FOREMAN and Another, Executor and Executrix of PHIL- DEBT on bond, with counts upon two promissory notes. The bond was put in. It was dated August 2, 1818, and was in the penal sum of 2,0007., and upon the following condition:-" The condition of the above-written obligation is such, that, if the above bounden Fredericus Jeyes, his heirs, executors, or administrators, do and shall well and truly pay to the said Philadelphus Jeyes, his executors, administrators, or assigns, the full sum of 1,000l. of good and lawful money of Great Britain, and interest, on the 2d day of August, which will be in the year of our Lord, 1823; and also do and shall well and truly pay or cause to be paid, half yearly, the interest to accrue due on the said 1,000l., after the rate of five pounds by the hundred by the year, that is to say, on the 2d day of February and the 2d day of August, in each and every year, or within fourteen days then next following; the first payment thereof to be made on the 2d of February next, or within fourteen days then next following, then the above written obligation to be void." The bond was on a 51. stamp. Miller, for the defendant.-I submit that this bond is not properly stamped. It is a bond to pay 1,000%. on a certain day, and to pay certain sums more as interest, on 1833. FOREMAN ข. JEYES. other certain days. This stamp is only sufficient for a bond of 1,000l., and not so for a bond for 1,250%., which this bond really is. By the stamp act, 55 Geo. 4, c. 184, "a bond given as a security for the payment of any definite and certain sum of money," is where the sum exceeds 500%. and does not exceed 1,000l., to bear a stamp of 5%.; but where the sum exceeds 1,000l. and does not exceed 2,000l., the stamp ought to be six pounds; and in the same statute, bonds "given as a security for the payment of any annuity, or of any sum or sums of money at stated periods (not being interest for any principal sum, nor rent reserved or payable upon any lease or tack,") are made liable to a different duty. Mr. Justice J. PARKE.-This latter enactment may either mean that interest is not to be reckoned in calculating the stamp duty, or that it is to be charged at a different rate. I know it has been decided, that a bill given for a certain sum and interest, only requires a stamp for the amount of the principal. Miller. This is not the case of an ordinary bond to pay a certain sum on or before a particular day, when, by paying the principal at once, the party would not be liable to interest; but here the principal is to be paid on the 2nd of August, 1823, and the other sums must also be paid for interest at all events; therefore, nothing can be more definite and certain than the amount to be paid. In the case of Attree v. Anscomb and Others (a), it was held that a bond conditioned for the payment, by quarterly payments, of an annual rent of 8651. for the tolls of Brighton Market was a bond within that branch of the stamp act which imposes a duty on bonds given as a security for the payment of any definite and certain sum of money. (a) 2 M. & S. 88. That case was decided on the stamp act, 48 Geo. 3, c. 149; but the two sta tutes are worded exactly alike, so far as regards this point. Campbell, S. G., for the plaintiff.-The amount of the tax is meant to be the sum lent, and not the interest to be paid upon it. Mr. Justice J. PARKE.-I think the stamp is sufficient, and therefore the bond may be read (a). The bond was read. The cause was referred. Campbell, S. G., and Kelly, for the plaintiffs. Miller, for the defendant. [Attornies-H. Watson and F. Jeyes.] (a) In the case of Dearden v. Binns, 1 M. & R. 130, a bond had been given for the payment of 2007., with lawful interest, by the payment of instalments of 21. 8s. per month," until the sum of 2007., and interest upon the whole sum throughout the time afore said shall be fully paid and satis- 1833. FOREMAN v. JEYES. Sitting in London after Hilary Term, 1833. BEFORE LORD CHIEF JUSTICE DENMAN. LUXFORD V. LARGE. THE declaration stated, that the plaintiff, before and at the time &c., was lawfully possessed of a certain boat or Feb. 3rd. In an action tain of a steam against the cap vessel for swamping a loaded wherry on the river by a swell produced by a too rapid rate of passage, the jury, to find for the plaintiff, must be satisfied that the mischief was occasioned by the swell alone: and if they think it doubtful whether it was or not, or think that the plaintiff contributed to the injury he sustained by his own improper conduct, either in mismanaging or overloading the boat, they must find their verdict for the defendant. 1833. LUXFORD บ. LARGE. vessel of great value, then lawfully being in the river Thames, &c,, and the defendant was then the captain and commander of a certain steam boat or vessel, then also being in the river Thames, &c., and then and there had the care, management, and government of the same; yet the defendant, not regarding his duty, &c., whilst the said boat or vessel of the said plaintiff was so in the river Thames, &c., so carelessly, negligently, and improperly behaved and conducted himself, in and about the management and government of the said steam boat or vessel, and so carelessly, negligently, and improperly managed and governed the same, that by means and in consequence of the carelessness, negligence, and improper conduct of the defendant in that behalf, the said steam boat then and there wrongfully, negligently, and improperly was propelled, and did sail and go in the said river Thames so rapidly, quickly, and improperly, that by means and in consequence thereof, the said steam boat or vessel then and there caused and occasioned the waters of a certain part of the said river Thames to become, and the same thereby then and there did become, and were, so agitated, rough, uneven, and dangerous, that thereby the said boat or vessel of the said plaintiff, then being in the said part of the said river Thames where the waters thereof were so agitated and dangerous, as aforesaid, then and there became, and was filled with water, swamped, and sunk, &c.; and by means of the premises, the plaintiff being in his said boat when the same was filled with water as aforesaid, was greatly wetted, and in great danger of being drowned, and, in being saved and escaping from drowning, became, and was, greatly bruised, wounded, and injured; and also, by means of the premises, divers goods, &c., to wit, ten quarters of oats, of great value, &c., being in the said boat or vessel of the said plaintiff, when the same was sunk as aforesaid, then and there became and were greatly damaged and spoiled; and also, by means of the premises, not only the said boat or vessel of the said plaintiff be came and was greatly damaged and injured, and the said plaintiff was put to a great expense, &c. in and about repairing of the damage done to the same; but, also, by means of the premises, he the said plaintiff lost and was deprived of all the profits and advantages which might and would have arisen and accrued to him from the use of his said boat or vessel, if the same had not been sunk and injured as aforesaid, &c. Plea-the general issue. According to the evidence on the part of the plaintiff, it appeared, that on the evening of Friday, the 28th of October, 1831, the plaintiff was going in a boat with ten quarters of oats in it down the river towards Greenwich; that the tide being against him, he kept close to the south shore; that about six o'clock, when he was at Rotherhithe, two steam boats, one called the Essex and the other the Yorkshireman, came by him up the river, at intervals of about five minutes; that both, on being hailed, eased their steam, and passed without any injury to the plaintiff's boat; that a few minutes after, the Albion, commanded by the defendant, came along, about the middle of the river, at the rate of eleven or twelve miles an hour; that she was hailed, but did not stop, and that, by means of the swell occasioned by her rapid progress, the plaintiff's boat was swamped and sunk, the plaintiff himself immersed in the water up to his shoulders, and the sacks of oats set floating about the river; that the plaintiff was picked up, and the boat raised, and more than half the corn taken down by him to Greenwich in it the same evening; that the remainder was taken down in another boat the next morning; and that the plaintiff was confined to his house for about a week. No evidence was given on the subject of damage to the boat, and the witness called to prove the damage to the oats failed in making it out. The plaintiff's witnesses said that the boat was eight or nine inches out of the water at midships, and about a foot out at the bows. They added, that the plaintiff turned her head to 1833. LUXFORD v. LARGE. |