1827.

SARGUY

V.

HOBSON.

say that this ship was ever in such a state that would justify her abandonment, when it appears that, by the sacrifice of a comparatively small portion of the cargo, she was preserved. To extend the doctrine to such a case would be highly destructive to underwriters, and, consequently, injurious to commerce. Here, there was no just ground for an abandonment. The point has now for the first time come before a Court of error for a solemn decision. The effect of over-ruling Powell v. Gudgeon would be extremely injurious, for the necessary consequence would be to throw upon one party the loss that should be borne by another. This is a loss that should attach to the owner and assurer of the ship.

Judgment affirmed.

Wednesday,
May 9th.

HAWKEY V. BORWICK.

[In Error.]

In a declaration THIS was an action of assumpsit on a bill of exchange.

on a bill of exchange accepted payable at J. S.'s, an aver

ment of present

ment at the

house of J. S."

is sufficient, without alleging a presentment to J. S.

The first count of the declaration stated-that one P. Campbell, on the 12th November, 1817, at &c., drew a bill of exchange upon W. D. Campbell, for 500l., payable, nine months after date, to the order of the defendant below, which said bill of exchange the said W. D. Campbell upon sight thereof accepted, and made the same payable at the house of Messrs. Smith, Payne, & Smith, in London; that the defendant below indorsed it to one Moore, and Moore to the plaintiff below; that afterwards, when the bill became due, it was presented and shewn at the house of the said Messrs. Smith, Payne, & Smith, for payment; and that the said Messrs. Smith, Payne, & Smith then and there had notice of the several indorsements on the bill, and were requested to pay the same, which they re

fused to do: of all which premises the defendant below had notice.

The second count alleged a general acceptance by W. D. Campbell, a presentment to him on the 15th August, 1818, his refusal, notice thereof to the defendant below, and a promise by him to pay the bill. The declaration also contained the common money counts.

The defendant below pleaded-first, non assumpsit ; whereupon issue was joined-secondly non ussumpsit infra sex annos; to which there was a replication, that the defendant below did undertake and promise within six years before the exhibiting of the bill: upon this replication also issue was taken.

The Jury found that the defendant below did undertake in manner and form as the plaintiff below had alleged against him.

Judgment having been entered for the plaintiff below, a writ of error was brought, assigning for errors

That no presentment was alleged in the first count, either to the acceptor, or to Messrs. Smith, Payne, & Smith; and that, although presented at the house of Messrs. Smith, Payne, & Smith, the presentment might have been made to an utter stranger to all parties; that the days in the second count were material, and should have been proved as laid; and that the promise in that count was merely an inference of law arising out of the alleged presentment, dishonour, and notice of non-payment of the bill, and was so stated; and that by the second plea it was pleaded that the defendant below did not undertake within six years of the exhibiting of the bill, while there was no replication that the suit was commenced by latitat, or otherwise, within six years; and that, although it appeared from the record that the bill of the plaintiff below had been exhibited more than six years after the promise laid in the declaration, yet it likewise appeared by the same record, that the Jury had found generally that the defendant be

1827.

HAWKEY

V.

BORWICK

1827.

HAWKEY

v.

BORWICK.

low did undertake and promise within six years, which finding was manifestly untrue and inconsistent with the record; and that, notwithstanding the plaintiff below was not entitled to damages on the two first counts of the declaration, the damages were assessed generally upon the whole record.

Mr. E. Lawes, for the plaintiff in error, argued at some length in support of the assignment of errors, citing as to the first point, De Bergareche v. Pillin (a), and, as to the second, A' Court v. Cross (b).

The Court, however, being of opinion that the errors assigned could not be sustained, affirmed the judgment of the Court below.

(a) 11 J. B. Moore, 350; S. C. 3 Bing. 476.

Judgment affirmed.

(b) 11 J. B. Moore, 198; S. C. 3 Bing. 329.

MEMORANDA.

IN the course of the last vacation, the Right Honorable John, Earl of Eldon, resigned the Great Seal, and was succeeded in the office of Lord High Chancellor of England by The Right Honorable Sir John Singleton Copley, knight, Master of the Rolls, who was created a peer of the United Kingdom, by the style and title of Baron Lyndhurst, of Lyndhurst, in the county of Southampton. His Lordship accordingly took his seat in the Court of Chancery on the first day of this term.

The Right Honorable Sir John Leach, Vice Chancellor, succeeded to the office of Master of the Rolls; and Anthony Hart, Esquire, one of His Majesty's Counsel, to that

of Vice Chancellor, and received the honour of knighthood.

The Right Honorable Sir Charles Abbott, knight, Lord Chief Justice of the Court of King's Bench, was created a peer of the United Kingdom, by the style and title of Baron Tenterden, of Hendon, in the county of Middlesex.

The Honorable Sir Robert Graham, knight, one of the Barons of his Majesty's Court of Exchequer, resigned his office, and was succeeded by John Vaughan, Esquire, one of his Majesty's Serjeants, who received the honour of knighthood.

Sir Charles Wetherell, knight, his Majesty's AttorneyGeneral, resigned his office, and was succeeded by James Scarlett, Esquire, one of his Majesty's Counsel, who received the honour of knighthood.

Mr. Serjeant Bosanquet was appointed one of his Majesty's Serjeants, and took his seat accordingly.

1827.

MEMORANDA.

END OF EASTER TERM.

1827.

ARGUED AND DETERMINED

IN THE

Courts of Common Pleas

AND

Exchequer Chamber,

IN TRINITY TERM,

IN THE EIGHTH YEAR OF THE REIGN OF GEORGE. IV.

MEMORANDA.

DURING the vacation, Henry Brougham, Esq., received a patent of precedence; and Thomas Crosby Treslove, Esq., George Rose, Esq., Henry Bickersteth, Esq., John Williams, Esq., John Campbell, Esq., Frederick Pollock, Esq., and Horace Twiss, Esq., were appointed His Majesty's Counsel, and took their seats accordingly on the first day of this term.

On the same day, Mr. Serjeant Taddy, Mr. Serjeant Cross, and Mr. Serjeant Wilde, took their seats within the bar, on their appointment as His Majesty's Serjeants.

In the course of the term, Thomas Andrews, Esq., Ebenezer Ludlow, Esq., Henry Storks, Esq., Henry Alworth Merewether, Esq., William Oldnall Russell, Esq., Edward Lawes, Esq., David Francis Jones, Esq., John Scriven, Esq., Henry John Stephen, Esq., and Charles Carpenter Bompas, Esq., were called to the degree of the Coif. The seven first gave rings with the motto, "More majorum,” and the three latter, " Lex ratione probatur.”