The Express.
London, England, 1855-02-22 00:00:00

;ILMANN V TIII 00YEKNUIL AND COMPANY OP TM, BANK

OP 111NOLAND.--11,011111111 OP KOMI.

This wee an action brought against the Governor and Com-
pany of the Bonk of England, to recover the suss of 1,0001
and interest, on two book•notes for 6001. each, which had
been refused payment by the Bank.
The defendants pleaded that before the notes were pre-
sented for payment they had been stolen from Messrs. Brown
and Shipley, of Liverpool, and that the plaintiff bad taken
the notes without value and with notice that they had been
so stolen.

The Attorney-Oeneral and Mr. Hawkins appeared for the
pleintiff; Sir F. Kelly and Mr. Bovill represented the de•
fendants.
The proof of this issue being on the defendants,
Sir F. Kelly stated the ease to the jury. He said thathe
had the honour to appear u counsel for the Bank of Eng-
land, who came here today to resist payment of the tee
notes of 5001. each, of which the plaintiff was the holder.
It was with great reluctance that the Bank appeared to in
silt the claim, but they felt called on to do so, and to lay
before the jury the case which he wee instructed he shooM
do. The ewe affected the commercial interests of Engaind
and Franre, and also the interests of justice in both countries.
The plaintiff, it would appear, was a bullion merchant le
Lombard•street, London, and he claimed the pa mot Olt
these notes from the Bank of England under the
circumstances:—On the 13th of November, 1862, Iffuoseh
Brown and Shipley,. of Liverpool, received large mu&
tances, amongst which were five notes of the Bosh of
' England for 6001., and other notes, amounting to 6001.
I These notes were sent to the Branch Bank of Eng-
bred at Liverpool, for transmission to London. The notes
wore given to a clerk, who was robbed of the notes in
die bank. The Messrs. Brown and Co. did all they could to
prevent the notes being taken by any barker or money-
danger. They called in the aid of the police, who caused
&otiose of the robbery, with the numbers of the notes, to be
plated in English and French, and circulated amougst all
the bankers and money-changers in Europe. Nothing, how-
ever, was heard of the notes until Jane, 1861, when one of
the five notes was presented for payment, by a clerk in the
employ of the plaintiff, at the Bank of England. The note
was stepped, when the clerk said that he thought something
was wrong, as they had been ordered to telegraph to Pans
if the note was stopped. A reference was made to the
plaintiff, who came to the bank. He said he bad received
the note from a person named Meeteaux, at Paris. The
note wee returned to him, and he was told that papoose
would be refused. The question for the jury would be
whether in this case the plaintiff was the bud Me
holder of this note for value, or whether his brother,
Speilmann, who is a money changer in Paris, was. If
were aware at the time they took the notes that they new
the produce of a felony, then they were not entitled to re-
cover on the notes. If it was shown that the seen WOMB
stolen notes, then the claimant was bound to show the base
fides of his conduct, and that he gave value for the notes
without notice of the felony. Facts would be laid before
the jury, which it was thought would leave no doubt in
their minds that the plaintiff and his brother were both
aware of the fact of the notes being stolen. It would
appear that then stolen notes did not see the light from No-
vember, 1852, until June, 1854, when the five 6001. notes
found their way into the hands of five money changers in
Paris, two of which came into the hands of Meyer Speil-
mann, a money changer, in the Rue Vivienne, at Para;
and he sent them over to hie brother Adam, who presented
them at the Bank. On inquiry being made, the most con-
flicting statements were given as to how they became
possessed of them, and by all that could be learnt there was
little doubt that these money-changers in Paris held them-
selves out to be the receivers of stolen notes of this descrip-
tion, en what terms it was not known. The learned coun-
sel then detailed the facts, which were afterwards proved
in evidence, on which he relied to show the male fides of the
plaintiff and his brother when they received the notes.
The Attorney-Oenersl said that he was quite satisfied that
Brown, Shipley, and Co. were robbed of these notes, and
would not put Sir F. Kelly to prove that.
It was then admitted that the robbery was on the 13th of
November, 1832, in the Branch Bank of England at Liver--
pool, where Brown and Co.'s clerk was going to deposit
them. The number of the two notes sued on were 93,076
and 93,609, and they were of the same date.
A number of witnesses having been called in support of
the delendant's case,
The Attn..—

addressed thejury for the pleintit
He said that no doubt this defence, though the defense
of the Messrs. Brown, and not of the Bank of England,
wee an honest one ; but the reel question was not between
the Bank of England and the plaintiff, but simply between
him and Brown and Shipley. It was admitted that the
not*. were stolen from that respectable firm, but there was
no proof whatever either that Meyer Speilinann or Adam
Speilmann had ever received any notice of that robbery. It
was clear that some person connected with that robbery had
none to Paris and pawed off the various notes, one each to
live money changers in Paris, at a time when be thought the
money changers bad forgotten all about it. The learned
counsel then commented at length on the case set up by the
defendant, and said that he should call witnesses before
them who would most clearly show the complete bona fides
of the whole transaction from the beginning down to the
present moment.
The plaintiff, his clerk, and an agent of polio* at Paris,
were then examined in support of the cue.

Lord Campbell, in summing up, said that he was truly
glad that the determination of this case was to be submitted
to such a tribunal as a special jury of the City of London.
It was a pure question of fact, which was peculiarly for
gentlemen of their experience of the world and knowledge
of business to decide on. lie (Lord Campbell) did not think
it would tend to assist them to read over all the 'vicuna
which had been given in this protracted trial. Ha would
therefore first give them his direction in law. and then com-
ment on the leading features of the ease Now it was ad-
mitted that these notes were stolen, and that being so, these
who claimed upon them must show their title. Generally, if
a party sued on a security of this kind it was enough to show
that he was a bolder, but here there had been a stealing of
the security, and the party claiming on it mast show that be
gave value for it, and that bona fide—that was, fairly and
banally. The question, therefore,which he should leave to
them was, first, whether Meyer Speilniann became the
holder of these notes bona fide and for value. With re-
gard to the notices said to be served on Adam Speilmann
and Meyer Speilmann, ft had been contended for the de-
fendruou that if that was proved it was conclusive in
favour of the defendants. That wee not so, but no
doubt it would be strong evidence to show male fides.

His lordship then commented on the evidence at some
length, and eventually left these questions to the jury :
First, chi Meyer Speilmann become the bona fide holder
of the notes for a valuable consideration on the 26th
of June ? Secondly, did Adam Speilmann receive
them bona fide as a remittance from Meyer Speilmann ?
And, third (at the request of the defendants' counsel),
whether the notices were left at the places of business of
of Meyer and Adam Speilmann ?
The jury retired to consider their verdict, and, after
being absent a considerable time, came into court and said
that they could not agree ow the specific Tuitions whielt
his lordship had proposed to them, and wished to know
whether they could not give a general verdict?
Lord Campbell stated that he wished a separate answer

to be given to the questions.
The jury then found the third question in the afilnasti
His Lordship haying handed the two first questions
paper to the jury, they retired.
The Court did not rise till after ten o'clock.

COURT OF COMMON PLEAS.-FEB. 21.
MEWS AT NM 11111111. 111 LONDON.-1117012 CUM 1171111113 nano

VENTILATION OF THE COURT.

Upon several ocoasions lately his lordship has emplaned
that the ventilation of this court was conduoted in a very
imperfect manner, and particularly that there were an.
pleasant smells in the place. At 1, ngth Mr. Banning, the
City architect, was summoned before his lordship, and
directed to do something to stop the anis' anoe, and he
accordingly had some alterations made to improve the ven-
tilation, but at the sitting of the court this storming it was
found that the ventilating apparatus somehow, or ether
would not work, and that consequently no wars air was
coming into the court. It was not long, of course, before
complaints were made of the cold, and the court-keeper was
sent tor, but he was unable to do anything to afford relief.
Mr. derjeant Byles said he had siresdy been oat to oteM-
plsin, for it was so cold that the bar were really in si &A-
prons position.
A juryman wetted thet Fin feet were like ice.
His lordship said he bad complaiced to the City architect,
and had reveived a letter from him to say that the ventila-
tion had now liven made abeolutely perfect; but it appeared
that the stove; hod been made so perfect that they could
not be lighted. He must really arljourn the court, for the
temperaturcwas so Live that it was positively dangerous.
He was obliged to sit with his bands in bin po-ket to keep
his fingers warm. Toe neglect was scandalous, but he
would undertake to my that if the aldermen were dining
anywhere they would take care to have the place warm
enough.
The cour-tkeeper, on being sent for a second time,
thought that if the gas were lighted, it would proriucs
some warmth; and he accordingly lighted the gas, which
was kept burning during the rfArutinder of the day.

DS WOLF/• ♦ND ANOTHER V. ERART.—TROTER.
This was an action of troy. r to recover a quantity of
cheese worthabout 1,0001. The cAse occutied the whole
of the day, and was nut cuocludtd when thu court rose.

COURT OF EXCHEQUER-Fn. 21.

:1110,011 TER LORD OHIO

V. PENNI= AND OT
ACTIONS.

f 0 TRANS-

Mr. Serjeant Kinglake, Mr. Smith, and Mr. Kerslake
appeared for the plaintiff; the Attorney-General, Mr.
Phinn, and Mr. Kingdon represented the defendants,
Abet:dos Bennett and Henry Cur ; and Sir F. Thesiger,
with Mr. Lush, appeared for Jonathan Carr.
This was an action to recover the sum of 2,2301, that
being the swathe plaintiff had paid for a number of shares
in the undermentioned copper mines in Cornwall, named
"the Great Onslow Consols Mine" and "the Bosun*
Mine," the plaintiff alleging tnat he had been Wooed to