Page images
PDF
EPUB

showing that the note was indorsed by the plaintiff without any consideration, and the indorsement was in fact for the accommodation of the defendant; therefore, all objection on the ground of circuity of action is destroyed. It has been contended that the only evidence of a consideration was the defendant's promise to become a surety for her son, and that as this promise was not in writing the indorsement was not binding upon the defendant. But the plaintiffs are not suing upon a guarantee : the case is not within either the words or the spirit of the Statute of Frauds, s. 4. Moreover, verbal evidence of the consideration was admitted, and the complaint ought to have been made to the High Court; but the objection was not sustainable, and the defendant has in truth lost nothing by the omission to apply to that tribunal. It has been contended that the cases which support the contention for the plaintiffs were wrongly decided, and that the law as laid down in Britten v. Webb (1), must in all cases be applied. But it seems to me that Britten v. Webb is quite distinguishable from the decisions which support the contention for the plaintiffs. It has been argued that Steele v. McKinlay (2) shows that when all the facts are proved at the trial, it becomes necessary to give evidence of an agreement in writing; it seems to me that the case has nothing to do with tho present. It was there held that the mere fact of a person writing his name on the back of a bill does not make him acceptor, when the names of other parties appear as acceptors. This point does not affect the question before us. When this case was tried before Bowen, J., he acted upon the principles of the law merchant, and I am of opinion that his judgment was quite right.

Judgment affirmed. Solicitors for plaintiffs : G. & W. Webb. Solicitors for defendant: W. Moon.

[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]
[blocks in formation]

WEEKLY RETURNS.

[merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][ocr errors][merged small][ocr errors]

£ £ £ £ 35,626 35,311 35,197 | 35,152

£ 35,368

11,015 | 11,015 11,015 11,015 11,015 4,735 4,735 4,735 4,735

4,735 19,876 | 19,561 19,447 19,402 19,618

35,626 35,311

35,197 35,152 35,368

14,553 14,553 14,553 14,553 14,553 3,102 3,114 3,182 3,346 3,384 6,581 6,318 6,266 4,300 3,942 22,405 24,231 24,851 24,738 24,613

204 173 227 244 242

45,845

48,389

49,079 47,181 46,734

13,244 | 13,244 13,237 14,812 13,662 22,324 24,589 26,004 | 22,294 22,216 10,402 9,801 9,036 9,216 9,925

875 755 802 859 931

46,845 48,383 49,079 47,181

46,734

25,224 | 25,511 11,277 10,556

26,161 | 25,937 25,443 9,838 10,075 10,856

38.63

31.35

31.38

31:40

37.70 5%

[blocks in formation]

BANK OF ENGLAND. Issue DEPARTMENT.

Notes issued

88,177

Government debt .....
Other securities
Gold coin and bullion.

11,015

3,985 23,177

3,127

14,553

BANKING DEPARTMENT.

LIABILITIES.
Proprietors' capital
Rest
Public deposits.
Other deposits
Seven day and other bills

4,054 24,973

Total

47,784

Assets.
Government securities..
Other securities
Notes
Gold and silver coin...

14,553
20,517
11,812
1,102

Total

47,784

26.505
12,914

Notes in the hands of the public
Reserve ....
Proportion of reserve to liabilities

(per cent.) Rate of discount

43-17

Dec. 22.

Dec. 29.

Jan. 5.

Jan. 12. Jan, 19.

1881. Jar, :0.

25-245 25.213

25.20

25.22

25.223

RATES OF EXCHANGE ON

LONDON, Paris, cheque

(par £1=25f. 22 c.) Berlin, 8 days,

(par £1=20 m. 43 pf.). ..... New York, 60 days,

(par £1=$4.867) Calcutta, 4 m/d

(per rupee)

20-393

20:38

20:40

20:42

20:423

20:42

4.793

4.793

4:81

4.791 4.81 4.82 1s. 83. 1s. 83d. 1s. afd.

1s. Srad. ls.8 d.

18. 7ild.

WEEKLY RETURNS.

In £'s sterling, 000 omitted, thus-£1,000=£1,000,000.

1881. Jan, 20.

1881. 1881. 1882, 1882, 1882.
For the weeks | Dec. 22. Dec. 29. Jan. 6. Jan. 12. Jan. 19.
ending

1
2
3
4

6

6

[blocks in formation]
« PreviousContinue »