The Stourbridge Observer, Cradley Heath, Halesowen & District Chronicle.
Stourbridge, West Midlands, England, 1876-03-04 00:00:00

CROSSED CHEOUES.

brut

- - -
The following are the provisions of the Lord Chan-
cellor's sill for amending the law relating to crossed
cheques:--'1 Where a cheque bears across • its face an
addition Cif tWO transverse lines with, the words 'and
company;'ti any abbreviation thereof, that
.addition
' hattd.laCtleemed a crossing • and the cheqUe shall 'be
deeined to lie crossed generally. Where a cneqte.bearil
iacross its face an addition of the name of a bankero
that addition hall be deemed to be a crossing, and the,
icheque shall be deemed to be crossed specially. Where,
a cheiltui is uncrossed ,a lawful •ovi,her May. trOss
,gentrally r-cir • specially. Where a cheque ne troasecf
I generally, a lawful holder may cross it specially. A
crossina ant horised by this Act shall be deemed a mat,e.c
Iriakparkof,tha chelue, and it shall not be lawfixl,fop
any person ,to obliOrale, cr, 6xce.le,t as,autharyap
tby this Aet;to'adel td or alter the crossin,gl , Wh4re ,a‘
cheque is 'creased generally, the bankeileti-VAnfin'itis
drawn. shall not pay it otherwise than to orthrough' tii‘
banker.
,Where a cheque is crossed specially; the
,banker on whom it is drawn shall not pay it otherwiae,
'than to or through the banker with whose name it is.
'Crossed. Where a cheque is presented for payment,
Which does not at the time of presentation plainly ap-
pear to be crossed, or to have had a crossing which has
been obliterated, or which has been added to, or altered
Otherwise than,as authorised by this Act, a banker
paying:the clieque in good faith and without negli-
genes iiot be responsible --or incur any 'liability,
nor than the -payment be questioned, by 'reason of
the cheque having' been 'crossed, or ' of the crossing
having .been; obliterated or having been added to, or
altered otherwise than as authorised by this Act, and of .
payment being made otherwise than to or through, a
banker Or the banker with :whose name the 'cheque is
Or was crossed (as the case ma' be): •A'RersOn taking a'
cheque crossed specially shall not hate and shall not be
'capable of giving a better title tothikileque than the
person from whom he took. it bad. ,But a banker to
whom a cherque is crossed specially,, and who has in,
good faith and without negligence received payment
of such cheque for a customer, shall not, in case the
title to the cheque prove defective, incur any liability
to the true owner of the cheque by reason only of his
having received such payment. The Acts 19 and 20
Vict., c 2.5., and 21 and 22 Viet., c. 79, are proposed to
be repealed."

;10 lit

AN OLD RHYME.
(Adapted to a Modern Mania.)

Angelina: Fain would I rink, but that I fear to fall.
Edwin: You must risk " spillers," or not rink at aIL
—Punch.

STOCKWELL GREEN IN THE LAW
COURTS.
In the High Court of Justice, the case of "Ham-
merton.v. Honey" has been heard before the Master of
'the Rolls, andivas a bill filed on behalf of all the in-
habitants of the " vill " or hamlet of Stockwell, in the
'Parish of Lambeth, pleading an immemorial custoixi'
for the inhabitants of the vill to use and enjoy Stock-
well Green as a place of recreation' and, amusement,
-land praying that the defendant Honey.nnight be re-
qrained by .injunction from building thereon.. Stocks
well Green is a three-cornered plot af gr4nrid,iita litge,,
more thidl"ll7T acre and:a quarter' in etteht..- It .wati'
bought by Mr. Honey in 1874, who'ggvii£4,ooo for it,''
under. legal •ad.viee . that the title waistruiod, with the
object of utilizing it for building purpeses ;: but his
intention has been hitherto frustrated by, the aetion
•tiiken by the plaintiffs, who filed the bill and obtained
an interim order restraining him until the bearing of
the cause from proceeding with him building opera-
tions.'jjjJ
, The defence was that Stockwell Ureen *never was,
toally speaking, a village green, but an outlying poi-
't n of the demesne of the manor of Stockwell which
could not in point of law be subject to such a custom
as that pleaded; and even if the alleged right of recre-
&pion ever exited, it had long since fallen into desue-
tude' abitceased to be capable of being asserted in a
loud of 'Justice. It was not disputed that the green
been enclosed and treated as private proverty
,4nce 1855,9 r that it had been more or less fenced in
,how far was one of the questionsig.„494fm many
years priviously.
the last of the 'plaVitril wOnesses had,
.J h •
Nem croki'examined;
The Master of the Rolls said -itlitintild be wasti)Vc
time to cross-examine the • defendant's witnesses -with

h6,a

the object of throwing further light on the case, as
the plaintiff's witnesses had not succeeded in proving
. that which they yvere, called to prove ;, and he should,
thereore, dispose of the case at once. The plaintiff's
Wise the green Was a 'village green, *hi& the
'inhabitants of the viii had from time immemorial
tti3ed and enjoyed for the purpose of recreation and
amusement, to the-exchision of -everyone else. But
the evidence was that in the days before the first
fencing of the green, which occurred between the years
1813 and 1817, ' the green was open to everybody,
whether inhabitant or not, and there was no pretence
of interference , with ,the mountebanks and other
strangers who from sime to time took up their quarters
there. Nor was this all, for not only were the so-
called rilitts of recreation and amusement freely in-
dulged thy everybody who pleased, but also certain
other things were done on the green, which were quite
inconsistent with the notion of the alleged custom. I
For in.stance, the local butchers used to turn on the
green the sheep and oxen they drove down from
Smithfield Market; and it was not suggested that
they had a right of common entitling them to do so.
Nor were sheep and oxen only put on the green, but
donkeys also, and pigs, which, with the . ducks and '
gee,e, must have militated considerably against the
calm and quiet enjoyment of the right of recreation,
:even if casts had not been kept on it regularly, and a
stone mason had not found it a convenient place for
sawing up stone. In short, it Was a kind of no-man's
land. The lady of the manor, to whom it belonged,
lived at a distance, and everybody did what he pleased.
there.wpB p.othing to show th.t down to this period the
alleged right of the inhabitants, as a distinct body, had
been either exercised or asserted; and on these grounds
only he should feel bound -to decide-against the plain-
tiffs. But the ease did not stop there. After the fence
was -first put up, the green ceased almost entirely to be
used for the purposes he had already mentioned. It
became to all intents and purposes private property.
&nocturnes the fence was broken down in places, but
it was always repaired by order of the lessee. No
doubt the boys and girls got in and played occas-
eionally, as little boys and girls will do wherever there
is a hole to creep through; but, except to that extent,
no exercise of the alleged right by the inhabitants of
the veil was proved to his Lordship's satisfaction.
Even when the fence was broken down, it was not by
way of assertion of the inhabitants' rights. The old
women stole the pales for firewood, and the children.
took the pales to make bats of, and that was the
extent, as proved, of the pulling down of the fence. In
short, even on the plaintiffs' own evidence, there was
substantial exclusion of the inhabitants prior to 1855,
and since 1855 it was admitted that the exclusion had
been complete. In this state of things the property
was sold, and re-sold to Mr. Honey, who meant to
build on it, and thereupon the bill was filed to deprive
him of the fruits of his purchase. It was his Lord-
ship:l3 opinion that people who rake up supposed rights
like those claimed in this suit ought to prove them in
-the strictest possible manner; and that no Court ought
to avail itself of legal fictions invented in feudal times
for the purpose of supporting rights of ownership, as a
• means of destroying rights of ownership acquired by
long-continued possession. The bill would be dis-
missed with costs, and there would be an inquiry what
damage the defendant had sustained by reason of his
being hitherto restrained from proceeding with his
building operations.

Mr. Fry, Q.C., Mr. W. R. Fisher, and Mr. M. P.
H. L.;wrence appeared for the plaintiffs ; Mr. Henry
Mattnews, Q. C., Mr. Chitty, Q. C.. and Mr. Everitt for
the defendant, Mr. Honey; and Mr. D. L. Alexander
and Mr. John Henderson for other parties.