DISTRICT COURT.

Evening Star, Issue 3959, 2 November 1875, Page 2

DISTRICT COURT.

Tuesday, ■•i.vember 2. (Before ins iLunrdu.Le natbgate.) ITi - llo>'or 'T' .vi’vnl jnd.-uvr!; in the case of neplnirn and Da vie v. Driver and another, wiiich involved question o; much importance to the mercantile crnuTimni.y name y, wheher a warrant of a kteper ot a bond or ware* house i or the reception and storage of goods, ’earing on its face “ deliverable by endorsement ordy "’ is a negotiable instrument. To a certain ixmnt the practice among merchants in Dunedin has "veil to puss such warrants by indorsation only on theMadli that the property represented by these documents of tide is also passed to and vested in the holder, and to make advances ■n them as a reliable secuiity, to which practice countenance i fi given by ‘‘The Advances to gents Act, ISlit), in which these wairants are deemed to bo “ documents of title” undn tiie Act. After noticing the decisions of Eng ish CouHs i l analogous cases bi• Honor went on to ob.-erve Hint, although a. custom hail grown up in Dunedin to negotiate these wairatta he did not mean to say that these was such a proof < f a custom as to render them negotiable by such usage, as oeiug within or part, of the law mei chant. A mere custom of trade might be established by a v.-iy short usage, but a. custom opposed to tlnj common law could not be established unless followed tor a long series ol years, and recognised Uythe -upreme Court Neither could such a cm tom be timely loca' in its ptac'ioeorin any way defeasible, l o com-teiaot the com* mon law. it must be general ihrmighout the Colony and indef’ asible. ly b.mkiuptcy or any other circumstances. Sime t!r. n, the plaintiffs •daimed for the value of goods they never possessed, eilher acuially or eonstvuctivvdy. and in which they had no right of property, they .tonld not, sue, and must be nonsuited. On other grounds their o.n.e was unsa.il,factory At tlie time the idvan e was made by them Die goods were not .ii defendant’s possession. having been prsvious’y removed, by Campbell, who had warehoused them lie could not hold the defendants hi' l le for Campbell's fraud. The plaintiff should, by inquiry, have satisfied heinselves that the _security was in every way complete. The plaintiffs were accordingly uounuited.