Volume IX. 1846. HAMELIN V. BRUCK. This was signed by plaintiff, and addressed to the defendants" à Londres," whose acceptance was written as follows: "Accepted for one hundred and twenty two pounds two shillings. Bruck & Cny," The "124" in the body of the bill was erased, and there was substituted: "122 = 2." And above this was written "acceptée pour £122.2." Upon the first quatre" was written the word "deux :" and, after and a little above the first "Sterling," were inserted the words "Deux pence." The second "quatre" was erased, and the word "deux" substituted; and after the last "Sterling" was added "Deux Pence." No evidence was given as to the time or place at which, nor as to the person by whom, these alterations were made. It was contended, on the part of the defendants, that the bill, before the alteration, was not drawn as described in the declaration (a): that the alteration was to be explained by the plaintiff: and that, even if the bill was rightly altered, it required a stamp, unless shewn to have been altered out of England. The learned Judge directed a verdict for the plaintiff on the issues on the first count, and for the defendants on those on the second count; reserving leave to move to enter a verdict for defendants on the first count. Humfrey, on a former day in this term, obtained a rule nisi accordingly. Hoggins now shewed cause. No stamp was necessary. The bill, having been drawn in Paris, did not (a) No objection was taken in banc on the ground that the bill, even as altered, was for 122l. Os. 2d. and not for 1221. 2s.: but it was assumed that the bill, in its new form, corresponded with the declaration and the acceptance. 1846. HAMELIN v. BRUCK. become English by the acceptance here, nor by the Queen's Bench. insertion of the sum. In Snaith v. Mingay (a) a bill was signed and indorsed in Ireland, with blanks for the date, sum, time for payment and drawee's name; it was transmitted to England and there filled up and this Court held that it had not become an English bill, but that it was a complete Irish bill by relation to the signing and indorsing. In Byrom v. Thompson (b) a promissory note was altered by the addition of the words "or order," six months after it was given: and, there being evidence to satisfy the jury that this was a correction with the consent of the maker, the Court held that no fresh stamp was required. Here the defendant, by accepting for the lesser sum, furnishes evidence that he assents to the bill being drawn for that sum, and is in a position like that of the maker of the promissory note in Cariss v. Tattershall (c). If the suggested defence be available, it seems that it can be so only on behalf of the defendant who has pleaded the alteration specially; Mason v. Bradley (d). Even if the bill became a new bill, that would not make a stamp requisite, unless the renovation took place in England, of which the learned Judge makes no report. Humfrey and Tapping, contrà. In Snaith v. Mingay (a) there never was a complete bill till the blanks were filled up: here the bill was complete before it reached (a) 1 M. & S. 87. See Abrahams v. Skinner, 12 A. § E. 763. (c) 2 M. & G. 890. (d) 11 M. & W. 590. See Parry v. Nicholson, 13 M. & W. 778. This point was not further discussed. It appears that the first plea of the defendant Hirschfield admits the drawing the bill as stated in the first count. England; and it became a new bill by the subsequent alteration. The defendants shewed no assent to the alteration of the bill by accepting for the lesser sum; the acceptance would be good, though the bill had been unaltered: a drawee may accept for a part; Wegersloffe v. Keene (a) (where the bill was declared upon as drawn for the whole): Petit v. Benson (b). The bill is here untruly described in the declaration. Byrom v. Thompson (c) was decided on the authority of Kershaw v. Cox (d), where the alteration was made in pursuance of the original intention of the parties. Here that is not pretended. In Cariss v. Tattershall (e) the alteration was explained, in the same way, by the party who made it. [Patteson J. In Bathe v. Taylor (g) the parties consented to an alteration after acceptance, the bill being in the drawer's hands for value; and the bill was held invalid for want of a new stamp: but the Court threw out a strong intimation that it would have been otherwise, had the alteration been in pursuance of the original intention of the parties: and in Brutt v. Picard (h) Abbott C. J. held that a mistake might be corrected, though without the actual knowledge of the parties.] The intention, if insisted upon as justifying the alteration, should be left to the jury; Taylor v. Mosely (i). The rule is that a new stamp is required wherever the bill is altered after being in the hands of a party who can enforce it (k). If the bill became new when altered, it would require a stamp, unless the alteration was made (d) 3 Esp. N. P. C. 246. See Knill v. Williams, 10 East, 481. (e) 2 M. & G. 890. (g) 15 East, 412. (h) Ry. & M. 37. (i) 6 C. & P. 273. (k) See Downes v. Richardons, 5 B. & Ald. 674. abroad: nothing was proved as to the time or place of Queen's Bench. alteration and it is for the parties seeking to enforce : an altered bill to explain the alteration. Lord DENMAN C. J. I do not see that the view which I took when the motion in this case was made, namely, that the bill when accepted for the smaller sum might be considered as drawn for the smaller sum, involves any fallacy. But, as the course of precedents is the other way, it may perhaps be safer to describe the bill as originally drawn. Here, however, the alteration is one to which the defendants cannot object. PATTESON J. This case is not like Knight v. Clements (a), where nothing appeared to account for the alteration. Here the defendants themselves have accepted for the smaller sum. Now, first, the new sum may have been inserted in pursuance of the drawer's original intention he may have intended to draw for the sum which was due in fact, and have acquiesced in the drawees' estimate of that. Secondly, I cannot see why we are to presume that the alteration was made in England: and, if it was made in France, it is conceded that no stamp was necessary. WILLIAMS J. It is not suggested that the objections could prevail if there were clear evidence that the parties both intended the bill to stand for the smaller sum. Now what can be stronger evidence of the defendants' consent than their substituting the lesser sum by their acceptance? (a) 8 4. & E. 215. Rule discharged. 1846. HAMELIN V. BRUCK. Volume IX. 1846. Friday, July 12th. T. made a note AMELIA FANCOURT against WILLIAM THORNE. in the following ASSUMPSIT. The first count stated that defend terms. "On demand I pro ant, on &c., made his promissory note in writing, mise to pay H., and thereby promised to pay on demand to William Thomas Hodsoll, or order, 500l., with interest at 4 or order, 500, for value received, with interest, at the rate " &c.; " and I have said H. the counterpart leases, signed by D.", &c., " for ground let by me to them respectively, as a col per cent., and then delivered the said note to the said W. T. H.; and W. T. H. indorsed to plaintiff; of lodged with the which defendant had notice, and then, in consideration of the premises, promised plaintiff to pay the said note, according to the tenor and effect thereof. Breach, nonpayment; and averment that there was, at the time of action brought, and still is, due &c., upon lateral security and by virtue of the said note, as well the said 500l. as a further sum, to wit &c., for interest thereon at the for the said 500l. and in- rate &c., amounting together &c. Counts for money lent, interest, and on an account stated. Pleas. 1. To the first count, that defendant did not make the promissory note in the declaration mentioned, in manner &c.: conclusion to the country. Issue thereon. 2. As to the residue of the declaration, Non assumpsit. Issue thereon. On the trial, before Williams J., at the Middlesex sittings in this term, the plaintiff, in support of the first issue, offered in evidence a written paper, of which the following is a copy. |