1816. WYATT v. GORE As where the defendant, being Deputy Governor of Greenwich Hospital, compiled and wrote a large volume, of which he printed several copies, containing an account of the abuses of the hospital, and treating the characters of many of the officers of the hospital, (who were public officers) and Lord Sandwich in particular, who was then First Lord of the Admiralty, with much asperity. He distributed the copies to the governors of the hospital only; but it did not appear that he had given a copy to any other person. On a rule for an information for this libel, Lord Mansfield observed,-that this distribution of the copies to the persons only who were from their situations called on to redress grievances, and had from their offices competent power to do it, was not a publication sufficient to warrant a criminal information; and he seemed to think, that whether the paper were in manuscript or printed, under these circumstances, made no difference. Rex v. Baillie, M. T. 30 Geo. III. B. R. Oliver v. L. W. C. Bentinck, 3 Taunt. 456. and Jekyll v. Sir John Moore, 2 New Rep. 341. Holt's Law of Libel, 172. SITTINGS AFTER TRINITY TERM, 56 GEO. III, 1816. TH BEECHING and Others v. GOWER. note is made Tunbridge, and holder has a London. The right to pre sent it at either payment be those who conholder tend that the HIS was an action for money had and re- A banker's ceived. The plaintiffs are bankers at Tun- promissory bridge. On the 5th of March, 1816, the defend- payable at ant brought some notes to their bank, which he likewise at desired to exchange for Tunbridge notes; they accordingly gave him their own notes, and, amongst other notes, they received from him a 10%. note of the Kentish Bank, payable at the banking house at Maidstone, and at Ramsbottom's and Co. in London. The plaintiff's sent the 10. note to London on the evening of the 5th; on the 6th it was presented for payment at Ramsbottom's, whose house stopt on that day, and the note was dishonoured. It was returned to the plaintiffs on the 7th, and notice was then given to the defendant; but he refused to pay it. Ramsbottom's house paid whole of the 5th of March, and shut up on 6th. The Maidstone Bank, which had issued this note, paid the whole of the 6th, but shut up on the 7th. Maidstone is only fourteen miles from Tunbridge; and the plaintiffs had an agent there. VOL. I. Y the the been guilty of laches, to prove, that if been demand payment had bridge, which ed at Tun. was the more convenient, and nearer place, the bill would have been paid. 1816. BEECHING v. Best, serjeant, for the defendant.-The plaintiffs have chosen to send this note to London, and Others which was more than double the distance of Maidstone from Tunbridge. Had they sent it to Maidstone on the day on which they received it, or upon any time the next day, it would have been paid. They have been guilty of laches. GOWER. When a wit. 1 ness, after his examination, missed from GIBBS, C. J.-I am of opinion, as the note was payable at both places, that the plaintiffs had an option to present it at either. When the plaintiffs' and defendant's counsel had closed their case, the Chief Justice called up a has been dis- witness, (who had been examined and cross-examined before,) for the purpose of asking him a not to be ques- question. From the answer which he gave, a doubt arose upon his interest. the box, his competency is tioned. Best, serjeant, contended, that if a witness appeared interested in any stage of the trial, an objection might be taken to his competency; and if the objection were good, his evidence ought to be struck out. He claimed to be permitted to crossexamine him again for the purpose of proving him interested, and relied upon Stone v. Blackburne, 1 Esp. N. P. 37. GIBBS, C. J.-Formerly objections to the competency of a witness were only permitted to be taken on the voir dire: the rule, for the interests of justice, has been extended, and it is permitted counsel to take an objection to a witness at any time during his examination; but, when the witness leaves the box, there is an end of all questions to his competency. After he has gone through his examination, and the defendant's counsel has heard all he has sworn, and has it in his power to use his evidence in his favour if it be beneficial to him, it would be gross injustice, when his testimony is closed, to take an objection to his competency. admit that, in the progress of a witness's examination, an objection may be taken at any time; but when he has left the box his competency cannot be attacked. Verdict for the plaintiff. Blossett, serjeant, and Taddy, for the plaintiff. Best, serjeant, and Gaselee, for the defendant. I 1816. BEECHING and Others v. GOWER. The parties in the former cause were plaintiffs. This was likewise an action for money had and received. The defendant paid the plaintiffs a check of 201. drawn on the Maidstone Bank on the 5th of April. It was given to the plaintiffs at the time of Tunbridge market; and they gave their own notes in exchange. It was given some time before the post set out on the 5th. The plaintiffs kept it all the 5th and 6th, but sent it to Maidstone by the carrier on the morning of the 7th. The carrier reached Maidstone at 9 o'clock Best, serjeant, for the de- Blossett, serjeant, for the plaintiffs, contrà, relied on Rickford v. Ridge, 2 Campb. 537. GIBBS, C. J.-The plaintiffs 1816. v. cannot recover; they have been guilty of laches. I will not BEECHING say that it was not their duty and Others to have sent the check off by the post of the 5th; but the extreme time up to which they were justified in keeping it, was till the post of the 6th. They do not send it till the GOWER. 7th. It does not matter when the carrier arrived; they must suffer for their negligence. Plaintiffs nonsuited. Blossett, serjeant, and Taddy, for the plaintiffs. Best, serjeant, and Gaselee, for the defendant. |
