
    Lee and another against Wilcocks.
    
      Wednesday, January 6.
    Where foreign money is the object of the suit, the fixed according to the rate of exchange at the time of trial.
    An error having occurred on the trial as to the value of foreign money, and as to the interest, the Court directed, that the plaintiff might correct the errors, but if he refused to do so, they awarded a new trial, on condition that the defendant-should confine himself to those points in which the mistake occurred.
    THIS case had been tried at Nisi Prius, before Gibg0N t an¿ a motion was now made by the defendant for a J ’ . * . new trial, on the ground that the jury had erred m estimating the value of the Turkish piastre, and also in the amount allowed for interest,
    After argument by C. J. Ingersoll and Binney, for the defendant, and E. S. Sergeant and Chauncey for the plaintiffs,
   Per Curiam.

With respect to the value of the Turkish piastre there has been an evident mistake, occasioned by the inadvertence of both parties, whose attention was confined to matters whicn were more important. The settled rule is, where foreign money is the object of the suit, to fix the value according to the rate of exchange at the time of trial. As to the interest, the verdict was'against the charge of the Court, and, as it appears, against the contract of .the parties. We think it right, therefore, that the defendant should have an opportunity of correcting these two errors. If the plaintiff will consent to correct them, he may have his judgment at once. If not, there must be a new trial, upon condition, that the defendant shall confine himself to the two points in which we think he has been injured, viz. the value of the piastre, and the rate of interest.  