HeinOnline is a subscription-based resource containing thousands of academic and legal journals from inception; complete coverage of government documents such as U.S. Statutes at Large, U.S. Code, Federal Register, Code of Federal Regulations, U.S. Reports, and much more. Documents are image-based, fully searchable PDFs with the authority of print combined with the accessibility of a user-friendly and powerful database. For more information, request a quote or trial for your organization below.
![handle is hein.slavery/ssactsengr0314 and id is 1 raw text is: POTEZ V. GLOSSOP
difference in the opinion of the Court. A previous command would be unknown, if
given verbally; and a subsequent ratification, though unknown, will have the same
effect.
It is argued, on the part of the plaintiff, that the Crown can only speak by an
authentic instrument under the Great Seal, and that, therefore, the ratification ought
to have been under the Great Seal. We are clearly of opinion, that, as the original
act would have been an act of the Crown, if communicated by a written or parol
direction from the [190] Board of Admiralty, so this ratification, communicated in
the way it has been, is equally good. I should observe that the Court are of opinion
that it is not necessary for the defendant to prove the pleas which expressly state the
authority of the Crown; for if this act, by adoption, becomes the act of the Crown,
the seizure of the slaves and goods by the defendant is a seizure by the Crown, and
an act of state for which the defendant is irresponsible, and, therefore, entitled to a
verdict on the plea of Not guilty.
The jury found that the Crown had ratified the act of the defendant, with full
knowledge of what he had done, whereupon a verdict was taken for him on the 4th,
9th, and 16th pleas. A verdict was found for the plaintiff on the pleas of not
possessed of the slaves and goods; and the plea of Not guilty was entered, by
consent, for the plaintiff.
F. Robinson tendered a bill of exceptions to the above ruling; but the plaintiff
afterwards obtained an order to discontinue, certain terms of settlement of this and
other similar actions having been agreed to.
MEMORANDUM.
In this vacation, Sir David Dundas resigned the office of her Majesty's 'Solicitor-
General, and was succeeded by John Romilly, Esq., one of her Majesty's counsel, who
subsequently received the honour of Knighthood.
[191] EXCHEQUER REPORTS, EASTER TERM, 11 VICT.
POTEZ v. GLOssop. April 17, 1848.-The date a letter bears is primA facie its
true date.
[Discussed, Butler v. Viscount Mountgarrett, 1859, 7 H. L. C. 633.]
Assumpsit. The first count of the declaration was on a bill of exchange for £250,
of the 28th of August, 1846, payable four months after date, drawn by one Gardener
upon and accepted by the defendant, indorsed by Gardener to one Gadderer, and by
him indorsed to the plaintiff. Plea (amongst others) in substance, that the bill was
drawn and accepted for a special purpose, viz. that the drawer would get it dis-
counted, and pay the proceeds to the defendant; and from the time of such
acceptance, until it was indorsed to Gadderer, Gardener held it on those terms,
and that the defendant never received any consideration for it; that Gardener did
not get it discounted, but indorsed it without the defendant's consent to Gadderer,
who, before and at the time of such indorsement, knew that the bill was held for
the special purpose aforesaid; that the plaintiff had notice of the premises before it
was indorsed to her, and that neither had Gadderer or the plaintiff, before such notice,
any right or title to have the bill indorsed to them. Verification. There was also a
plea, that the defendant's acceptance was obtained by fraud and covin, &c., of which
both Gadderer and the plaintiff had notice before they acquired any title to the bill.
Verification. The plaintiff [192] replied de injurih to these pleas, upon which issue
was joined. At the trial of the cause, before Pollock, C. B., at the Middlesex sittings
after Trinity Term, 1847, it appeared that the defendant had been induced to accept
the bill in question on the faith of an advertisement in the newspapers, which offered
loans of money upon favourable terms, and upon the understanding that the bill
would be discounted, and that he should receive the proceeds. He did not, however,
ever receive any money on account of the bill. It was proposed on the part of the
defendant to read certain letters from Gadderer to the defendant, to shew that whilst
the bills were in Gadderer's hands, and before they were indorsed to him, he knew the
terms upon which the defendant had accepted the bill. It was thereupon objected on
2 EX. 190,](ViewImageLocal?handle=hein.slavery/ssactsengr0314&div=1&collection=&method=preview&ext=.png&size=3)