The Stourbridge Observer, Cradley Heath, Halesowen & District Chronicle.
Stourbridge, West Midlands, England, 1885-06-27 00:00:00

CURIOUS ACTION ON A CHEQUE.

In the Court of Queen's Bench on Tuesday, before
Mr. Justice Day and a common jury, the case of
Wilkinson v. Mainwaring was heard. The plaintiff,
Mr. Horace Wilkinson, of 23a, Red Lion-square,
Middlesex, sought to recover from Mr. Charles Henry
Mainwaring, residing near Portman-square, the suns
of £5O, the amount of a cheque. The plaintiff
claimed as endorsd against the defendant as drawer,
and the defendant denied that the plaintiff gave con-
sideration for the cheque. Mr. Jervis and Mr. Ven-
nell were the plaintiff's counsel; while Mr. Kemp,
Q.C., and Mr. Baggally were for the defendant. Mr.
Kemp, in stating the case for the defendant, on whom
it fell to begin, said the cheque was drawn a long
time ago—in August, 1883—that it came into the
hands of several card-sharpers, and that the plaintiff,
who was now the holder' brought his action as being,
according to his contention, the holder for value. The
plaintiff, was a person who lived in a little lodging
at a rent of ss. a week. The defendant was a person
of property. He had given way to drink, and when
persons got drunk knaves and scoundrels not unfre-
quently took advantage of them. In August, 1883,
the defendant was at Brighton. He had previously
met at Nice a person of the name of Mr. Meynell
Collier, who was an expert at cards, and got his living
by his wits. In Brighton there was a gambling club.
The learned counsel did not know whether the police
were acquainted with it, but if not they ought to be.
The defendant, being somewhat under the influence
of drink, suggested going over to the club to have a
little gamble. They went; the game was baccarat,
which required a cool head, and the more drunk a man
was the more likely he was to lose. The defendant
was introduced at the club to a Dr. Harrison and
a Mr. Solomon (the secretary or treasurer). These
gentlemen took care whilst the play was going oa
that the defendant should be liberally supplied with
more drink. When he had lost all his money they
produced counters, and he continued to play and
lose, and was induced to sign a number of cheques,
one of them being the £5O cheque now in question.
They cashed one cheque for .£4O, and he stopped
payment of the others. His losings amounted to
about £350. Amongst the parties to some of the
transactions was a Mr. George Roland, who had a
singular history, and was otherwise known as Raisis,
Raggi, or Ponsini. As to the claim, he (the learned
counsel) maintained that if the defendant was drunk
at the time when he signed the cheque, the plaintiff
was not the bond fide holder for value. Mr. Justice
Day: I do not quite accept that proposition. Mr.
Kemp said there could be no doubt that the defendant
was swindled at a gambling club whilst under the
influence of drink. The defendant, in giving his
evidence, said Solomon was pretty well known at
Brighton, where he was called "The Hodgehog." Mr.
Kemp: What is his particular habit: An uncomfort-
able person to handle, or what? Yes. (Laughter.)
Examination continued: The defendant said the only
part of the cheque in his handwriting was his signa-
ture. The rest was filled up by some of the others.
The Judge: It is a very commercial-looking cheque.
Mr. Kemp: Very commercial, my lord—gambling
commercial. In answer to further questions, the
defendant said that after he lost his money he had a
vague idea that. Collier took him home. The Judge:
Not to Collier's discredit, surely? (Laughter.) Mr.
Kemp: No, very much to his credit. (Laughter.)
Mr. Baggally: For £350, my lord. The Judge: But
the defendant says that Collier lost too. (Laughter,)
Cross-examined by Mr. Jarvis, the defendant said he
was connected with the Park Club, when the members
were brought up before Sir James Ingham and was
broken up. So you were not such an innocent
lamb as to fall into Collier's hands ?—No. Cross-
examination continued, the defendant said that he
had dined before meeting Collier on the pier at
Brighton. He was then three-quarters and a-half
drunk. (Laughter.) Collier entertained him hospit-
tably at the club—very hospitably. (Laughter.) He,
the defendant, did not give the cheque intending to
dishonour it. He was intoxicated threa-quarters and
a-half. (Laughter.) Mr. Jervis submitted that there
was no defence to the action. The learned Judge
held that there was evidence of fraud to go to the
jury. Mr. Jervis, addressing the jury for the plain-
tiff, submitted that when a man went to a club to play
for money he was expected to pay honestly if he lost.
It was the defendant himself who wanted to be taken
to the club, and he admitted that the signature of this
cheque was his ordinary signature, showing that he
was not in the state of intoxication represented. The
plaintiff was a Continental commission agent, and
had come into contact with Mr. Raisis in the
way of business. Mr. Raisis was a Greek
gentleman, and there was not the slightest
ground for the suggestion that he had anything to
do with the aliases mentioned by Mr. Kemp, or
that the transactions in question had anything
whatever to do with cardsharping. The plaintiff
stated in evidence that he met Raisis at the restaurant
at Palmerston-buildings, in the City, and also at the
Café Royal in Regent-street, where they also met the
Count and Countess do Gramont. The Judge: We
have heard the name before. A good old name, very
well known. (Laughter.) Mr. Kemp: The name,
my lord, of one of the oldest families in France.
(Laughter.) The Judge, to the plaintiff: How did
you meet these scions of the French aristocracy?
(Laughter.) The Defendant: I met them by acci-
dent. Cross-examined by Mr. Kemp, the plaintiff
said he did not depend entirely for his living upon his
business as a Continental commission agent. He had
a subsidy from his wife, who was a lady of fortune.
She did not live with him, but lived in Belgium. He
had lived in lodgings at ss. 6d. a week, but did not
go away without paying. He did not meet Raisis
promiscuously, as he did the count and countess, hut
could, not tell where he lived and did not know that
he ran away without paying his landlady. Re-examined
by Mr. Jervis, the plaintiff said Raisis had a residence
in the Rue de Richelieu, in Paris. Madame de Gra-
mont, the lady referred to as the " Countess " was called
as a witness for the plaintiff, and said her name was
Josephine; that she had apartments at 13, Grove-
place, South Kensington, where she paid a guinea a
week, mid had also a box room in a street leading out
of Tottenham-court-road, where she paid 17s. a week.
Her husband had an income fruits rent in France,
where they had a house in the suburbs. Her husband
was frequently away on business without her. She
did not know that he had anything to do with betting,
or that he took part in the play at the club at 3,
Cavendish-place, BriEhton, as Dr. Harrison. The
learned judge, in summing up the case to the jury,
observed that where there was fraud of the kind sug-
gested, the defrauder was a worse rogue than many a
poor thief who was sent to prison to expiate offences
against the laws of property. The jury, after a few
seconds' consultation, returned a verdict for the de-
fendant on the grounds of fraud. His lordship gave
judgment accordingly, with costs.