1804. COLLINS against Lord the King of his Exchequer at Dublin in Ireland, aforefaid, more fully appears, &c. ; which faid judgment ftill remains in the fame court of Dublin in Ireland aforefaid in full force and not fatisfied," &c.: and concluding with an averment that the Lord faid 360/. 16s. and 50s. 2d. fo recovered were of the value of MATHEW. 335%. 75. 2d. of lawful money of Great Britain. To this there was a plea of nul tiel record, with a verification; and a demurrer on the part of the plaintiff to fuch plea; affigning for fpecial causes, that the plea of nul tiel record is not pleadable to an action of debt on a foreign judgment; or, if pleadable at all, it ought to have concluded to the country, and not with a verifi cation. Wood, in fupport of the demurrer, contended at first that this fell within the fame diftinction as governed the cake of actions on foreign judgments, to which it was fettled that nul tiel record could not be pleaded. For fince the appellate jurifdiction of this Court from the courts of Ireland was taken away (a), there is no method of bringing the original Irish record into this Court, and confequently no way of trying its exiftence but by an examined copy, and that verified on oath, of which a jury only can judge, and not the court by whom the question of the identity of our own records is properly determinable. And this gives rife to the next objection, that if it be pleadable at all as a record, the plea ought to have concluded to the country, and not with a verification. The Court now intimated a clear opinion, that fince the Union between Great Britain and Ireland the judgments of the Irish courts are properly pleadable as records And Lord Ellenborough C. J. faid, that fuch records were now brought before the House of Lords of the United Kingdom on appeals and writs of error, though no longer returnable into this court by certiorari. But his Lordship, addressing himself to the defend. ant's counsel, asked what answer could be given to the laft caufe of demurrer affigned? For though the Irish judgment be a record, yet being only proveable by an examined copy on oath, the verity of the evidence could only be tried by a jury, and not by the Court; and therefore the conclufion fhould have been to the country. (a) Vide 23 Geo. 3. c. 28. explaining and enforcing the ftat. 23 Geo. 3. c. 53. [ 475 ] Lawes, 1804. COLLINS against Lord MATHEW. Lawes, in fupport of the plea, (as to this, which was the principal point made in argument,) faid, that the judgments of the Irifb courts being admitted to be records fince the Union, must be taken to be and pleadable as fuch, with all legal confequences, as the records of other courts within this part of the kingdom: and fuch pleas have always been pleaded with a verification. The cafes of Walker v. Witter (a), and Galbraith v. Neville there cited (b), which were actions of debt on foreign judgments, where the plea of nul tiel record was faid to be a nullity, do not apply. The Court all agreeing that the objection to the conclusion of the plea was well founded, for the reafon before stated, gave Judgment for the Plaintiff. (a) Dougl. 1. (b) lb. 5, 6. It is there ftated that the rule for a new trial in Galbraith v. Neville was made abfolute. But according to my note of the cafe. it stood over from Eafter 29 to Mich. 31 Geo. 3. for the Court to advise upon it, when Lord Kenyon C. J. faid, that the Court had confidered the matter, and were all of opinion, that no new trial ought to be granted. He added, that without entering into the question how far a foreign judgment was impeachable, it was at all events clear that it was primâ facie evidence of the debt; and they were of opinion that no evidence had been adduced to impeach this; and therefore discharged the rule. [ 476 ] Friday, Nov. 16th. A bill of exchange payable to the SMITH against McCLURE. THE plaintiff declared upon a bill of exchange, dated ift December 1802, drawn by himself upon the defendant at order of A. is two months for 1341. payable to his own order, and that he delipayable to vered the faid bill to the defendant, which he upon fight there4., without of accepted according to the cuftom of merchants; by reason of alleging any order made, which faid premifes and according to the faid cuftom and law of and it is fuffi- merchants the defendant became liable to pay to the plaintiff the fum fpecified in the faid bill, &c. and being fo liable the clare that A. delivered the bill to the defendant, which he accepted, and by reafon of the premises and according to the cuftom of merchants became liable to pay the contents to A.; without alleging a re-delivery of the bill by the defendant; for if a re-delivery, or fomething tantamount to fhew the affent of the drawee to charge himself, be neceffary to an acceptance, the demurrer, by admitting the acceptance, impliedly admits the re-delivery, &c. cient to de defendant 1804. SMITH again defendant promised to pay, &c. To this there was a demurrer affigning for fpecial caufes, 1ft, that although it is alleged that the plaintiff delivered the faid bill of exchange to the defendant before his acceptance thereof, yet it is not alleged, nor does it MCLURE. appear that he ever re-delivered the fame to the plaintiff. 2. That it is not alleged nor does it appear that the plaintiff did not make any order for the payment of the faid bill to any other perfon, or that he ever made any order for the payment of it to himself. W. Walton in fupport of the demurrer, as to the first objection faid, that it did not appear by the declaration but that the defendant had kept the bill when it was delivered to him; and as it was drawn by the plaintiff himself, it never was of any value while in his hands, nor could become fo till re-delivery by the acceptor, by which he finally confented to charge himself with the payment of it. And, fecondly, that being drawn payable only to the order of the plaintiff, and not to him or his order, and no order by him being stated to have been afterwards made, he shewed no title in himself to recover. But Lord ELLENBOROUGH C. J. faid, there was nothing in either of the objections. That the acceptance of the bill, which was admitted by the demurrer, and must be taken to be a perfect acceptance, vested a right in the drawer to fue upon it; and if after fuch an acceptance the acceptor improperly detained the bill in his hands, the drawer might nevertheless fue him on it, and give him notice to produce the bill, or on his default give parol evidence of it. And as to the fecond ground of objection, a bill payable to a man's own order was payable to himself, if he did not order it to be paid to any other; and no fuch order appearing, it must be prefumed that none was made (a). Per Curiam, Judgment for the Plaintiff. (a) Vide Frederick v. Cotton, 2 Show. 8. S. P. and Fisher v. Pomfret, 12 Mod. 125. and Cunningham's Law of Bills of Excb. 66. [477] 1804. Friday, A feaman ferving in the vice is not exempt from being impreff is a free holder. [ 478 ] E The KING against DOUGLAS. RSKINE applied for a writ of habeas corpus to bring up the body of the defendant, who had been impressed and merchant fer- taken on board one of his Majefty's fhips of war. He moved this on an affidavit, ftating that the defendant, who was ferving as a mate on board a merchant veffel, was at the time of his ed because he being impreffed feifed of a freehold eftate of the annual value of 561. which had been fome time before bequeathed to him, and of which he was in poffeffion of the rents and profits. He faid that he was not prepared to state any direct authority that a freeholder was not liable to be impreffed; but that Good's cafe (a) at least fhewed that it was a matter of doubt; and confidering the importance of the confequences in a general view, it was well deferving of mature confideration before fuch an exemption was negatived. There the writ was moved for on an affidavit that the party was in poffeffion of a freehold estate of 261. a-year; but it not being negatived that he was a feafaring man, the Court defired to have that point cleared up; and it being fworn the next day that he was only a ship-carpen、 ter, and never used to the fea, the writ was awarded. But, in order to obviate any mifconftruction, the Court declared that they had given no opinion as to the poffeffion of the property not being of itself fufficient to procure the man's discharge. But The Court, being fatisfied, upon inquiry, that the defendant was actually engaged in the merchant fervice at the time he was impreffed; and being answered in the negative to a quef tion, whether there were even a dictum in the books in fupport of a freeholder's claim of exemption from the imprefs fervice, who in other refpects was a fit fubject for it, said that they faw no ground for granting the writ. Writ denied. (a) 1 Blac. Rep. 251. The KING against CUNNINGHAM and Others. UPON the appeal of Cunningham and others, iron masters, and co-partners, against a rate made for the relief of the poor of the parish of Bedwelty, at the feffions holden for the county of Monmouth, the rate was confirmed, fubject to the opinion of this Court on the following cafe: 1804. Wednesday, Iron mines are rated conjointly with owner of the lands for his own ufe in melting the iron, the or. Meffrs. Cunningham and Co., who are leffees and occupiers coal mines, of a large tract of land in the parish of Beduelty, and of feveral the coal mines of iron ore and coal under the fame, were affeffed in the whereof was rate as follows: "For the farm and lands 327. For the iron raifed by the and coal mines 70/." The iron ore and coal which they raife is applied folely to the manufacturing of iron in furnaces built for that purpose, part of which is raised under the farms and lands rated, and part under the mountains. Meffrs. Cunningham der of Seffions and Co. objected to the rate on the following grounds; Firft, confirming That having been charged for part of the furface, they ought fuch rate genot to be faparately charged for minerals under that furface. out afcertain nerally, withSecondly, That iron mines are not affeffable to the poors' rate. ing the proThirdly, That the coal itfelf, being raised for making iron, is portion at which each also not liable to be affeffed. was rated, Dauncey (and Abbott was to have argued on the fame fide) in support of the order of Seffions, beginning by obferving, that it could not be contended on the part of the defendants, who appealed against the rate, that coal-mines were not rateable, Lord ELLENBOROUGH C. J. faid, that it was likely they would contend, and that with fuccefs, that iron-mines were not rate. able and that though the coal-mines were rateable (concerning which it could make no difference whether the coal were fold by the owner to another who used it in an iron-foundery, or whether he applied it himself to the like purpofe), yet being rated conjointly with fomething else which was not rateable, and the Court here having no means to afcertain the feveral proportions, fo as to rectify the excefs of the rate, they could do nothing elfe than quafh the order of Seffions, which had confirmed the rate generally, fuch order being at all events wrong. Dauncey thereupon admitted that he could not fupport the rate in toto, as iron-mines were not rateable, not being named, was quafhed. [ 479 7 [480] as |