Page:The English Reports v1 1900.pdf/800

This was an action brought by the defendants in error, as indorsees of an instrument purporting to be a bill of exchange, against the plaintiffs in error, as the acceptors thereof. And the cause came on to be tried before the Right Honourable Lord Kenyon, Lord Chief Justice of the Court of King's Bench, and a special jury, at Guildhall, London, at the sittings after Trinity term 1789, when a special verdict was found; as appears by the record, which is as follows:—

London. To wit, Thomas Gibson, late of London, merchant, and Joseph Johnson, late of the same place, merchant, were attached to answer Hughes Minet and James Peter Fector, in a plea of trespass on the case. And whereupon the said Hughes and James Peter, by Edwin Dawes, their attorney, complain, for that whereas, certain persons using trade and commerce as copartners, in the copartnership, name, and firm of Livesey, Hargreave, and company, on the 18th day of February, in the year of our Lord 1788, at Manchester, to wit, at London aforesaid, at the parish of St. Mary-le-Bow, in the ward of Cheap, according to the usage and custom of merchants, made their certain bill of exchange in writing, the hand of one of the said copartners, on their joint account, and in their copartnership, name, and firm, to wit, Livesey, Hargreave, and Co. being thereunto subscribed, bearing date the same day and year aforesaid, and directed the same bill of exchange to the said Thomas Gibson and Joseph Johnson, by the names and description of Messrs. Gibson and Johnson, bankers, London, and thereby required the said Thomas Gibson and Joseph Johnson, three months after date, to pay to Mr. John White, or order, £721 5s. value received, with or without advice; they, the said Livesey, Hargreave, and company, then and there well knowing that no such person as John White, in the said bill of exchange mentioned, existed. Upon which said bill of exchange, afterwards, to wit, on the same day and year aforesaid, at London aforesaid, at the parish and ward aforesaid, a certain indorsement, in writing, was made, purporting to be the indorsement of John White, named in the said bill, and to be subscribed with his hand and name, and which said indorsement purported to require the said sum of money in the said bill of exchange contained, to be paid to the said Livesey, Hargreave, and company, or their order. And the said bill of exchange being so indorsed as aforesaid, they the said [49] persons using trade and commerce in the name and firm of Livesey, Hargreave, and company, as aforesaid, afterwards, to wit, on the same day and year aforesaid, at London aforesaid, at the parish and ward aforesaid, by a certain indorsement in writing, made upon the said bill of exchange, and subscribed with the hand and name of one Absalom Goodrich, by procuration of the said Livesey, Hargreave, and Co. according to the usage and custom of merchants, appointed the said sum of money, in the said bill of exchange contained, to be paid to the said Hughes and James Peter, and then and there delivered the said bill of exchange, so indorsed as aforesaid, as well with the name of the said John White, as with the name of the said Absalom, to the said Hughes and James Peter; which said bill of exchange afterwards, to wit, on the same day and year aforesaid, at London aforesaid, in the parish and ward aforesaid, according to the usage and custom of merchants, was shewn and presented to the