a general authority to receive and deliver pledges, gave up to the prisoner a former pledge upon receiving the money advanced, out of an advance on other valuable articles which were secrectly changed, and the whole an intended trick:-Held, that the obtaining the former pledge was not larceny; the property as well as the possession being given by a party authorized. (Rex v. Jackson, 1826, 1 Moo. C. C. A pawnbroker who has not complied with the requisites of the act has no lien. A license by one does not avoid a contract between them. Justices cannot commit where lost without dethe property is fault of the pawnbroker*, and have no jurisdiction under 39 & 40 Geo. 3, unless a charge be substantiated. Payment. See, also, tit. Pleas. I. RELATIVE TO THE MODE IN WHICH A LEGAL (a) BY BILL, p. 128. (a) BY CHEQUE, p. 128. II. RELATIVE TO WHOM MADE, p. 129. III. RELATIVE TO THE TENDER OF PAYMENT, see tit. Tender. IV. RELATIVE TO PLEADING PAYMENT, p. 130. V. RELATIVE TO REPLICATION TO PLEA OF PAY- VI. RELATIVE TO NEW ASSIGNMENT, p. 131. VII. RELATIVE TO EVIDENCE OF PAYMENT, p. 132. A lost bill not indorsed is no payment. A creditor is not bound to I. RELATIVE TO THE MODE IN WHICH A LEGAL (a) BY BILL. HOLT v. WATSON, H. T. 1827. C. P. 4 Bing. 275. DEFENDANT gave to the plaintiff in part payment of goods an acceptance at three months, and which the plaintiff lost, having never paid it away nor indorsed it, and the defendant had never been called upon in respect of the bill. The Court held, that, as he could not be held to be liable on the bill, it was no answer to the original demand. (b) BY CHEQUE. HOUGH v. MAY, E. T. 1836. K. B. 6 N. & M. 535; S. C. 4 Ad. & E. 954. ON an issue, that the defendant did "not pay a sum of money in discharge of the same sum in the plea mentioned," and evidence treat a cheque given of a cheque being sent to the plaintiff before action brought for that sum, describing it as a " balance." as payment. The Court held, 1st, that it was a question properly left to the jury, whether the cheque was received by the party to whom it was sent as money; and 2ndly, that a cheque cannot be deemed a payment unless received as such. an account at the same bankers; A. order. EYLES v. ELLIS, M. T. 1826. C. P. 4 Bing. 112. THE plaintiff, in October, authorized bankers at M. to receive a A. and B. kept payment from the defendant, who, having an account with the same bankers, directed them to transfer the amount to plaintiff's account, but by mistake this had not been done when the receipt of plaintiff came to the defendant's hands; the plaintiff complaining of this, the defendant on the 8th December ordered the mistake to be rectified, and the transfer was made on that day, and a letter sent by defendant on the 9th, informing plaintiff of it; it did not however reach him until the 11th in the course of the post, and on the 10th the bankers had stopped payment. The Court held, that the transfer was a payment by the defendant. See Boyd v. Emmerson, 2 Ad. & E. 184. ed a transfer to B. on one day, and the bankers failed the next: -Held, a pay ment. II. RELATIVE TO WHOM MADE*. IV. RELATIVE TO PLEADING PAYMENT. REG. GEN., T. T. 1838. Q. B., C. P., and Ex. 3 N. & P. 381; or sums. Payment to a person found in a merchant's counting-house, and appearing to be intrusted with the conduct of the business there, is good payment to the merchant, though it turns out that the person was never employed by him. (Barrett v. Deere, T. T. 1828, N. P., 1 M. & M. 200). If one allow another to trade in his own name, and as carrying on the business for himself, a payment to such person is a good bar to an action by the person so allowing him to trade; and for goods sold in the trade the person so carrying it on may recover, unless the person for whom it is carried on assert his own right to the sum due. (Gardener v. Davis, T. T. 1825, N. P., 2 C. & P. 49). Before Rule T. T. 1838, a party was entitled to shew payment in reduction of damages, although no plea of payment was on the record. (Shirley v. Jacobs, T. T. 1835, C. P., 2 Bing. N. §. 88; S. P. Lediard v. Boucher, 1838, N. P., 7 C. & P. 1; S. P. Milligan v. Thomas, M. T. 1835, Ex., 4 D. P. C. 373). But even prior to Rule T. T., in an action of debt, where there was no inquiry of damages, if there were no plea of payment, it could not be given in evidence in reduction of damages. (Belbin v. Bott, E. T. 1837, Ex., 5 D. P. C. 604; S. C. 2 M. & W. 422). A payment after action brought might go in reduction of damages, though not pleaded. (Richardson v. Robertson, E. T. 1836, Ex., 1 M. & W. 463). In an action for work and labour, the bill of particulars described the action as Payment must be pleaded unless credit be particulars+. given in the |