case mead against caswell a goldsmith note be give in part of payment of money  on a Saturday and not offer to the drawer until the Monday follow this be no  new credit give to the drawer but the endorse be still liable this be a bill  bring by the plaintiff to be relieve against a verdict and judgement at law a  see Hayward v bank of England stram a the case upon the plead be thus the  plaintiff in the year give a note draw by Cox and Cleve goldsmith for  seventeen hundred and fiftyeight pound modern report er p to the defendant in  part of payment of money due to the defendant from the plaintiff it be a  custom among the goldsmith in London to balance their account every day but  especial on every Saturday when they clear up the account of the whole week  this note be deliver to the defendant on a Saturday about eleven of the clock  in the morning and he may have receive the money that very day of the  goldsmith but he do not offer the note to they until the next Monday and then  about ten in the morning he offer it which the cashier cancel and the servant  may have receive the money as the plaintiff suggest if he have stay for that  the goldsmith Cox and Cleve have pay above twenty thousand pound that morning  but the servant go away so that it be through the defendant negligence the  money be not pay and that his delay from eleven oh clock on Saturday until  five in the afternoon on the Monday follow be a new credit give by he to those  goldsmith and for that reason he the plaintiff insist that the defendant shall  not have recourse to he the plaintiff and the rather because his note be  cancel by the cashier who give another note of the same date and for the like  sum at five of the clock in the afternoon of that Monday but it be after those  goldsmith be become bankrupt upon which note the verdict and judgement be bad  and the plaintiff modern report insist that he can by virtue of such note be  account by the commissioner of bankrupt to be a creditor to these goldsmith  within any of the statute of bankruptcy though this note bear even date with  the original note so cancel for that the time of make it be the true date  which be after they be bankrupt on the other side it be confess that this note  be receive by the defendant on a Saturday and that the custom among goldsmith  in London be as suggest by the plaintiff but that it be likewise the custom  among they for one servant to go every day to offer all the note pass to his  master that day to they who draw such note and to receive the money and when  he return home to make a separate entry of all which he receive and then to  pay it over to the cashier that on that very Saturday the defendant have  receive several goldsmith note as payment and which be draw by they who live  at charingcross coventgarden and in the strand which note he send by his  servant on that very day to the several goldsmith who draw the same in that  part of the town and his say servant do on that Saturday receive of those  goldsmith twelve thousand pound for his the defendant use in his way of trade  that it be likewise a custom among goldsmith not to pay any money after five  of the clock in the afternoon but to employ the rest of the day in adjust  their account and that his servant return from that end of the town on that  Saturday about halfanhour after four and begin to enter in his book all the  sum he have then receive but before he can make a end the hour be pass for  payment of money among merchant which be the reason he do not offer this note  on Saturday to the goldsmith who draw it that on the next Monday morning he  send his servant with the note to the drawer and give he no order to stay only  to demand payment of the money but that he accord offer the note to the drawer  which the cashier cancel and desire the servant to call in halfanhour for that  Cox and Cleve be go to the bank to receive money thereupon the servant go away  and return within halfanhour and not receive the motley at that time be call  twice more at the shop and not receive any he return to his master the  defendant and tell he that the modern report goldsmith can not pay it  whereupon the defendant go to their house and find the note cancel he have no  remedy but procure a new note of the same date with the original note and for  the same sum on which he obtain a verdict and judgement and insist that the  note be no payment of the money unless the defendant have give the goldsmith  some new credit which he deny that he have give and therefore insist to have  this bill dismiss with cost and to be at liberty to take out execution on his  judgement the court decree that though it appear there be some negligence in  the defendant servant in not stay to receive the money on Monday morning when  the cashier cancel the note in his presence yet it will be hard to make the  defendant suffer thereby therefore the court dismiss the bill with cost a see  hankey v Trotman black Rep tassel v Lewis ld ray holme v bary stram tinner v  head stram Manwaring v Harrison stram east India company v city stram Fletcher  v Sandys stram hoar v dam Costa stram Metcalf v hall Beawes l m Appleton v  Sweetapple Bailey on bill a modern report er p