In the case Mellish (not Melhuish, as stated in the
Daily Journals) v. Rawdon, which was heard in the Common Pleas, on Monday, on a motion for a new trial, a point of commercial law, of considerable im- portance,. was settled. The facts stood thus—Rawdon (of Liverpool) Mr. Hoskins, of Marylebone office, has decided that a rate-payer was not entitled to examine the minutes of the Vestry previous to their being confirmed. The plea of the Vestry Clerk was, that the minutes, previous to being confirmed, were no more than so many loose pieces of paper, and often full of erasures and interlineations. We have always understood that the only question that can be raised by the Vestry which " confirms" the minutes is, whether the minutes con-
firmed and the original minutes are identical. It is indeed in reason that it should be so, otherwise the discussion on a disputed proposition would never terminate. Why, then, should net a rate-payer have access to the minutes in their unconfirmed as readily as in their confirm- ed stage ? More especially, as it is quite- competent to the office-bearers to act on the minutes before they arc confirmed? drew a bill on Rio at so many days' sight, which he endorsed to Mel- lish. As bills on Rio were falling in the market, Mellish did not think it prudent to negotiate the one that had been thus acquired. In the in- terim, while it remained in the possession of Mellish, Rawdon drew a second bill on the same party, which went direct to Rio, and was ac- cepted and paid. The first bill subsequently reached the same place; but when it got there, the payer was bankrupt. It was returned in consequence ; and Mellish having been refused payment of it by the drawer, Rawdon, commenced his action. The Jury gave a verdict in his favour. The argument of Rawdon against his liability turned on the fact of Mellish's retaining the bill for an unnecessary length of time in his possession. Ile contended, that if it had been sent to Rio immediately, it would have been paid, and that it ought to have been so sent. Mellish pleaded the practice of all bill-dealers, of retaining bills payable after sight, until a profit could be realized by disposing of them. Unless they were enabled to do so, the trade in such bills must come to an end. It might happen that a bill on Rio, instead of being sent direct to that city, would travel thither through the medium of Amsterdam, Paris, Madrid, and half a dozen more markets. How could any bill-merchant secure to himself the profit arising from the arbitration of exchange, unless lie were allowed to exercise his own dis- cretion in respect to the time he would retain such bills as came into his hands ? If the drawer of a bill after sight wished it to be sent direct to the payer, it was in his power, before negotiating it, to take an obligation from the endorser to that effect. The Court, on Monday, unanimously affirmed the judgment of the Jury, which was in favour of Mellish. It seems now therefore decided, that where a bill after sight is endorsed without conditions, the time of its presentation for accept- ance must depend entirely on the discretion of-the various -endorsers through whose hands it may happen to pass; that discretion being of course not capriciously exercised,—which, as no interest can accrue on the bill so long as it is nat presented, it is reasonable to infer, it will not often be.
It is said the Consistory Court is to be removed from Doctors' Com- mons to the Privy Council Office, Whitehall.
Previous page
