Markham, Lessee of, v. Cooke, 543 Marsden and Others, The King v. 579 Martin, The King v. 634; ii. 790 Mayre v. Coulthard and Goodwin, ii. 1230 Methold, Lessee of, v. Noright, 290 Michael, (St.), Southampton, The King v. NAUNTON, Lessee of, v. Leman, ii. 993 Newman, Lessee of, v. Newman, 938 Nicol v. Verelst, ii. 1277 Nightingale v. Devisme, ii. 684 v. Nightingale, ii. 1274 Noden, Lessee of, v. Griffiths, 605 - v. Waldron, ii. 1199 Nueys and Galley, The King v. 416 OATES, Lessee of Markham, v. Cooke, 543 Over-Norton v. Salford, 433, 455 Oxenden, Lessee of, v. Laurance, ii. 1259 Peckham and Clarke, The King v. ii. 1218 Perkins, Lessee of Vowe, v. Sewell, 654 Phipps, Lessee of, v. Allin, ii. 1041 Pitt and Mead, The King v. 380 Poitier v. Croza, 48 Pole v. Jonson, ii. 764 Poole v. Peate, ii. 1206 Portsmouth, The King v. The Overseers of, 395 Povey, Lessee of, v. Doe, ii. 892 v. Milbank, ii. 851 v. Peach, ii. 1202 Preston v. Merceau, ii. 1249 Price v. Neale, 390 Pulteney v. Townson, ii. 1227 Robinson v. Bland, 234, 256 Roche v. The King v. 541 Lessee of, v. Wharry, ii. 728 Roe, Lessee of Noden, v. Griffiths, 605 on demise of Kaye v. Soley, ii. 726 on demise of Gray v. Gray, ii. 815 on demise of Lee v. Ellis, ii. 940 on demise of Callow v. Bolton, ii. 1045 on demise of Thorne v. Lord, ii. 1099 on demise of Gilman v. Heyhoe, ii. 1114 on demise of Bree v. Lees, ii. 1171 on demise of Aistrop v. Aistrop, ii. 1228 on demise of Pye v. Bird, ii. 1301 Rogers v. Holled, ii. 1039 Rolfe, Lessee of, v. Harwood, ii. 937 Ross v. Bradshaw, 312 ST. DEVEREUX v. Much-Dew-Church, 367 St. George's, Middlesex, The King v. The Overseers of, ii. 694 St. John v. The Bishop of Winton and Hill, ii. 930 St. Saviour's, Churchwardens of, v. Smith, 351 Salomon v. Gordon and Berrie, ii. 813 Satterthwaite, Less. of, v. Satterthwaite, 519 v. Perry, ii. 758 v. Shepherd, ii. 892 v. Shearman, ii. 977 Seaford, The King v. The Justices of, 432 Seton v. Sinclair and Others, ii. 880 v. Tunbridge, ii. 1064 Shirley v. Collis, ii. 940 Showler and Others, The King v. 419 Simpson (Sir Edward), The King v. 456 v. the Hundred of Ashwarden, ii. 812 ton, ii. 904 v. Eyles, ii. 970 v. Parker, ii. 1230 Smollet (Dr.), The King v. 269 Spelman's Case, 19 Stafford, Earl of, v. The Bishop of Norwich, Stephen v. Coster and Others, 413, 423 Lessee of, v. Noright, ii. 746 Stiles on demise of Rayment v. Walford, ii. 938 Stock v. Eagle, ii. 1052 v. Fenn, ii. 847 v. Carter, ii. 816 Walkhouse v. Darwent and Larwood, 19 — v. Gansell, ii. 735 Lessee of, v. Badtitle, ii. 763 Warman's Case, ii. 1204 Wood's Case, ii. 745 Wood qui tam v. Ellis, ii. 1154 Wright, Assignee of Scott, v. Campbell, 628 v. Page, ii. 837 Lessee of, v. Wright, ii. 889 v. Russell, ii. 923, 934 on demise of Allingham v. Dow ley, ii. 1185 Wyndham v. Chetwynd, 95 YATES v. Carlisle and Others, 270, 291 Young v. Lynch, 27 --- v. Hockley, ii. 839 Yeaw v. Holland, ii. 717 ZINCK v. Walker, ii. 1154 Zouch, Lessee of Abbot, v. Parsons, 575 OF CASE S. MICH. TERM,-20 GEO. II. 1746.-KING'S BENCH. HANKEY V. TROTMAN. MOTION for a new trial. Plaintiff was a banker; had a gave him a bill on bill on defendant; for which the defendant Sir John Strange, Sir R. Lloyd, and Mr. Ford, argued for the plaintiff, that he endeavoured to receive the bill as soon as in the common course of business it used to be received; and that some time must be allowed for the circulating paper credit. Mr. Hume Campbell and Stracey, contra, laid it down that a trading jury was the best judge of this case, and had not gone against law in this verdict, the law not having prescribed any time for receiving bills; and that the Court was not to interpose, unless the jury was manifestly wrong. Per Cur'. LEE, C. J.-I was of opinion for the plaintiff at the trial, though there was variety of evidence; but doubt whether the verdict can be set aside, as it is a question of No new trial where the verdict is neither against evidence No time pre change. fact, whether there was convenient time allowed for receiving [ 2 ] the money. WRIGHT, J.-The jury is the proper judge of circumstances and facts. But the question here is, Whether the plaintiff had any time at all. Some time must be allowed: Therefore I doubt whether the verdict is not against evidence, imputing laches to the plaintiff where there was none. DENISON, J.-Both juries and Judges have been of different sentiments as to this point. The question is, Whether the |