
    Bryden vs. Taylor.
    ^ A special authority must be stiietly pursued
    Where a, persop acted m the character of a justice of the peace, although he did nut so style himself, yet it is/ivima facie evidence that he had authority to act as such
    ' A permanent residence of a witness is nut necessary for the purpose of taking- his deposition under the act of July 2779, eh. 8, to perpetuate lesumoiiy; but a temporary or transient residence is sufficient. The fact oí i esid< nee nu-d not be placed on record
    What is alleged as a motive or inducement in the deposition made Toy a witness, may be read in evi-
    The minutes of the proceedings of a notary public of a for» ign country, are tobe considered as records, under the curtesy of nations; and a copy under the hand and notarial seal of a notary is sufficient evidence of tin* protest ufa foreign bill of exchange
    Where a person ■was frequently seen in the counting hbuse of the P amtiff, transacting bu&inets as a . principal, and was generally supposed* believed, and understood m the town, to be a partner in the house of the plaintiff, ZieW'not sufficient evidence to provq that such person was a partner of the house of the plaintiff
    In assumpsit on a foieign mil of exchange the plaintiff is to recover as much money as will* at the time of the Verdict, putease asimilar bill
    Error to the General Court. The defendant in error brought an action of assumpsit, upon a foreign bill of exchange, drawn on the 23d of July 1799, by C. F. Ü. ■Bescke, of Baltimore, on J. A. 4* J). H. Fucker, of London, in favour of Bin. B. Alugruder, for A’2S0 sterling money, and payable GO days after sight. The bill was endorsed by Magrv.dcr to the defendant, (now plaintiff in error,) and by him endorsed to the plaintiff below. It was protested for nonacceptance on the 14th of September 1799, and for nonpayment on the lGth oi November 1199. 'I he g enera! issue was pleaded.
    X. The first bill of exceptions. The plaintiff at the trial at May term 1S05, to prove that he had given to the defendant due nolice of the uonacceptance of the' bill of exchange, on which the suit was brought, and of the protest for such rionacceptance, offered in evidence a deposition, which, together with the several endorsements thereon', and certificates thereto annexed, was as follows: '•’•Baltimare, 3d March 1803. During the absence of William Taylor, from Baltimore, I received Francis Brown’s letter directed to him in November 1799, which letter was dated the 13th of September 1799, containing advice of C. F. Bescke’s bills, 23d July 1799, for .£230 and ¿G120 sterling, on J. A. S¡- D. II. Rucker, London, being protested for nonacceplancc, of which I duly notified Jumes Bryden immediately. In the month of February 1800, immediately on receipt of the news that the bills were protested for nonpayment, Í returned in the brig John Brickwood, from London, (which appears by Francis Brown's letter of21st November 1793.) f notified James Bryden thereof by order of William Taylor, and immediately subsequent I heard various convocations between William Taylor and James Bryden on (lie subject. The second set which W. Taylor wrote for to England, as soon as it Was believed the John Brickwood was lost, arrived at Baltimore in September 1800, enclosed in Francis B.rowne's letter of.28th June 1800, while PP. Taylor was out of town, I was then his agent and in town. Immediately on receipt of the bills, Í called at James Bryden's, but did not find him; I called again very shortly afterwards and demanded payment for the said bills of the said James Bryden, from whom I could get no satisfaction. In con- . firmation of the loss of the John Brickwood,1' I have examined the journals of the Marine Insurance office of this city, and find the following entry under date of the 9th I) ceenih<>r 1800: “The Marine Insurance Office, Dr. to J) Ptaoart fy Sons. For total loss on brig John Brick-wood, insured the loth of January last, on policy No. 504, she having sailed from the Bourns- the 10th December 1T99, and no account of her since — it is concluded she has foundered.”
    
      William O, Payne.
    
    Sworn to before me; by TJilliam Osborn Payne, on Thursday the 3d of March 1803, at 4 o’clock in the afternoon, at my office in the city of Baltimore.
    
    
      Owen .Dorsey,
    
    To James Bryden. Take notice, that I shall attend at the office of Owen Dorsey, Esquire, in the city of Baltimore, on the third day of March next, at the hour of four o’clock post meridiem, to take the deposition oí'William O. Payne, to be read in evidence in two suits brought by me against, yon in the general court for the Western Shore of Maryland,
    
    
      Wm. Taylor.
    
    February 8th, 1803.
    lie ¡ween the hours of twelve and one o’clock P. M. on Wednesday the 9th of February 1803, 1 delivered to James Bryden, at his dwelling in Light-street, Baltimore, a true copy of the within notice.
    
      Wm. Y. Lewis.
    
    Sworn to before me the 3d March 1803.
    
      Owen Dorsey.
    
    Received to be recorded, the 19th day pf May 1804. Same day recorded and examined.
    
      Wm. Gibson, Clk.”'
    The whole was certified under seal of office by the clerk of Baltimore county court. The plaintiff also gave in evidence, that W. 0. Payne, in the deposition mentioned, was dead. The defendant objected to the reading of the deposition in evidence.
    Chase, Ch. J. The court accede to the principle that special authorities must be .strictly pursued; But they are of opinion, that it appears upon the faqe of the deposition that it has been properly taken..
    
      The court are of opinion, that the act of assembly of July 1779, ch. 8, entitled, “An act establishing a mode to perpetuate testimony,” does not require an efficient residence, such as would make a person a domicil, qualify him to vote or to be capable of holding an office; but a temporary or transient residence is sufficient; and it appears to the court, that' the requisites of the said act of assembly has been complied with.
    The witness being in the county at the time the deposition is taken, is alone necessary; unless it were so, no. person but a judge of the general court would be competent to take the testimony of transitory witnesses.
    The twenty days notice is not only for the purpose of giving the opposite party time to appear, but to inquire into the character of the witness.
    The act of assembly does not require the fact of residence to be put upon record. The defendant excepted.
    2. The defendant, objected to the reading that part of the deposition which states that the deponent, as clerk of the plaintiff, received letters directed to the plaintiff stating the protest, in consequence of which he gave notice to the defendant as indorser of the bill of exchange.
    Chase, Ch, J. That part of the deposition is only in» duccment — Let it be read.
    S. The second bill of exceptions. The plaintiff, to prove that the. bill of exchange in the declaration mentioned was duly protested for nonacceptance, offered in eviden.ee a paper purporting to be an extract under notarial seal from the books of the notary by whom the said protest was supposed to have been made: «'Extract from the protest book marked C, fol. 440, begun the 2d of June 1798, and ended the 8th of November 1799, formerly belonging to David Guillonncau., late of Pope's Head Alley, London, notary public, deceased, and now in the possession of his successor, Benjamin Newton, of the same place, notary public,
    
      Baltimore, July 23d, 1799.
    Exchange for £%S0 0 0 sterling.
    Sixty days after sight, this my first of exchange, pay- to William B. Magnuler, esq. or order, the sum of two hundred and thirty pounds sterling, value received, which place to*account A, & W. as advised by
    
      G. F. C. Bescke.
    
    
      To J. .Q. & J). II. Rucker, os<¡. London, endorsed, Pay io Mr. James Brydcn, or order, value received.
    
      W £. Mu cruder,
    
    
      James Dry den.
    
    Pay Messrs. Emmoft & Browne, or Francis Browne, of order of either, value with PVm. Taylor.
    
    On the fourteenth day of September Jlano D-ii. 1799, at the request oí Mr. Francis Browne, of London, met chant, I David GidUonnc.ctu, notary public, dwelling in London, duly admitted and sworn, went with the original bill of exchange, where::! die, aioregoiiig is a copy, to the house of J. Jl. and D. II. Bucher, esqrs. on whom the same is drawn, where having exhibited the said bill to a man servant belonging thereto,! demanded acceptance thereof, whereunto he answered that the said ,7. Ji. & D. II. Rucker, wore not within, and liad not left any orders for acceptance of thd said bill Whereupon, I, the said notary, at the request aforesaid, have protested against the drawer of the said bill, and all others concerned, for exchange, re-exchange, and ail costs, damages and interest, suffered and to be suffered for want of acceptance of the said bill of exchange. Thus dorm and protested in London aforesaid, in the presence of John Denton and Philip Lcanendin, witnesses. In testimonium veritath.
    
    (Seal.) Dav. Guillonneau, Not. Pub:
    Faithfully extracted by me, this twenty-eighth day of duly, in the year of our Lord one thousand eight hundred and four.
    In Testimonium, Verifatis,
    
    (L. S.) Benjamin Newton, Not. Pub.”
    The defendant objected to the reading of this paper in, evidence.
    Chase, Ch. .1. The court are of opinion, that the mitintes of the proceedings of a notary public are to be considered as records under the curtesy of nations; and that a copy, under the hand and notarial sea! of the notary, is sufficient evidence of the protest of a foreign bill of exchange for nonacceptance.
    if nono but tho original would be evidence, what a situation would the party be in where there are different indorsors in different countries? In such cases copies must be sent, and they are always received as evidence. The defendant excepted
    
      
      4. The third hill of exceptions. Tli? defendant, to prove that the plaintiff at the time of the drawing and endorsing the bill of exchange mentioned in the declaration, was in partnership in trade with a certain John Taylor, under the firm of JTilliam Taylor, and that' John Taylor was a dormant partner in the said house of William Taylor., at the time of such drawing and endorsements, gave evidence that John Taylor was at that time in Baltimore, where the business of the house of William Taylor was carried on, and was frequently seen in the counting house of William Taylor, transacting business, receiving applications, and giving answers as a principal in the business, and was generally supposed, believed and understood, in Baltimore, to be a partner in the house of William Taylor. Aud it also appeared in evidence, that John Taylor, for several years before the drawing and indorsement of the said bill of exchange, resided in London, and there carried on business under the firm of John Taylor 6/ Co. and that at the times of the drawing and endorsement of the bill, John Taylor had recently come from London to this state, in bad health, and did not remain in this country longer than 12 or 18 months, when he returned to London; and that during a part of his stay in this slate, and at the times of the drawing and endorsement of the bill, he resided at a country seat rented by him in the neighbourhood of Baltimore; and that William Taylor did then, and for a long time before and afterwards, carry on trade and business in Baltimore in his own name alone, and not in this name of William Taylor, 1/ Co. or in the names of Wil•Ham and John Taylor. The defendant then prayed the opinion of the court, and their direction to the jury, that if they shall be of opinion from the evidence so offered, that John Taylor was at the times aforesaid a partner in the house of William Taylor, that the plaintiff is not entitled to recover in this action.
    Chase, Ch. J. The Court are of opinion, that the evidence offered is not sufficient to prove that Jb/ni Taylor was a partner of the house of William Taylor, and therefore they refuse to give the direction prayed. The defendant excepted.
    
      5. A question arose as to the value of the sum of mo* rtey mentioned in the bill of exchange, whether such value under the act of 1785, ch. 58, should he at the time of the protest or ac the time of the notice? It was stated by the attorney general, that the circuit court had decided, that the plain till' might recover as much money as would purchase a uew bill at the time of the verdict.
    The Court said, that it had been ofien decided in this court, under the act of 1785, ch. 38, that the plaintiff is to recover as much money as will purchase a similar bill at the time of the. verdict.
    The verdict and judgment being for the plaintiff, tlid defendant brought the present writ of error.
    The case was argued before Polk, Buchanan, Nicholson, and Baulk, J.
    
      Harper and Purvianie, for the Plaintiff in error,
    stated that two grounds of objection were presented by the first bill of exceptions — 1. That it did not appear that Payne, the witness, was a resident of the county where his deposition was taken, so as to give it effect under the act of July 1779, ch. 8; and 2. That it did not appear that Owen Dorsey, before whom the deposition was taken, was a parson authorised by law to take it.
    On the first -point, they referred to the act of July 1779, eh. 8, s. 1, 2, 7, and the decisions of this court upon the acknowledgments of deeds by femes covert grantors. Also Evans vs. Bonner, 3 Harr. & M'Hen. 377. The acts of 1729, ch. 8, s. 5; 1763, ch. 13, s. 2; 1796, ch. 43, s. 14. Const. Art. 2, 13; and Stevenson vs. Myers, 1 Harr, & Johns. 102.
    On the second point, they cited Gordon vs. Hickman, 4 Harr. & M'Hen. 217.
    On the second bill of exceptions, they contended, that the copy ol the notarial certificate of the protesto! the bill of exchange, ought not to have been received in evidence, tin til a Foundation had been laid for its reception, by proving that the original had been lost, &c. They cited Gittings's Lessee vs. Hall, 1 Harr. & Johns. 16; and Gassaway vs. Dorsey, 4 Harr. & M'Hen.405.
    
    On the third bill of exceptions, they contended, that the. evidence offered was cooraetent foe the jury fairly to infer that there was a partnership.
    
      
      Martin, foV the Defendant in error,
    on the first bill of ex 'ceptions, referred, as to the first point, to Sim & Lee's Lessee vs. Deakins, 2 Harr. & M'Hen. 46. Gittings's Lessee vs. Hall, 1 Harr. & Johns. 18. The acts of July 1779, ch. 8, and July 1721, ch. 14.
    
    On the second point, lie referred, to Carroll et al. Lissee vs. Norwood, 4 Harr, M'Hen. 287; and Ex parte Bullman & Swartwout, 4 Cranch, 75.
    
    On the second bill of exceptions, hé cited Walrond vs. Van Moses, 8 Mod. 322, 323.
   The Court

were of opinion, that tbe.ro. was no error in the opinions expressed by the general court in the seveiid bilis of exceptions.

judgment Aiinonm.  