was an alien enemy, if it were given to him in his own country by a British subject who was then a prisoner there. (39) And it is no objection to an action on such a bill, that it is brought as to part in trust for an alien enemy. (40)

So it is no objection to an action on such a bill that it was given whilst an act of parliament was in force which made it penal to pay such bills, if after the act expired there was a promise to pay it. (41)

(39) Antoine v. Morshead, 6 Taunt. 237. Sir John Morshead, Tyndall, and Estwick, were prisoners of war at Verdun in France. Sir John Morshead drew bills on defendant, some payable to Tyndall, and some to Estwick; they endorsed them to plaintiff, a banker at Verdun. Defendants accepted them; but on being sued thereon at the return of peace, he insisted that the endorsement, as being during war, was void: Gibbs C. J. thought otherwise; and on motion for a new trial, the whole court agreed with him, and the plaintiff recovered.

Endorsee against

(40) Daubuz v. Morshead, bart. 6 Taunt. 332. acceptor, on bills drawn by an English prisoner in France in favor of Borau Basti, and endorsed to plaintiff; defence, that plaintiff was only a trustee, except as to a small part, for an alien enemy: but Gibbs C. J. thought plaintiff entitled to a verdict for the whole; and verdict accordingly.

(41) Duhammel v. Pickering, 2 Stark. 90. Defendant was a prisoner of war in France in 1795, and drew four bills on Wishaw in England, payable to La Tailleur, an alien enemy residing in France: by 34 G. 3. c. 9. § 4, if any person paid any bill drawn in France during the war, he was liable to forfeit double value, and the payment was annulled. On the peace in 1802, defendant wrote to La Tailleur's agent, promising payment; this action was brought by La Tailleur's administrator. It was insisted that the statute was a bar to plaintiff's claim; and Lord Ellenborough said, no doubt the bills were void in their creation as bills to be enforced in this country, but they might constitute the basis of a promise on the return of peace; and he thought the promise in defendant's letter removed all doubt on the subject; and plaintiff had a verdict for principal and interest.

CHAP. III.

Stamps.

THE paper, parchment, vellum, or other matter, whereon a bill or note made in Great Britain is written, must, except in a few instances, be stamped (1) before the bill or note is written; otherwise the (2) party making, signing, or issuing it, or causing it to be made, signed, or issued, or accepting or paying it, or causing or permitting it to be accepted or paid, will be liable to a penalty of £50, and the bill or note will (3) not be available in law or equity.

And no laches by the holder will make such unstamped bill or note amount to payment of a prior debt (4), even though the bill but for such laches would have been paid. (4)

But an unstamped bill or note may be looked at for a collateral purpose, as to judge whether the party signing it was drunk or sober at the time. (5)

And the forging a bill or note on unstamped paper, or uttering such bill or note with knowledge of its being forged, and with an intent to defraud, is as much an offence as if the bill or note were on paper duly stamped. (6)

Sect. 2.-A note payable to the bearer on demand, made, or purporting to be made, out of Great Britain, or purporting to be made by or on the behalf of any person resident out of Great Britain, (excepting where made and payable in Ireland only,) (7) cannot be negotiated, circulated, or offered or taken in payment, or offered for payment or paid here,

(1) 55 Geo. 3. c. 184. 31 Geo. 3. c. 25. § 19.

(2) By 55 Geo. 3 c. 184. § 11.

(3) 31 Geo. 3. c. 25. § 19. 55 Geo. 3. c. 184. § 8. (4) Wilson v. Vysar, 4 Taunt. 228.

(5) Gregory v. Frazer, 3 Campb. 454.

(6) Rex. v. Hawkeswood, Pasch. 1783. (7) By 55 G. 3. c. 184. § 29.

unless it be stamped in like manner as a note of the same tenor and value made in Great Britain, under a penalty upon the party offending therein of £20.

Before this provision, a note made in (8) any part of the King's foreign dominions, (as Jamaica) where by law a stamp was necessary, could not have been received in evidence here, unless it had such stamp as the law of that country was proved to require.

Sect. 3.-A bill drawn in Ireland with blanks for sum, date, and drawee's name, and transmitted to England to have the blanks filled up, though it may require an Irish stamp, will not require an English one. (9)

Sect. 4.-If a bill upon which a person residing abroad is intended to be drawer, is sketched out and accepted here, and then transmitted to such person abroad that he may

(2) Alves v Hodgson, 7 Term Rep. 241. A note was produced in evidence, which had been made in Jamaica; the defendant objected that it ought to have been stamped, and proved the law of Jamaica requiring a stamp. Lord Kenyon thought the objection good, but suffered the plaintiff to take a verdict, with liberty to the defendant to move to enter a nonsuit. In shewing cause against a rule nisi obtained for such purpose, it was urged that the defendant could not avail himself of an objection founded on a revenue law of a foreign country; but Lord Kenyon said, I think we must resort to the laws of the country in which the note was made, and unless it be good there, it is not obligatory in a court of law here. But as the plaintiff might have recovered, without this note, on the quantum meruit, let there be a new trial.

(9) Snaith v. Mingay, 1 Maule and Sel. 87. Bayley and Co. of Waterford, in Ireland, had one partner, Wallace, resident in England, where he carried on a separate trade, and he was restrained by the articles of partnership from drawing bills in the partnership name; they sent him over four signatures made by them as drawers and endorsers on copper-plate impressions, with blanks for dates, sums, and drawees' names; they were to be used by him in his separate trade, and he filled them up and used them accordingly. They were on Irish stamps only; and in an action upon them against the second endorser, it was objected that they ought to have had English stamps; but on a case reserved, the court thought otherwise; because they were bonâ fide signed in Ireland, and therefore were to be considered as made there.

sign his name as drawer, this is to be considered a foreign bill, and does not require an English stamp. (10)

And the acceptor is liable upon it though it is unstamped. (10)

Sect. 5.-If upon a bill dated abroad the defence is that it was made in England, and has not an English stamp, that defence ought to be made out by distinct evidence, because such conduct to evade the stamp duties would be a very serious offence. (11)

Proof that the drawer was in London so near the date of the bill, that it could not have been drawn on the date at the place from which it is dated, is not sufficient. (11)

(10) Boehm v. Campbell, Gow. 56. In an action by drawer against the guarantee of an acceptor, it appeared that the plaintiff lived at Antwerp; that the whole of the bill, except plaintiff's signature, was written here; that the bill was accepted before plaintiff signed it; that it was then transmitted to plaintiff for his signature, and that he signed it at Antwerp. It had no stamp, and it was urged that it was to be considered as made here, and should have had a British stamp; but Dallas C. J. thought it was to be considered as made where it was drawn, and that it was not to be considered as drawn till the plaintiff signed it; and plaintiff had a verdict.

(11) Abraham v. Dubois, 4 Campb. 269. Action on bill dated Paris, 1st March; defence, that it was drawn in London, and proof that the drawer was in London 3d March, at 11 in the forenoon. Per Lord Ellenborough: It is not very probable this bill was drawn in Paris 1st March; but if it were proved ever so distinctly, that it was not drawn in Paris 1st March, it would not follow that it was not drawn there at some other time, or that it was drawn in England Drawing here with a foreign date, to evade the stamp duties, is a very serious offence, and the fact must be made out by distinct evidence. Verdict for plaintiff.

CHAP. IV.

Alteration of Bills or Notes.

Ir a bill or note is altered in a material part (though by consent of all parties) after it has once issed, it requires (1) a new stamp;

Unless such alteration is to correct a mistake, and merely to make the bill what it was originally intended to have been, for in such a case a new stamp is not necessary. (2)

Where an alteration will vacate a bill or note, it will have that effect, though it is made by a mere stranger. (3)

(1) Wilson v. Justice, 1796. A bill of nine months after date was, by consent of all parties, a fortnight after it had been delivered to the payee, altered to ten months after date. Lord Kenyon held a new stamp necessary, and nonsuited the plaintiff.

Bowman v. Nicoll, 5 Term Rep. 537. A bill dated 2d September, and payable twenty one days after date, was, by consent of the acceptor, altered to fifty-one days after date on 30th September it was with the like consent, and whilst it remained in the drawer's hands, restored to twenty-one days, but the date was altered to September 14th. Lord Kenyon nonsuited, and the court held the nonsuit right.

(2) Kershaw v. Cox, 3 Esp. N, P. C. 246. In an action on a bill, it appeared that the defendant, who was the payee, had endorsed the bill to one K., by whom it was passed to the plaintiffs; that they, on discovering that the words, "or order," had been omitted, returned it the day after it was drawn, and the drawer, with the consent of the defendant, then inserted those words. Le Blanc, J. held that no new stamp was necessary; that this was not a new instrument, as in Bowman v. Nicholl, but merely a correction of a mistake, and in furtherance of the original intention of the parties; and the plaintiffs had a verdict. A new trial was afterwards moved for, but the court refused a rule. See 10 East. Rep. 437.

Jacob v. Hart, 2 Stark. 45. In an action on a bill drawn by A. on B., payable to C. or order, B. discovered, when it was in C.'s hands, that by mistake the date was March instead of April, and C. altered it. Some time after B. had accepted it, C. added on the bill, payable at Mr. J.'s, St. Mary Axe; that was the proper place. Lord Ellenborough held both alterations immaterial, and the plaintiff had a verdict.

(3) Master v. Miller, 4 Term Rep. 320. 2 H. Bl. 141. In an action by endorsees against the acceptor of a bill, payable three months after date, to Wilkinson and Cooke, the declaration had one count upon the bill as dated the 20th March, and another as dated the 26th March. The jury found a special verdict, stating that the bill was drawn and dated the 26th March; that it was accepted; and that afterwards, and whilst it remained in the hands of Wilkinson and Cooke, the date was altered from the 26th to the 20th March, without the defendant's know