I- rga Cases ruled and adjudged in the I jygz. _But Ingerfall, on behalf cf the defendant, nov moved for E )¥l a Pneedeuds ; alledging that in a cafe of Pigot v. Tong, it had f beendecided, tint a mufe could not be removed after the arbi- 3 tratora, or referees, had entered on the bulinefs fubmitted, or referred, to them. . And rm; Courr, accordingly, awarded a Puudenlo. vlUGHill verjhr B|’.ANCHAR1;· EATLT offered to read the return, on aeommiliion to H examinewitnelles, in which itwas certified, thatthe wunelfesvmere duly fworn by ajullieeof tbePeace, and exa- mined by the . Serjeant, objected, thatthe com- millioners themfelves thould have adminiltered the oath ; or that if adminillered by ajullice of the Peace, he fhould him- felf have certified the fact. But, . Br me Cor.m.·r:—ItEs notneeeifary that the commillioné ers lhould adminiller the oath themfelves; and it is to be prcé famed, that it was in their prefence. hhitonr vm;/ix: Kmwaie; `HIS was an aélion on si bill at exchan `, agw ' the ·R· *526- T drawer. The bill was dated the 29th of gfptemkr, 1781 an was drawn on the defendant’s tenant for [ go, “_ being my part of the of Black Rock ellate." It was prefented for abceptance and refitfed, fotne tiine previoirily to the 1 gth of Na— vmrber, 1781 ; but it was noi: ptotelied ’till the gth of Augzy? r782. No notice of the proteft was given, nor was any per- fonal application made to the defendant, 'till fumetime in the be- ginning of the yeaf 179o; though, it appeared, that in the year 17go, he acknowledged having heard that the bill was not paid, fo far back as the year 1783. When the bill was pre; ented, the drawee had funds belonging to the drawer, in his hands ; but he had paid the amount to the dr·awer’s attorney in faél, who foon afterwards died, and the money was loft by his wife, to whom he had intrnlled it,_ juli before his death. For the defendant, Snjermt contended, that the want of no· rice was a compleat difcharge. The money was in the hands of the drawee when the bill was prcfented ; and, therefore, the plaintiff has no excufe in law, or equity, for the gnofs neg- ligence of which he has been guilty. E_[p. 47. Bull. N. . 271.
�
