replace the same in the sawe state as they were in before the happening of such fire." BEST, C. J.-It appears to me, that the landlord is only to rebuild what he let; for a landlord would be in a desperate situation, if he were bound to rebuild every thing which his tenant may think proper to set up. He might be ruined in many cases. The case was referred to Mr. Bingham, to ascertain all the facts, for the purpose of raising the point for the opinion of the Court above. Vaughan and Lawes, Serjts., and Campbell, for the plaintiff. Wilde, Serjt., and D. Pollock, for the defendant. July 3rd. If an action is brought on a bill of exchange not having any English stamp, BIRE v. MOREAU. ASSUMPSIT on a bill of exchange drawn by Pettit, and accepted by the defendant, indorsed by Pettit to Galway, and by Galway to the plaintiff. The bill was in French, and purporting and apparently had a French stamp, but no English one, and purported to have been drawn at Paris on the 15th entitled to a ver-October, 1824. to be drawn at Paris, the de fendant will be. dict, if it appear from the evi dence that the England on the drawn. But it will be sufficient to enable the plaintiff to re After the formal proof for the plaintiff, a witness was called for the defendant, who stated, that he saw Pettit, the drawer, on the 8th of October, in London; that he thought he saw him every other day during that month, and that he had no doubt that he saw him so near the 15th, that he could not have got to Paris upon that day. A lady, who cover, if the bill lodged in the same house with Pettit, proved, that for two was drawn at a place in France months previous to the beginning of November, she dined nearer to Eng land than Paris, though it be dated as from Paris. in his company every day, with the exception of a few days, (not consecutive), when she dined out. Taddy, Serjt., for the plaintiff. It does not lie in the mouth of the acceptor of a bill of exchange to set up this defence. The defendant has accepted this bill as drawn in Paris, and has given it credit as such. It apparently has a French stamp. The evidence to contradict the presumption of its having been drawn in Paris, ought to be of the most complete and convincing description. Hutchinson, also, for the plaintiff, cited Abraham v. Dubois (a). BEST, C. J., in summing up, observed-If you are quite satisfied that the bill was drawn in England, then the defendant is entitled to a verdict. But if it is possible for the drawer to have been absent, so as to have drawn it out of England, in that case the plaintiff ought to have a verdict: if the drawer got to Calais, and drew the bill there, and dated it as from Paris, I think that will do. The question is, are you quite satisfied that the bill was drawn in this country: if you are, you will find a verdict for the defendant; for then it is a fraud upon the revenue of this country, which either party may take advantage of. Verdict for the defendant. Taddy, Serjt., and Hutchinson, for the plaintiff. [Attornies-Tottie & Co., and Hubert.] (a) 4 Camp. 269. This was an action on a bill of exchange, dated Paris, March 1st. The defence was, that it had been drawn in London, and was void for want of a stamp. The proof given was, that the drawer was in London on the third of March, at 11 o'clock in the forenoon. Lord Ellenborough said, that as the drawing a bill in Eng- 1826. BIRE บ. MOREAU. 1826. July 4th. by a committee MONEYPENNY v. HARTLAND and Another. If an engin- ISSUE to try whether the plaintiff was entitled to any eer is employed and what sum, for work and labour as an architect and engineer. The defendants were restrained by an order forming a road of the Vice Chancellor, from setting up partnership as a for erecting a bridge and to it, to make an estimate of the expense of self, by experi ments, the na ture of the soil; defence. The plaintiff was employed by the defendants, who were the trustees appointed by the subscribers to the undertaking, to make an estimate of the expense of erecting a bridge over the Severn, and making a road thereto. It appeared that a person named Holland was employed by the committee, previous to the employment of the plaintiff, to ascertain by boring the nature of having made the soil, and that he informed the plaintiff of the result the experiments, of his experiments, and that the plaintiff acted upon that although a per son previously employed by such committee, gives him, by their desire, in- information, in making his estimate, and did not make any formation of the result. If an engin as above, makes a low estimate, and thereby in duces persons to subscribe for the experiments himself. Holland reported the soil to be of eer, employed hard marl rock. The plaintiff laid the foundations of the bridge, about forty yards distant from the spot marked out in his plan, for the sake of a more convenient turn into the town of Tewkesbury; and it was found, after the work was begun, that the soil at that part being of clay, required piling and planking, which created an expense of 1400/. in addition to the sum mentioned in the estimate. The expense of making the road was estimated at 17007. incorrect, either but, in point of fact, it cost 3,300l. in addition to that sum. from negligence The estimates were made in November, 1822; the work or want of skill, execution of the and that the work cannot be done but at a much greater expense, he is not entitled to recover any thing for his trouble in making such estimate. was begun in June, 1823. On the 1st of September, 1823, the plaintiff, for the first time, examined the foundation, and discovered that, from the nature of the soil of the river, piling and planking would be required. In the month of February, 1824, the plaintiff was dismissed from his employment, and Mr. Telford engaged in his stead. The plaintiff had attended at the House of Commons while the bill was in progress; and several surveyors proved that the usual charge for such attendance, was five guineas per day. 1826. MONEY PENNY v. Taddy, Serjt., for the defendants.-Inasmuch as the defendants relied on the plaintiff's skill, as to the propriety of the situation, and the expense of the work; he ought not to have been satisfied with the information given him HARTLAND. by Mr. Holland, but should have made experiments to ascertain the facts for himself. Though Holland might be directed to give the plaintiff information, the plaintiff was not thereby released by the committee from the necessity of making further inquiries. It was to raise the amount mentioned in the estimate, and that amount only, that the subscriptions were made. If the plaintiff's report was wanted in a hurry, he might have made it, with a reservation of the particular point, as to the nature of the soil. He cited Moneypenny v. Hartland (a). Mr. Telford was examined on the part of the defendants, and stated, that it was the duty of an architect or engineer to examine for himself into the nature of the soil; and that he ought to consider himself responsible for it, though another person had given him information on the subject. A road-surveyor was also called, who stated, that he had estimated the expense of making the road from the Mythe to the Hollybush-Hill (the road in question) at the sum of 5,150%., and that it could not possibly be made for the sum of 17007., which was the amount of the plaintiff's estimate. It was also proved, that the plaintiff had put down his name for some shares in the concern, in the following form: George Moneypenny, as Architect and Surveyor to the Bridge and Roads, 5007.," and it was admitted that this sum had been demanded in the month of May, 1824. All the witnesses, both for the plaintiff and defendant, agreed as to the plaintiff's due and diligent attendance at the House of Commons. Vaughan, Serjt., for the plaintiff. If complaint be (a) Ante, Vol. 1, p. 352. 1826. MONEY- v. made against a party employed, the first question is, has the party employing derived any benefit from his services; if so, he must pay for them, and seek his remedy HARTLAND. by a cross action. Supposing an action had been brought by the defendants against the plaintiff for the omission of the planking and piling, what would they have made of it? He has not been guilty of negligence as to them. Holland says, that he was employed by the Committee before the plaintiff came, and made all the preliminary arrangements, and reported the result several times. It would have been officious and unnecessary for the plaintiff, after that, to have undertaken the boring himself. An estimate must be taken, to mean, that the expense will be there or thereabout. If it were followed up by a contract, then it might be different. The plaintiff was relieved from the necessity of any particular examination of the soil by the conduct of the trustees and their confidential surveyor, Holland, who turned out to be mistaken. The foundations were laid with parade and ceremony either in August or September, 1823, and complaint was not made till the month of February, 1824. The delay shews that the objection was an afterthought. The plaintiff's witnesses say, that there are often contingencies in a work; and there is in the plaintiff's estimate an item of 2000l. for contingencies. They have not sustained any damage in consequence of the plaintiff's not having bored. With respect to the subscription, it was done to shew his good opinion of the undertaking. BEST, C. J.-The first question will be, whether the plaintiff is entitled to any compensation; and if he is, then, whether it will extend beyond the 500l.; for I am clearly of opinion that he is answerable for the subscription. With respect to the first question, the cases appear to be conflicting; and there is some difficulty. I shall take the liberty of laying down this rule. Supposing negligence or want of skill to be sufficiently made out, unless |
