Page images
PDF
EPUB
[blocks in formation]
[blocks in formation]

NAUNTON, Lessee of, v. Leman, ii. 993
Neal, Lessee of, v. Roberts, 476
Newby v. Reed, 416

Newman, Lessee of, v. Newman, 938
v. Goodman, ii. 1093, 1110

Nicholl v. Nicholl, ii. 1159

Nicol v. Verelst, ii. 1277

Nightingale v. Devisme, ii. 684

v. Nightingale, ii. 1274

Noden, Lessee of, v. Griffiths, 605
Norris v. Levi, ii. 1188

- v. Waldron, ii. 1199

Norwich, The Mayor of, v. Berry, 636

[blocks in formation]

395

Povey, Lessee of, v. Doe, ii. 892

Powel v. Little, 8

The King v. ii. 787

v. Milbank, ii. 851

v. Peach, ii. 1202

Preston v. Merceau, ii. 1249

Price v. Neale, 390

Pulteney v. Townson, ii. 1227

[blocks in formation]

Robinson v. Bland, 234, 256

Roche v.

The King v. 541

Lessee of, v. Wharry, ii. 728
Carey, ii. 850

Roe, Lessee of Noden, v. Griffiths, 605
on demise of Bendall v. Summerset,
ii. 692

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
Rolls v. Barnes, 65

Ross v. Bradshaw, 312
Rowe v. Hasland, 404
Rowning v. Goodchild, ii. 906
Rudge, The King v. 432
Ruffle v. Hitchacock, ii. 1097

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
Sanderson v. Baker and Martin, ii. 832
Santler v. Heard, ii. 1031

Satterthwaite, Less. of, v. Satterthwaite, 519
Saunders and Others v. Lowe, ii. 1014
Savage qui tam v. Smith, ii. 1101

[blocks in formation]

v. Perry, ii. 758

v. Shepherd, ii. 892

v. Shearman, ii. 977

Seaford, The King v. The Justices of, 432
Selwin v. Selwin, 222, 251

Seton v. Sinclair and Others, ii. 880
Sharpe v. Brice, ii. 942
Shaw, The King v. ii. 789

v. Tunbridge, ii. 1064

Shirley v. Collis, ii. 940
Shorter v. Packhurst, 19

Showler and Others, The King v. 419
Simon v. Mettivier or Motivos, 599
Simmons v. Shannon, ii. 725

Simpson (Sir Edward), The King v. 456 v. the Hundred of Ashwarden,

ii. 812

[blocks in formation]

ton, ii. 904

v. Eyles, ii. 970

v. Parker, ii. 1230

Smollet (Dr.), The King v. 269
Snowdon v. Thomas, ii. 748
Soulsby v. Hodgson, 463
Sowley v. Jones, ii. 725
Sparrow v. Naylor, ii. 876
. Cooper, ii. 1314

[ocr errors]

Spelman's Case, 19
Spong v. Hog, ii. 802
Spraggs, The King v. 209
Spriggins, The King v. 2

Stafford, Earl of, v. The Bishop of Norwich,
Cambridge University, and Baker, ii. 881
Stationers' Company v. Carnan, ii. 1004
Stean v. Holmes, ii. 754

Stephen v. Coster and Others, 413, 423
Stevens v. Evans and Others, 284
Stevenson v. Snow, 315, 318

Lessee of, v. Noright, ii. 746
v. Hardie, ii. 872

Stiles on demise of Rayment v. Walford,

ii. 938

Stock v. Eagle, ii. 1052
Strithorst v. Græhme, ii. 723
Strong v. Teatt, 200
Stuart v. Tucker, ii. 1137
Sulston v.
Norton, 317
Sutton v. Bishop, 665

v. Fenn, ii. 847
Swann v. Broome, 496, 526
Swift, Lessee of Neale, v. Roberts, 476
Symonds v. Parminter, 20

[blocks in formation]

v. Carter, ii. 816

Walkhouse v. Darwent and Larwood, 19
Wallen qui tam v. Holton, 233
Walpole St. Peter's, The King v. 669
Walter v. Stuart, ii. 918
Waraker v. Gascoyne, ii. 1297
Ward, The King v. 386

— v. Gansell, ii. 735

Lessee of, v. Badtitle, ii. 763

Warman's Case, ii. 1204
Watkins v. Heydon, ii. 762
Watson v. Cox, ii. 1065
Webb, The King v. 19, 460
Wellington v. Wellington, 645
Wells v. Watling, ii. 1233
West v. Eyles, ii. 1059
Weston v. Coulson, 506

[blocks in formation]

Wood's Case, ii. 745

Wood qui tam v. Ellis, ii. 1154
qui tam v. Johnson, ii. 1157
qui tam v. Caffin, ibid.
v. Chessall, ii. 1254
Wooden v. Boyntun, 50
Woolmer v. Muilman, 427
Woolston v. Woolston, 281

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
another banker, at twelve at noon, who stopped payment before
the next morning. The question was, Whether plaintiff or
defendant should stand to the loss; or whether there was any
laches in the plaintiff, who got the bill marked for acceptance
the same night. On the trial, the jury found a verdict for 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

[ocr errors]

No new trial

where the verdict is neither

against evidence
nor law.
scribed by law
for the receipt
of bills of ex-

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

[blocks in formation]
« PreviousContinue »