The Express.
London, England, 1848-06-29 00:00:00

lab) Et*ll trona.

PRIVY COUNCIL.—(JUDICIAL COMMITTEE.)
Preseat Lord Menshom, Lord Langdale, the] odp of the Admiralty
Court, the Mght Horn T. Pemberton Ldsh.
_

THE QUEENS PRC7CTOR v. THE SOLICITOR or THE
DIICHT OP LANCASTER.—RIOHT OP THE CROWN TO
THE GOODS OP AN INTESTATE DYING IN THE DECRY
or LANCASTER.—The Right Hos. T. Pemberton Leigh
gave judgment in this case, which it may be recollected
was argued some months ago, and stood over for considera-
tion. The question was shortly whether her Majesty wu en-
titled to the goods of a deceased person dying intestate with-
in the duchy, jure coronwt or is right of the duchy ? The
duchy having merged in the crown, and the sove-
reign therefore being entitled in one right or other,
the question would not seem to be of much practical
moment, indeed to be chiefly one of fees between two classes
of officers ; but having been raised it was necessary to have
it decided by the highest authority, to determine. among
other things, whether certain grants should paas under the
peat seal or the seal of the duchy, was to give valid titles.
Their lordships now delivered an elaborate judgment, going
through all the learning and authorities, and in the result
deciding in favour of the duchy, on the ground that the
right having been originally in the crown, jury regalia had
been granted out by the different grants of the duchy,
which had now merged in the crown; it was therefore vested
in the sovereign in right of the duchy.

EQUITY COURTS.
Batts the Lard Chanoellor.

SAXES v. THE NORTH STAYPORIMEIRE RLILWAY COX-
uNcrioN.—This motion to discharge an order of
Vict-Chancellor K. Bruce, was opened on Saturday Um by
Mr. Malin/ and Mr. Bovill.—The plaintiff is proprittorof salt
works at Sandback, Cheshire, and ha got notice front the
defendants that they would require ten closes of his lands;
they afterwards refused to take more than eight. The plain-
tiff Sled his bill to restrain them from peding with their
isilway racks sakes they teck the the last, oxit•

prised in their first notice. An injunction was applied for
accordingly and granted. The plaintiff afterwards filed a
supplemental bill for a further injunction, to restrain the
defendants from entering on his land at all, 1101. S they con-
sented to take his salt factory also. according to the 92nd
section of the act 8 it 9 Vict , cap. 18, called" the Land
Clauses Consolidation Act," which section is to the effect

that no person should be required to sell to any company
Part only of a house or other building or manufactory,
if he wax able to sell the whole. A question was
made on the motion for this injunction whether the salt pits
and place where the making of salt was carried on came
within the description of " manufactory." Vice-Chancellor
Knight Bruce thought it did, and granted the injunction,
subject, however, to the opinion of a court of law on the said
question. The learned counsel in support of the motion
contended that the sort of buildings on this Pnd did net form
a manufactory. The brine was in some saltworks abroad
brought from a great distance to the place of evaporation.
There was no necessary- connexion between the soil pits and
the buildings used. The injunction in its present form was
injurious to the defendants themselves, because, if allowed to
stand, their works also must stand until the opinion of a
court of law can be taken on the question.—Mr. J. Russell
and Mr. Daniell were now heard in support of the injunc-
tion, and they argued that the plaintiff's property would be
of no value if the closes were separated from the buildings.
The piss which supplied the brine were so closely connected
with the buildings and machinery for evaporation that they
ad formed but one manufactory.
The Lord Chancellor said he was of opinion that the in-
junction could not stand. When a party applied to the
court for such a summary relief he was bound to come
quickly, and he was bound also to make out a case which
would be free from the suspicion of an intention to mislead.
It appeared that in the autumn of last year the plaintiff bad
notice that the company required ten closes and no more.
There was a contest on that subject which terminated in
the plaintiff's favour, and the company were led to believe
that the only thing in dispute was, whether they had to
take eight or ten closes of land. The plaintiff, how-
ever, came by supplemental bill with an entirely
new claim, contending. under the section of the
Land Clauses Consolidation Act, that the company
were bound to take all the land and buildinp
under the description of a manufactory. It was clear that
the plaintiff had reed,. an entirely now own That woo a
practice that the court could not sanction : for, if it did, the
plaintiff might make twenty other new cases in the
course of the proceedings. On that ground of prac-
tioe—namely, the keeping back of part of a case
until the other put was disposed of, his lordship thought
he consulted the general interests of the suitors by refusing
to support the injunction. But there still rem lined the
principal question—were the premises and land a manufac-
tory ? In the 92nd clause of the act the word "manufac-
tory " was coupled with the word " building." Row far
that might be capable of sustaining the argument at the bar
his lordship was not then called on to give an opinion, be-
cause he found that the plaintiff, in his effidavit, had him-
self expressly drawn a distinction between the land and the
buildings, by stating the property as composed of a building
and the adjacent pits, thereby showing that be did not then
consider it inseparable as a manufactory. In addition to
that there were the affidavits of great numbers of persons
engaged in the salt business of the district, which clearly
bore out the assertion that there was no necessary connexion
between the pits and the place where the process of conver-
sion into snit was carriet on. That evidence was not con-
tradicted ; and as the case now stood he could not compel
the defendants to take all that the plaintiff required than to
tike.—The injunction was dissolved.

Before the Vice.. Chancellor of England.
JONES r TILE EARL. OF etteitLESIONT.—RAILWAY COM•
BAN Y.—DEMURRER.—This bill was tiled by certain share-
holders in a railway company stalled the Newry, Armagh,
and Londonderry Junction Railway, on behalf of themselves
and all other the shareholders, except the defendants, against
the members of the provisional committee, for the purpose
of obtaining an account of the funds suls:eribed. The pro-
ject was commenced in the year 1845, but the requisite
amount of shares not having been disposed of, the bill was
withdrawn before it had passed the third reading. The bill
charged neglect and mismanagement on the part of the pro-
vbional committee, and alleged that the undertaking ought
to have been stopped and the affairs wound up under the
set of parliament. A demurrer was put in on the ground
that the plaintiffs themselves might have taken measures for
winding up the affairs of the company, and that other share-
holders ought to have been made partite to the bill. The
demurrer, for want of panics, was taken ore tenus. The
question was argued entirely upon technical points.—The
Vice-Chancellor overruled the demurrer upon the general
ground, but allowed the demurrer ore tenus.—No order was
made as to costs.

EARL OF BALCARREB V. JOHNSON.—ACCOUNT OP THE
VALUE OF COAL TAKEN MOE A MINE.—The defendant
in this case was the lessee of certain coal mine' in Aspall,
near Wigan, held under a lease from Sir R. Lee. The de-
fendant after having worked out his mine proceeded to work
coal under other land belonging to Sir R. Lee, not contained
in the lease. This conduct he pursued for live years, end
after the death of Sir R. Lee his trustees filed this bill far
the purpose of obtaining an injunction to restrain the de-
fendant from continuing to work the mines. The injunction
we, granted, and en application was made for leave to bring
an action at law to ascertain the amount which the trustees
were entitled to recover from the defendant in respect of the
roal sty Way., by bias. This application was opposed by the
defendant, and it was finally arranged that a reference
should be made to the mast r to ascertain the said amount.
The master having made his report upon the evidence pro-
duced before him the case now came on upon exceptions to
that report, and it was contended for the defendant that the
master had found a larger sum to be due than was just.—
The Vice-Chancellor considered that as then was no state-
ment by which he could discover the mode in which the
master had formed his calctlations he was not at liberty to
say that the report was wrong, but he thought the difficulty
had arisen from the defendant not having kept an account of
the coal he bad taken, ea he was bound to have done. He
thought the defendant had not fairly stated the circumstances
of the cue, and it was impossible to make out what was the
real value of the coal. He should, therefore, overrule the
exceptians.

Before Viectlaneellor Knight Bruce.
MANGLEE V. DIXON.—CHARTER PARTY.—The plaintiffs
and Messrs. lloyd and Co. were jointly interest. d in an ad-
venture in search of guano in Patagonia, and the ship em-
ployed in the adventure was named the Fifeshire, and be-
longed to Messrs. Boyd and Co., the charter party being
made between the plaintiffs and Messrs. Boyd and Co., and
not appearing on the face of it to be connected with the
joint adventure, but the whole freight being thereby made
payable to Messrs. Boyd and Co. Messrs. Boyd and Co. de-
paited the charter-party with the defendants, Mews.
Dixon and Co., the bankers, as a security, and afterwards
became bankrupts, and the question now was, whether
Meters. Dixon and Co. could hold the document otherwise
than subject to the accounts between Messrs. Boyd and Co.
and the plaintiffs, their cnadventurers, of whose claims
Messrs. Dixon and Co. had no notice, the adventure having
proved a losing speculation—The Vice. Chancellor said that
a charter party was merely a chose in action, and that the
assignee of such property n.ust take it subject to a.I the equi-
ties affecting the assignor. If the plaintiffs had mbled
Messrs. Dixon and Co. in any way, or induced them to act
upon the security otherwise than they would but for such in.
ducement have acted, the case might have stood differently.
Nothieg of the kind was shown here, and the bankers must
take subject to the accounts between the co-adventurers.
MAYOR or ROCHESTER V. LEE.—TOLLS.—It may be re-
membered that this case was heard some time since at great
length, on an application for a new trial, and that the ques-
tion, which was as to the right of the corporation of Roches-
ter, as owners of the port, to a toll upon coals brought up
the Medway, was decided against the claim of the corpora-
tion. The case now came on to he disposed of finally.—The
Vice-Chancellor dismissed the bill with costs, but without
prejudice to any question, except whether the plaintiffs, sa
owners of the port were, on August 7, 1846, lawfully en-
titled to demand the toll of 3id. for every ton of coal brought
by water, and unloaded within the port of the city of Roches-
ter, payable by the person cc persons bringing ouch coals by
water, in any ship or vessel, and unloading the same cook
within the aid port, or being ready and willing to weigh
the same.
Palm's t. PROTHRRO.—Rtottr TO CROSS.EXA VISE IN
MASTER'S OFFICE.—MV. Roxburgh moved in thin case, on
behalf of the rlaintiff, to suppress a cross-examination in the
Master's office of a witness who had been examined there in
chief, under an order, on the ground that an order was also
necessary tor his mom-examination. He cited " Whitaker v.
Wright" t 3 Hare, 412).—The Vice Chancellor held ro such
order to be necessary.

Before 'tee-Chracellor wigram.
STAMP V. THE BIRMINGHAM, WOLVERHAMPTON, AND
STOUR VALLEY RAILWAY COMPANY.— INJP TION.—
This was a motion to dissolve an injunction which had been
obtained by the plaintiff in October last, and by which the
defendants were restrained from proceeding to construct a
tunnel under the plaintiff's house in Paradise-row, Birming-
ham, so as to destroy the messusges and premises thereon
and the foundations thereof, and from doing any act
is whereby
the premises might be injured until the company should
have put in their answer, or tiil further order. It appeared
that the defendants in the first instance supposed the tunnel
could be made without any interference with the surface of
the soil, and that with that idea they originally served the
plaintiff with notice that so much of the subsoil
only would be required as wu necessary for the
bore of the tunnel. Finding afterwards that the surface
soil would probably be injured by the blasting of the rock
underneath, they served a second notice upon the plaintiff to
the effect that the surface soil above the tunnel would be
required in addition to that which was specified in the first
notice. The plaintiff allowed the twenty-one days prescribed
by the Lands Clauses Consolidation Act to expire without
sending in his claim to the defendants, who thereupon pro-
ceeded under the provisions of the act to obtain a valuation
by arbitration. The plaintiff then obtained the in-
junction in question, but the defendants having ascertained
the amount of compensation by valuation paid the deposit
and exccu:ed the bond required by the act. They then
made the present mottos to dissolve the injunction, and to
dismiss the plaintiff's bill, upon paymont by the defendants
of the expenses and costs. The motion was resisted on the
part of the plaintiff, on the ground that, after serving one
notice, the company had exhausted their powers under the
act, and that they bed no right afterwards to require Evora
land than was specified in such notice, or by hoeing t Lthavvel
to injure the soil above. Another objection suit, thin the
bond was informal, being conditioned to be void on payment
of the money, or on depuait thereof in the Bank fbe the 136- •
nefit of the parties entitled.—The Solicitor-General and Mr. . • -4,,
Speed appeared in support of the motion to 4841» ; tied A 7:1
Mr. Roll and Mr. Terrell contra for the- ulpinenelt.
—His Honour said he could not doubt "v4i&ity li-
the bond, lout would defer giving • apialkee .
• apes the effect of the puttee tilt he had • Noe '-

sideration to the case. His impression, however, was that
the company bad power to glee a second notice on chnover-
log same insurmountable difficulty, which would render ad•
ditioual lend to that contained in the first notice necessary
for the purpose of carrying through Um works.
COURT OF QUERN'S BENCH.
Nur Pares.—Seises Mr. Justice wiettmen and a Special Jury,
Tue Dula or But NaWIC the PEAItSON.
etorLtnen.of the —T
Sa-
his
was an action brought againat late propri
tirist, for two libels which appeared in that journal on the
7th o December, 1815, and the 23rd August in the same
year.f The libels in question had reference to the opposition
which Mr. Barnard Gregory had experienced when he came
before the public in the character of a dramatic performer,
and they stated that Mr. Gregory had been persecuted for
the cause of truth. This the plaintiff contended was an
adoption of all the libels that had ever appeared
in the Satirist about the Duke of Reunite:ch.—The duke
addressed the jury, for upwards of three hours, but as the
facts of this case have been so often before the public, we
shall content ourselves by saying that the plaintiff read to
the jury all the libels which had been published in the Sati-
rist, as well as the two particular ones on which the present
action was founded.—cite. Houston Browne, on behalf of the
defendant, contended that the two alleged libels complained
of had no reference whatever to the plaintiff, but that they
referred to a set of individuals who bad been the object of
Mr. Gregory's s:rictures, and had consequently bimed him
off a public stage. He therefore submitted that there ought
to be a verdict fur the dcieridant.—Mr. Justice Wighhtrebe-
an,
in summing up, left it to the jury to say whether thee
lieved the two libels of the ith of DeceMber and the 23rd ef
August, 1845, referred to the plaintiff.—The jury, haying re-
tired for ab rut half an hour, returned with a verdict for the
plaintiff—damages 1,5001.
Tux QUEEN o. GHISLIN.—Liati..—In this case Mr.
Serjeant Shec, with whom was Mr. Simon, appeared for the
prosecution; and Mr. Temple conducted the case on behalf
of the defendant. Serjeant Snee, to statieg the case to
the jury, raid the promeutrix was a lady of the name of Cara,
residing at Wit terden House, St. John's Wood. The present
proceeding had been instituted against the proprietor of the
Satirist newspaper for two libels which had appeared in
that j,,urnal concerning the prosecutrix. With regard
to the first libel, the defendant had pleaded that
the etstement made was true, and under a recent
act of parliament would constitute a juestioa. With
regard to tee eecand libel he had pleaded the usual plea of
not guilty. A party who was a practised libeller, and who
understood bow to go about his wicked work, would insert
pmchtrie of truth into his
was
s that the friends of the
oseucu might know who intended to be referred ;
and the jury would hove to say from the libel whether the
defendant was not an habitual libeller. The learned see-
jeant then read to the court two letters from the Satirist of
the 29th of Nov. end the sth of De0.,1347, both of which were
headed " bill stealers and black steep of the law," and they
insinuated that Mrs. Case was in some wiry connected with cer-
tain parties who were, as the letters said, bill 'Antlers; and
that the parties had committed perjury. [We forbear to
give any part et the letters, as they mentioned the names of
veral parties who were not directly before the court.]
The publication of the libels having been proved, Mr.
Temple said he wishsd to croseexamine Mrs. Cute —Mr.
Serj. Shee elrjected to the prosecutrix being called ; but his
lordship ruled that, as her name was on the back of the in-
dictment, she must be examined.—Mrs. Cass was thee put
in the box, and cross-examined by Mr. Temple. She stated
that she had given instructions to prevent a Mr. White from
obtaining the fruits of a judgment which he would have
realised on account of an Udell which he bad brought on a
1,0001. bill. That action bad been brought contrary to her
directions. A gentleman of the name of Dukes
called upon the witness, but she never told that
gentleman that White had given consideration for the
1,0001 Witneu remembered a grittleraan Miming to
her carriage, and she told him that she could prove what
value was given for the 1,0001. bill, and that full value had
been given for it. She never stated that White had given
her value for the bill.—Mr. Temple then addressed the jury
for the defence, and contended that the learned counsel had
used epithets likely to throw a prejudice into the case. Be-
cause the articles complained of were headed " Bill Stealers
and Black Sheep of the Law," it was not meant to assert
that Mrs. Casa was a hill stealer, and it could not he for
a moment said that she was a black sheep of the law.
Ile should call witnesses who would contradict that
lady in regard to what she bad stated about the
value being given for the 1,0001. bill. The learned coun-
eel then proceeded to call Mr. Le Riche, who stated that
he remembered seeing the prosecutrix with reference to the
cause of" White or. Lord Oranmore," and she said that if
she were called she would prime that value was given for the
Dukes proved that he was a partner in the firm
of Few and Co. That firm were the solicitors for Lord Oran-
more in the case of "White v. Lord Oranmore. He waited
upon Mrs. Cam, and she said, if called at the trial, she
should do no good to the defendant, as she saw 2501. given at
one time for the bill, and the full value afterwards.—Mr.
Justice Wightman, in summing up, said the question for
the jury was whether the wards written by the defendant
were calculated to bring the plaintiff into discredit and disre-
pute;; because, if an, they were clearly libellous.—The jury
unmediately returned a verdict of Guilty.

COURT OF COMMON PLEAS.
Sittings at Rig erius.—Before Lord Chief Justice Wilde, rod a
special Jury.
NEWTON V. CHAPLIN.—LIABILITY OP A PROVISIONAL
Coataurrezmag.—This was an action brought. by the
plaintiff, Augustus Newton, Esq., barrister-at-law, to recover
the hilt of a sum paid as a deposit for forty railway shares
obtained by him from the Direct Sheffield and Macclesfield
Railway Company. The defendant we
an Mr. John Chap-
lin, the landlord of the Spread Earle, Gracocburch-street,
and was sued as being one of the provisional committee of
that company, whose project was eubsequently abandoned.
The plaintiff, who conducted his own case, in his opening
address to the jury stated that there was always consider-
able difficulty to he surmouated by those who were desirous
of recovering the amount paid as deposits on shares, under
inch circumstances as he was then placed in. In the year
1845, when he resided in Cheltenham, he saw an advertise-
ment in the Times newspaper, with many respectable signa-
ture' attached to it, proposing a railway from Sheffield to
Macclesfield, and amongst them were the names of John,
the defendant, and his brother William Chaplin, the land-
lord of the Swan with Two Necks. lie subsequently
saw a prospectus announcing the policy of constructing such
a line, and promising a certain profit from it. It also stated
that the capital was 800,0001. in 40,000 shares. After con-
sidering the matter, and reading a prospectus in a subsequent
advertisement, he wrote for 100 shares, received an answer
only conveying 40 shares, and deposited 841., having seen a
notice in the Times that all the shares had been allotted,
whereas he would be able to prove thst only half the nurr •
ber of shares were allotted ; 20.000 having been kept for the
directors and their friends. What he complained of was,
that no consideration had been given for the money which
he paid ; and he contended that he was entitled to forty
guineas, half the money deposited.—Mr. Serjeant Byles ap-
peared for the defendant. Several witnesses were called by
the plaintiff to Trove some connexion between the defendant
and the insertion of the advertisement above mentioned, but
failing in doing so legally he was nonsuited.—The case oc-
cupied_ the court the entire day.
COLMER V. CHAPPELL.—JDRY DISCHARGED.—In this
case, which came before the court oa an action brought by
the plaintiff to recover damages from a Gas Company, in
compensation for irjuries which he sustained from a fall
used by an opening left in the street by negligence of the
company which was represented by the defendant, the jury
could not agree, and were discharged.
ANDERSON V. BLACILDVREL—A SPIRITED HORSE.—This
was an action brought by the plaintiff to recover the value of
a horse. It appeared, from the statement of counsel, that
the plaintiff is a person holding a respectable position as a
dealer in horses and residing is Piccadilly, and that the de-
fendant is a gentleman of fortune, of Blackburn hall,d
Surrey. In September, 1847, the ePendant purchased a
horse from the plaintiff, for which he agreed to pay 120
guineas, and which the plaintiff told him he had purchased
from Lord Rancliffe, Bunny-park, Nottinghamshire. The
went having been made, the hone was delivered to the
adefengreedant, but almost immediately returned, the defendant
alleging that he was too " fresh," that he was unsound, and
had the string-halt. It was, tc.,wever, stated by the plain-
tiffs counsel that he would be able to prove that the plain-
tiff was justified in not taking back the horse, by the
evidence of Lord Ranch's, who brought up the horse,
and who would show that he only possessed • high
action which resulted from his Arabian blood ; that his dam
also had had that motion ; and that the horse had no con-
genital defect. The horse was exhibited to the defendant,
and no guarantee was asked. He had received the certifi-
cates of Lord Rancliffe and of a veterinary surgeon as to his
soundness. It was, admitted that the plaintiff sold the horse
for 120 guineas, and that he had paid 1001. for him to Lard
Raneliffe. It was alleged an the part of the defendant that
the lady for whom he bought the horse was not well able to
ride, and he accordingly refused to keep Dim when he dis-
covered his qualities. lie was subsequently sold at Tatter-
sall's for the sum of 161., which was paid into court. The
plaintiff purchased him, and afterwards sold him for 1001.—
Mr. Serjeant Bj les and Mr. James appeared fur the plain.
tiff, and Mr. Serjeant Talfourd and Mr. Greenwood for the
defendant —Lord Rancliffe, his lordship's groom, and Mr.
George Rice, veterinary surgeon, were called to p rove the r
soundness of the hors; and the jury, without wang fo
the summing up, returned a verdict for the plaintiff-351.
damages.
Sittings in BASCO after Term.
BROWN V. DE WINTON.—NEGOTLABILITY OF PROMIS.
SORT NOTES PAYABLE TO MAKER'S OWN ORDER.—This
was an action against the maker of aimosory note pay-
ible to his own order and indorsed by h to the plaintiff, in
which defendant pleaded he did not make the note ; and
secondly, that he did not indorse it. The verdict having
passed for the plaintiff, a rule to enter a verdict for defend-
ant, pursuant to leave or in arrest of judgment, was obtained,
on the ground that the note set out in the declaration being
made payable to the order of maker himself was not • ne-
gotiable instrument within the 3 & 4 Anne, c. 9, s. 1, and so
no right of action accrued to plaintiff as indorsee of such an
instrument. The rule in the mean time having been fully
argued, the Court gave judgment in the case yesterday, and
said, owing to the conflict of opinion between the Courts of
Queen's Bench and Exchequer upon the point, it became
necessary for them to consider the statute of Anne with
reference to the present action. The doubt arose whether a
man who makes a note payable to his own order can be
said to make a note at all. Now, no particular form of
words was required to constitute a promissory note, but it
wee a contract, end there must be two parties to it, so that
the payee must appear at least by implication ; and therefore
it was that the statute, in speaking of notes in their unindorsed
state, spoke only of notes made payable to some other person
than the maker. The court, therefore, thought this untru-
meat, as originally made, was incomplete, and had no bind-
ing effect. But it was another question as to the effect
after indonsment of such an instrument They were of
onion the indorsement in blank by the defendant had the
Obit of =Nag tide a pecognory ma, of a Folios W pay

money to bearer, and that the maker fin
chch oats
did, by
indorsement. give • right of action to ireee. The de-
claration was in conic tuenec good on general demurrer, or in
arrest of judgment, although, from a rairdescription of the
instrument (the declaration alleging it to be a promissory
note before endorsement) there might have been ground for
special demurrer. The verdict, therefore, would stand, and
the motion in arrest of judgment fail.
GRAY Y. LANDIRL—This case involved the same question
as the preceding one, the only difference being that there
was • special endorsement by the maker to an intermediate
endorsee who endorsed to shwas aintiff —The Court were of
opinion 'that the principle the same whether such an
instrument was specially endorsed by maker or endorsed in
blank by him, as far as the existence of a right of action
arisin from the endorsement was concerned.—Rule to arrest
the judgment discharged accordingly.
YOVNO O. RAINCOCIL—COVRN•NT.—The arguments in
this case, an action of covenant involving the question
whether a recital of • parLieelsr feet in • deed of con-
veyance signed by vendee operated as an estoppel
against him in an action brought by him for • breach
of covenant by vendor, contained in the deed, as well
as another question of • purely technical nature, upon
the form of the declaration in the action, were concluded ;
but the court took time to consider their judgmeat.

COURT OF EXCHEQUER.
Nisi Niue, at Westmineter.—Before the Lord We( Baron and a
Common Jur7.
orinnaltart V. 11A13111.—BILL DINCOWITINO.—This case
was partly heard on Tuesday and reported in the Dail',
News of yesterday.—Mr. M. Chambers (with whom was Mr.
Dowdeswell) addressed the jury for the defendant, submit-
ting that the whole transaction with respect to the bill which
formed the subject of the present action was a grope fraud.
He should show that the plaintiff was a party to the fraud,
and that a conspiracy had been formed to cheat Mr.
Heine out of his erceptance. He should also prove
not only that Loma never indorsed the bill of
exchange, but that no s-ele person es James Lomas
existed. He should a..., in the year 1845, certain
parties who bad been liberated from the Queen's Prison had
entered into a regular partnership, and he shouldconnect the
plaintiff with the same. In 1846 an office had been taken in
Pantiin-tquere, and the name of Cobb placed over the door.
He should connect the plaintiff with the bill-discounting
transactions there earned on by the parties to whom he Lou
referred. Them was a newspaper called the Watchman, in
connexion with the Wesleyan body, and which had consi-
derable influence and circulation amongst the members of
that religious persuasion. This journal, as he should prove,
bad been made the instrument for furthering the designs of
the copertnery. Early in the year 1847 the (a` ow adver-
tisement was published in that journal :
Frrsn TIiOrSAIM DAMPS FOS etiveetleer (a
member of the Weeleyan connekionl, hung the control of capital to
the above amount, is willing to make advents!. in suitable sums,
where the same now be requited for the use of chapels. de.
wire, respectable patios requiring pecuniary amommodation fur their
own um, the advertiser will have no ire to waist with sr
amoom of capital in proportion to the mea lied on for refunding.
—Applications may be made in confidence by letter, drewed to
Mr. ISM, Lomas, 33, Mount.streek London: ad
He should show that the address, 33, Mount street, was
the pest-office of the district. The defendant, Mr. Heine, a
Wesleyan minister at Pillswenlly, near Newport, became
connected with the transaction in the following manner.
Being about to erect some buildings, he was desirous of ob.
tabling a temporary loan of 2001. for the purpose, and he
answered the advertisement in the Watchman. A. would
be seen be not only failed to get the 2001, but the adver-
tiser had endeavoured to get 2001. out of him. In answer to
Mr. Maine's application the person calling himself Lomas
wrote as follows :
33, Moan ',freer, Lambeth, london, Jan. 20, 1847.—My '
fear
sir;
—With much pleasure I now reel:- to y of the lith nst.,
should hate dune so before, but tl ny applications I have received
to my advertisement have prevented me. however, I now feel happy
In saying that it is in my power to accommodate you, and more par-
ticularly as ty so doing I am rendering a minim to ace of
Christie ministers. Therefore In order to occasion you as
little delay se pweiblet lu complying with your wish I enclose
yea at once a draft for your WWCWSIM for 2001.. together with an
agreement drawn up, I trust, upon liberal and just principles, such
es I have no doubt will meet your approval ; and, if agreeable. I
Amid like for your son or sons to indorse their names on the bask of
the draft, underneath my own, as already mentioned by you; not, my
or* that I require this to be done from any fear or doubt of your
serpsalblSty or ability to repay me, but for my satisfaction, that (in
Me event of your eons' lives being spared after it may please our
Warmly Father to call you to himself) I may have Hone witeemes
to state that my clefs. will be rieht, end I hope strictly just. The
rate of interest I usually charge ism follows Upon "our" ehapele
par cent. per annum. On freehold end approved personal security,
5 per cent. per annum ; but shall only charge you at the rate of 44
pee cent, per annum, feeling confident that the capital which you re-
quire will be quite ea safe upon your personal security Be it would he
upon freehold property, knowing that you would not ask for a loan if
you had the SMt doubt as to your bring eventually in a ya.ition
**repay the same. Indeed, I should be sorry to form a different
opinion of any of our minister., much more of one who has tabooed
ler the cause of methods= the year. you already have. The lit ason
1 have dratztri7u for a short date is on amount of the otemt
upon the I lime under my control being required to be paid
y; I will renew for you, from time to time, mooed-
=friar egremeget, or bold the rune bill over es you rosy advise.
Taw Wm vat *sal for what period you are likely to require the or-
Oftliftailation. I have therefore mentioned Pee yearn, giving you the
=
al repaying the same, or any portion thereof, et your corm.
Should there bo any alterations you may wish for in the
agreement, boat in regard to the tine specified or otherwise, I will
mate it by your tot warding it to rue with the bill, and I wilt return
the mine to you by post when I remit you the money, which
I will, with your pennisaion, through the banking-hotter
of Messrs. Cocks and Biddulpb, London, who will advise
their agents, Mears. Williams
tend
safest Newport, to hand
=le amount. think INS the coarse aSept. TI/o
1615511 lon abie to Mtwara to you on ends', that le, toorkled
yen an make It convenient to return me the enclosed accepted and
endorsed per return of post. I must now coarlude, flautist you for
your kind and fatherly wishes, and that it may please the Almighty to
Snare your valuable life tor many years to co.e, for .7111 far ther use-
fulnees.-1 remain, soy dear sir, yours, lAN WI Low ta.—To the Rev.
Cliarleellaine.—P.d. Please to sonept the enclosed draft, accenting
to copy, as I propose eventually to lodge the whole of my securities
with the bankers, for safety.
The jury would observe from the concluding portion of ME
letter that the scheme to entrap Mr. Hanle was very in-
geniously concocted ; for in addition to the tone of the
letter, which was likely to deceive one inexperienced in the
ways of the world, the introduction of the names of the
Messrs. Williams, of Newport, and of Cocks and Biddulph,
bankers, well known in Wales, was well calculated to allay
any suspicion which might have been excited. On the 26th
of January, the defendant received another letter, signed
" James Loma," in the following terms:
33, Mount-street, Lambeth, London, Jan. 25, 11147.—My deer
sill sorry I was not In town in time on nifty to reply to
yours of the 21st loot by that Light's poet. My attendance was M-
e:pettedly requested at Kingston on Thursday to meet the trustees
of one of our chapels, who are desirous to borrow a mall capital to
replace a sum that is about to be called in, and as such I am applied
to in order to advance the required amount, and having been
detained longer on the business than I expected. I did net reach
London time eh to answer your lam per return pont.
I likewise retrained from writing to you on SWAMIS,' not
wishing that my letter should reach you on the Sabbath, more espe-
cially es it relates to business matters. (laughter.) I perceive my
dear sir, you have endorsed your name on the hack of the bill baring
your acceptance, and as this is irregular and quite unnecessary, I
have enclosed another bill for your acceptant*, which you will Meese
only to accept and not endorse, for it is only requisite your von should
do so underneath my name, curtly in every respect the same as the
last with the exception of your name on the back of the bill. lam
truly sorry and disappointed for this delay in forwarding you the money,
and sincerely hope it v. 31 not put you to any inconvenience, for on
Wednesday, upon receipt of the enclosed, I will remit you the money
through the same source as I before proposed.—Trusting you will not
attribute any unnecemsey neglect or delay to, me, or think I am over-
ever
ticular, I onee more beg to remain (wishing you and your family
evey Mewing), my deer, sir, yours very respectfully, JASSI Luau.
—WIS. Chas- thine.
Mr. Maine accepted the bill of exchange but he never re-
ceived a farthing; on the contrary, he received the following
communication :
0, Panton.equare, Ilaymarket, April 9, 1547.—Sir,—As endorser of
your acceptance I beg to appriee you that one drawn by James Lomas
for 2001. will become due on the 23rd April Unbent, and your atten.
lion will oblige, sir, your obedient servant (per John Miles), J. W.
excid..—Rev. C. Maine.
In conclusion, the learned counsel said he should prove that
the letters in question were written by a person named
Tucker, whom he should trace as one of the confederates in
the transaction. The following evidence wan then adduced
in support of the defendant's case:—The postmaster at 33,
Mount-street, for that a person calling himself
Lomas had called there letters, and about 30 letters were
addressed to him there.
Mr. Helsdon, corn-merchant, Tower-street, being shown
the letter to the defendant, purporting to be from Lomas,
positively stated that they were in the handwriting of a per-
eon named Tucker. Tucker is a man about 28 years of age,
aid witness has known him for ten years. He knew a person
named Sjciterf, who kept a public-house in the Lowerroad,
Islington 12 years ago. After that Sidled took an office in
the City as a general merchant. Four or five years ago wit-
ness saw him in prison. Did not know him go by any other
name than that of Sidserf. Has seen a =annulled Shires in
company with Sidserf and Tucker, at the Bullion,
in Bishopsgate-street, in the latter part of 1846,
and beginning of 1847. Witness used to go twice a
week to the Bull to meet a friend. Hss seen the advertise-
ment produced, which was shown to him either by Sidserf
or Tucker, who stated that a friend had some money to lend,
and they asked his opinion if it would do, to which witness
replied that he thought it was a very good advertisement.
Mr. Howard, from Messrs. Cocks and Biddultih's, the
bankers at Charing-cross, trid no money was paid on or
abou the 20th of January, 1847, to Messrs. Williams, ol
Newport, to the credit of Mr. Charles Maine, of Pillgwenlly,
the defendant.
Mr. Rsdpath, one of the attorneys for the defendant, pro-
duced the original MB, of the advertisement published in
the Watchman newspaper.—Crose-examined : A bill has
bun filed againstGadderer in equity, and a few days ago
Gadderer answered an amended bill.
Mr. F. Waite, a clerk in the IVatchman office, proved
that the manuscript produced was the original copy of the
advertisement published on the 13th January, 1847.
James Martell, of 4, Winchester-place, Southwark4widge-
road,aaid he lived there in January, 1843. Knows Richard
Shires, and recollects his being in the Queen's Prison. He
and his family occupied an apartment in witness's house
three or four years, up to April, 1847, part of which time
he was in prison. For a portion of the time Shires paid
4s. a week of rent, and left indebted to witness in 271. 10s.
Mr. C. T. Lewis, who had bun one of the officers of the
Queen's prison for twenty years, recollects Sidserf coming
there on the 13th of January, 1842. Gaddercr was in the
prima when Sidserf and Shires were there. Gadderer July,
1829; ton the prison at the following dates :—lst July,
17th June, 1833; 29th August, 1835; 30th January,
1837 ; and 29th July, 1843. Shires was in prison from the
14th August, 1838, to 7th Februuesary, 1845.
J• Newdeman, of 19, Q, Edgeware-road
proved that John Miles lives theft street
He occupies, and has,
done so for two years, a room and a small back room over
the yard, for which be pays 4s. 6d. per week rent. His
wife goes out washing.
Mary Cowling was landlady of the house, No. 9, Faille's.
square, sines the beginning of 1847. Mr. Miles hadan office
there for which he paid 12s. 6d. a week. Snell same there
a month or two after. Miles took the office in December,
1946, and began to pay the rent in January following.
Witness got the rent very easily. Gadderer came Cre-
wing them and abs has less him give mossy to Wits