The Express.
London, England, 1855-02-20 00:00:00

COURT OF COMMON PLRAB.-FEB. 19.

MITINCIII AT MIA PANS, IR LONDOII.-1111012 CHM/ 7VVIIIIII MI MI

AND ♦ SPICIAL JCIT.
BRODIE V. ROWARD.-REPAIRE TO A BRIP.

This was an action to recover 1,1161. 17.. 7d. for repairs
done to a vessel called the Stratheden, between the 29th
August and the 30th September, 1852.
Mr. Scrjeant Shea and Mr. Lush appeared for the plain-
tiff; and Mr. Salaam Byles and Mr. Cleasby were for the
defendant. _

The plaintiff was • shipwright, and the defendant was
formerly joint owner with Mr. Lewis of the Stratheden, the
defendant having one-eighth, and Mr. Lewis the other
seven-eighths, of the vessel. In June, 1852, she arrived in
the Thames, having been for two years on a voyage, and it
was thought necessary that she should undergo cons'.
derablo repairs, in order that she might retain her
class of red diphthong at Lloyd's. These repairs w ere
undertaken at the instance of Mr. Lewis, and when they
were drawing towards completion, on the 20th September,
the defendant, under a proceeding of the Admiralty Court,
arrested the ship, the effect of which was that she was not
allowed to go abroad until surety had been given to the
defendant for his abase in the vessel. After this she went
to Port Philip, and was subsequently lost at the entrance to
the port of Manilla. The plaintiff's cue was that the
defendant, as one of the owners of the Stratheden, was
liable is pay for her repair ; but the defendant's case was
that be had not pledged his credit, nor authorised it to be
pledged. Beyond this, that he had sent his clerk on the
10th September to warn the plaintiff that the repairs had
been undertaken without his knowledge sr sanction, and
that he repudiated any liability to pay for them. The
Plaintiff denied that he had received such • notice on the
10th September.
The jury expressed their opinion that the notice had been
given ; and, after some discussion, his lordship directed a
verdict for the defendant ; but gave the plaintiff leave to
move to enter a verdict for the amount claimed.
rs•ORAOH V. THR LONDON AND NORTH TIZATIRN RAIL-

WAY COMPANT.-RLILWAY ACCIMINT.
The plaintiff in this case, a young man 25 years of age,
was formerly a commercial traveller to Messrs. Fester,
Porter, and Co., and he brought his action to recover
damages for injuries sustained by him, in a collision which
happened on the North Western Railway on the 27th Feb-
ruary, 1854. The company paid into court 5001., and the
lquestion now for determination was, whether that sum was
sufficient or not.

Mr. Montague Chambers, Q C., Mr. Serjeant Bytes, and
Mr. Lush appeared fir the plaintiff; and Mr. Serjeant
Wilkins and Mr. Power were for the defendants.

On the 27th February the plaintiff was a second-clam
passenger from Birmingham to Manchester, and on the
way his train ran into a luggage train, and he received a
violent blew, which for some time rendered him insensible.
Having recovered his settees, he was taken to Manchester,
and wu there attended by Dr. Harrison on the part of the
company. In about a week's time he was allowed to go to
Birmingham, where he resided, and he was there attended
by Dr. Elkington from that time until about the•end of
April. He then went to Shrewsbury, and got a little
better. He, however, relapsed again, and a consultation was
held between Dr. Elkington, Dr. Harrison, and Dr. Evans,
and he was desired to abstain from business for three months,
and go to the seaside. He did abstain from business, and
he went to the north of Ireland; but he still continued in
a very bad state, and he was even now under medical care.
Previous to the accident, the plaintiff had been in excellent
health, but it was presumed that he had received a con-
cussion upon the breast bone, which had injured the hinge,
and probably the heart. His income as commercial traveller
was about 3201., but be had been unable to retain his situa-
tion, and had been put to the expense for doctors, nurses,
and travelling, of 2061.
In the course of the case, Mr Serjeant Wilkins offered to
leave it to Mr. Foster and Dr. Elkingten to say what was
the fair amount of damages for the plaintiff to receive, and
this offer having been accepted, those gentlemen retired
from court to consider the matter. In a few minutes the
returned, and expressed their opinion that the plaintiff
ought to receive 1,0001., clear of medical and lsw expenses.
A verdict was accordingly entered for the plaintiff for
7061. beyond the amount paid into court.
THE NATIONAL GUARDIAN ASSURANCE SOCIETY V. TEE
ERA ASSURANCE SOCIZTY.-ACTION ON A POLICY.

The plaintiffs, in August, 1851, granted a policy upon the
life of Michael M'Donald for 1,6001, and in August, 1852,
they effected a policy upon the life of the manse gentleman
in the defendant's office for 6001. A premium upon this last-
mentioned policy became due on the 25th of February, 1854,
and on the 23rd February the secretary of the Era office
applied for the money. He was told that it was not known
whether the original assurance bad dropped or not, and it
was arranged that the matter should stand over. On the
22nd March the secretary of the Era wrote to the secretary
to the National Guardian, that he had passed the amount
to the plaintiffs' credit, and he asked for a cheque at their
earliest convenience. On the 23rd Much the secretary to
the National Guardian sent a cheque for 281. 15e., the pre-
mium, and in his note he informed the defendants that Mr.
M'Donald had died about a fortnight previously. Under
the circumstances the defendants declined to receive the
premium, and the question now wu whether, under the
circumstances, the premium had been paid so as to entitle
the plaintiffs to recover.
Mr. Edwin James and Mr. H. Lloyd appeared for the
plaintiffs; and Mr. Serjeant Spa and Mr. Power for the
defendants.
The Chief Justice was of opinion that in law there had
been no proper payment of the premium, and he directed a
nonsait.

WHITS O. SCOTT (P. 0 )-ACTION AOAINST A DANE POR
DISHONOURING A CHEQUR.

The plaintiff in this cue was an auctioneer in Bishop-
gate-street, and the defendant represented the Union Bank
of London. The action was to recover damages in cones-
' quenco of the bank hieing dishonoured the plaintiff's
cheques at a time when they had sufficient funds to meet
It. The defendants paid 101. into court, and the question
was, whether this sum was sufficient.
Mr. Scrjeeot Byles and Mr. Aspland appeared for the
plaintiff; and Mr. Edwin James, Q C., for the defendant.
It appeared that the plaintiff had been applied to by Mr.
Newton, of Stratford, to sell by auction some machinery for
boring wells, and which property it was expected would
realise about 1001. Mr. Newton, at this time, wanted some
money, and the plaintiff gave him a cheque for 401., on the
Union Bank, be having at the time a balance there of 1271.
odd. The cheque, however, was not paid, upon the ground
that there wan not sufficient money to meet it, and this
mistake arose either from an error of 1001. in adding up the
account, or from the plaintiff's account having been mis-
taken for that of another Mr. White. one of them being
named Edward, and the other Edwin. The plaintiff claimed
se special damages, that in consequence of the cheque haling
been dishonoured, Mr. Newton declined to let him go on
with the sale of the property; but the evidence only
amounted to this, that after the cheque had been dis-
houred, Mr: Newton bad altered Lie mind, and had sold by
private contract, en 1 that it was likely, but not certain,
that if be had received the 401. he would have let the plain-
tiff go on with the ails.
The jury gave a verdict for the plaintiff for 40/. beyond
the amount paid into court.

I COURT OF
lIITIVIN AT 11111 PAM AT

19.
XS TU WAD

CRISP RAJ= LSD • !TWILL MT.
WILCOX V. BILL AND ANOTIIER.-ALLIORD FORGERY.
lrtr. Dorfll sad Mr. lindry conducted the ease fn the

plaintiff ; and Mr. M. Chambers and Mr. Willes were
counsel for the &readapts.

This was an action upon a hill of exchange for
1971. 12s. Gd. drawn by one James Byrne, alleged to have
been accepted by the defendants, and endorsed by Byrne to
the plaintiffs. The defendants pleaded that the acceptance
of "Bell end Corbett" upon this bill was a forgery corn-
mined by Byrne.

It appeared from the evidence of the plaintiff that he bad
had various dealings with Byrne is bill discounting, as well
as with Bell in hie businees as an architect. With regard
to the amptance of " Bell and Corbett" upon this bill, his
belief was that it was the handwriting of Bell.
A number of genuine orders written by Bell in the name
of the firm havingu bean called for, were here put in and
exhibited to the jury, to enable them to form their own
opinion as to the handwriting upon them and upon the bill
in question.
Oa behalf of the defendants both were examined, as well
as their chief clerk, and a clerk in the Provident Clerks'
. .

Association, and (roils their statements the following facts
were elicited :—Byrne is the father-in-law ef Corbett, as
well as an old friend of Bell's, and being well acquainted with
the nature of their business, he had occasionally assisted
them in raising fends, and at times had himself received
advances from them. He had also forged their acceptance
toone bill, at least, if not to more, and a short time before
that bill became due, he had called upon the defendants'
clerk with some money, requesting he would pay that into
the bankers of the defendants to meet a hill, the acceptance
of which he bad forged, which bill was a copy of a genuine
bill, adding that the bill was in the hands of the Bank of
England, and that he would have paid it if the Bonk would
' have given it up. In consequence ef this statement the
clerk refused to accept the money. The bill, on arriving at
maturity, was presented at the defendant's hankers
and duly paid, the forgery being so perfect,
that it deceived the bankers' clerk. This forged
bill having been paid, Byrne took up the
genuine bill and enclosed it to the defendants. Bell
they remonstrated with Byrne upon this conduct, and en-
quired whether there was "any more of that wretch's
paper out," Byrne said he deeply deplored the transaction,
and assured Bell most confidently that there was nothing
more of the sort in existence. A short time after this the
plaintiff called upon the defendants in reference to Byrne's
affairs, when it came out that he had discounted an ac-
ceptance of theirs for 1971. 12s. 6d., and a second for 1561.
Both of these bile the defendants declared were forgeries.
The plaintiff remarked, that as to the latter bill he had pro-
cured some collateral securities, which he hoped would turn
out all right ; and if so, he should then only lose 1001. by
Byrne; but he suggested that, for "family reasons," the
defendants should go halves in the loss, and so avoid all
chance of exposure. This proposition the defendants at
once rejected, the more so as from the course that matters
were taking, they were apprehensive that a mass of such
bills might be poured in upon them, and pre-
fared to submit to the then loss, which they
had sustained by Byrne's irregularities. Bell then gave
notice to the bankers not to pay the bill for 1971. 12s. 6d., nor
any similar acceptances, and therefore when the bill arrived
at maturity and was presented by the plaintiff, its payment
was refused. The presentation of this bill by the plaintiff
gave great annoyance to Bell, who, in a correspondence
which had subsequently passed, alluded to the plaintiff as
having "uttered the bill knowingly." Byrne upon this
absconded, and upon his drawer being searched at the Pro-
vident Clerks' Association office, a paper was foutd upon
which the signature of " Bell and Corbett " had been fre•
quently written. The plaintiff eventually brought the pre-
sent action upon the bill, and a second action for slander
against Bell in his individual capacity.
The Lord Chief Baron, in summing up, said that there
were two questions for their deeisioas—First, was this ac-
ceptance in the handwriting of Bell, and it not, had Byrne
been authorised to accept in their name.
The jury, after a brief consultation, returned a verdict
for the defendants.