1816. CARLISLE ASSISES, 56 GEORGE III. A note beginning "I promise to pay," signed CLERK V. BLACKSTOCK. HIS was an action on a promissory note, brought against the administratrix of John TH by two parties, Blackstock, deceased. The note was as follows: is joint and several. A promissory note is signed by A., and subsequently by B., whilst in the hands of the payee, as surety for A.; unless such signature of B. is in virtue of a previous agree ment at the "I promise to pay to Mr. J. Clark, or order, the sum of 30l. with lawful interest for the same, value received. It appeared that the note was originally signed by Jackson, to whom the money was lent; and time of making that Clark afterwards required some new security from Jackson, in consequence of which Blackditional stamp. stock's name was added to it as a surety. the note, it will be void, without an ad Littledale, for the defendant, objected-1. That a note, the tenor of which was, "I promise to pay," signed by two persons, was a joint note, and not a several note.-2. That the note was void for want of an additional stamp. It was a perfect note when signed by Jackson; and any subsequent agreement, by which Blackstock's name was annexed to it, created an obligation of a larger extent, and called for a new stamp. 1816. CLERK v. Williams, contrà.-As to the first objection, BLACKSTOCK a note drawn in the words of the present note is joint or several, as the payee may choose to consider it. March v. Ward, Peak, N. P. 130.— 2. It was not necessary that both parties should sign the note at the same time. Whilst the note was in the hands of the payee, Blackstock might sign the note, as a joint promiser, in virtue of a previous agreement. it so. BAYLEY, J.-I think this note may be considered as a joint and several note. The letter "I" applies to each severally. Lord Kenyon has ruled With respect to the other objection, if it were part of the bargain between Clerk and Jackson that Blackstock should sign the note as a principal, he might sign it at any time subsequent to Jackson's signature. But if it was no part of the original bargain, and Blackstock came in, upon an after-thought, as a surety merely, the note will not be binding without an additional stamp. Other evidence was called upon the part of the plaintiff, and he obtained a verdict. Williams, for the plaintiff. Littledale, for the defendant. 1816. LANCASTER ASSISES, 56 GEORGE III. 1816.. Sept. 1. 1. The holder of a bill of exchange, which is re turned disho bound to send drawer by the conveyance that sets out where such TH BANCROFT v. HALL. HIS was an action against the drawer of a bill of exchange who resided at Liverpool. The bill was accepted by one Hind, payable in noured, is not London, and indorsed by the defendant to the notice to the plaintiff. The bill being dishonoured, notice was mail, or first giyen to the plaintiff, who lived at Manchester, on the 24th of May. On that day he sent a letter, from the place by a private hand, to his agent at Liverpool, diholder resides. recting him to give Hall notice of the acceptor's provided there default. On the 25th, in the afternoon, the agent received the letter, and went about six or seven in send notice by the evening to the counting-house of Hall; but hand; and al- after knocking at the door, and ringing a bell, no one came to receive a message. The merchants' counting-houses at Liverpool do not shut up till day than if it eight or nine. The 26th was Sunday; and notice was not, in fact, given till the morning of the 27th. It is sufficient, be no essential delay, if he a private though such notice should thereby reach the drawer later in the had been sent by the mail, he will not on that account 2. Notice of be discharged. Scarlett and Venables, for the defendant, obdishonour jected, that the notice was not in time. After the London letter reached Manchester, a mail set out of a bill of exchange given at the counting-house of a merchant or manufacturer between the hours of six and seven in the evening is not too late, next morning to Liverpool. The plaintiff should have sent the notice by the mail, which reached Liverpool by ten o'clock. If he prefers a private conveyance, or if he attempts to give notice earlier than by law he is bound to do, and fails in giving an effectual notice, he is not therefore exempt from giving proper legal notice. They relied on Anderton v. Beck, 16 East 248. Hullock, serjeant, contrà. BAYLEY, Justice.-Notice must be given in time; but all a man's other business is not to be suspended for the sake of giving the most expeditious notice. He is not bound to write by post as the only conveyance, or to send a letter by the very first channel which offers. He may write to a friend, and send by a private conveyance. Here the notice reaches Liverpool on the 25th. No expedition could have brought it earlier. Between six and seven in the evening in that day the witness goes to the defendant's counting-house, and it is shut up. up. A merchant's counting-house, or residence of trade, is not like a banker's shop, which closes universally at a known hour. It was the defendant's fault that he did not receive notice on the 25th, which he might have done if he had kept his counting-house open till eight or nine, which are the customary hours of closing them at Liverpool. Verdict for the plaintiff. Hullock, serjeant, and Evans, for the plaintiff. Scarlett and Venables, for the defendant. 1816. BANCROFT v. HALL 1816. In an action of trespass for false imprison. ment, a con. M CLOUGHAN v. CLAYTON and RIDING. THE HIS was an action of assault and false imprisonment. Plea, not guilty, by both de stable may jus fendants. though he act- The plaintiff called at the defendant's (Riding's) warrant, pro- house, and offered some old clothes to sale. After vided there were a reason he left the house, he was pursued by several able charge of felony made; persons, and charged by Riding with having afterwards dis- stolen a great coat from his house. although he charges the prisoner with before a magis though it Riding de sired the plaintiff to return with him, and he did out taking him so. Riding committed no assault, used no force; trate; and al- but, upon the plaintiff's coming back, he sent for should turn out Clayton, the other defendant, who was a constable, in fact that no and gave the plaintiff in charge for a felony. The But a private plaintiff was searched by the constable, and dismissed without having been taken before a magistrate. No evidence was given to shew that Riding was justified in his suspicions. felony was committed. individual, who makes the charge, and puts the constable in motion, cannot justify under the general issue: he must plead the spe cial circumstances, by way of justifi Scarlett and Williams, for the defendants, made several objections. 1. Clayton was entitled to an acquittal: a regular charge of felony was made by cation, in order Riding. Clayton could not that it may be seen whether charge was groundless or not. know whether the He was bound to his suspicions act; and if he acted, as it was apparent he did act were reasonable. in this case, merely as an officer, and without malice, he was neither subject to an action of trespass, nor to an action on the case. If Clayton, there |