The Express.
London, England, 1853-12-23 00:00:00

PITTIPCNI AT MIN !MI AT •tILDMAT.L.-11/YRI LOAD CAMPIMLL AND

WRATHERVIELL O. CLARE/11:WT(714.-A BILL TRANSACTION.

Mr. Griffiths appeared fur the plaint& The defendant
appeared in person.
This was an action brought against the drawer by one of
the endorsees of a bill of eachange dated the 18th of June,
1853, at two months, for 37f. The defendant pleaded that
he had received no consideration for the bill.
From the state of the pleadings the defendant had to be-
gin, and called
Mr. Nicholas, one of the endorsees, who stated that he
had received the bill from the defendant in the °refinery
way of business, and had handed it to the plaintiff, with
whom he had a running account.
The defendant was then sworn, and stated he had drawn
the bill on a person named Lewington, in psrt payment for
some work be had done fur Lewingten 50, Stamford-
street, Blacisfriare.road. A few days after he had drawn
it he had shown it to Nicholas, who obtained a copy of it,
and raid he would get it cashed by the plaintiff if the
acceptor's reference was satisfactory. On the 30th of June
be saw Lewingten, the ancestor, who said he could get .t
cashed. lie gave it to Lewingtoo, but after some time, ss
he etcetera neither cash aor the hill, he sidled at Leing-
er_

ton's to make inquiries into the matter. Mrs. Lewington •
then Uhl him to call for the bid at 12, Newgate street. He
did and saw a person named Gretorcs, who said he
would give up the bill if the defendant would give him a
guinea. This he had refuted, sii)ing he had nut come to
buy hie own property. The next day he saw Nicholas and
threatened to take out a summons to obtain posseseiln of

the bill, The nest he heard of it was on the 22iid of August,

_ •
when he received a letter signed by the plaintiff, who is a
solicitor in Bisingliall-street, stating that the bill bad been
presented to the acceptor Lewington, and had been
honoured, and unities the defendant paid the amount with
2e. 6d. for the noting, legal proceedings would be com-
menced. The defendant then communicated with the 6o- .
eiety for the Protection of Tradesmen fret Fraud, one of
whose officers obtained further information on the subject.
The letter resquesting payment was signed by the pleint.ff
as attorney for the holder.
Nicholu wss then re-called and examined by Lord
Campbell, who elicited from him that he was a general
commotion agent; that he bad endorsed the bill to the
plaintiff in payment of advances made by him ; that he had
sold the defendant two freehold houses, for which be had
not been paid (this was denied by the defendant) ; that he
(Nicholas) had been bankrupt and insolvent, and that be
had no banker.
The witness was then examined by Mr. Griffiths, in order
to chow that there had been various mosey transactions
between him and the plaintiff.
Lord Campbell requested as a personal favour that some
gentleman at the bat who had heard the case would cross-
examine Nicholas.
Mr. Prentice said he would willingly undertake the de-
fence, as some time ago a trief for the defendant had been
tendered to him, but he had not been able to accept it, and
be was not then aware of the poverty of the defendant.
In answer to some questions pat by Mr. Prentice,
Nicholas said he had endorsed the bill to the plaintiff,
before it became due.
Mr. Child, an officer of the Society for the Protection of
Tradesmen against Fraud, wu then called and said he had
seen Nicholas upon the Corn Exchange and off red him a
sovereign for the bill, and told him they would get into
trouble if it were nut given up. Nicholu replied, " that if
he could get it the plaintiff should have it, for he; wcs not
a bad fellow. lie (witness) said it was a shame, and they
were a set of swindlers. Gretorex informed him that the
bill had been pawned for 51., and that Clarebrougb might
have it fur 21.
Lord Campbell asked what course Mr. Griffiths intended
to take
Mr. Griffiths replied he should advise his client to with-
draw.
Lord Campbell thought the learned counsel had advised
well for his client. Justice had now been done.
The defendant eked if he were obliged to give up the bill
to the other parties who had applied fur it ?
Lord Campbell—lf you have got it keep it. I shall
not interfere, though 1 cannot order it to be delivered to
yom
Verdict for the defendant.

ROBSON V. SIR JOHN MILLET DOTLE AND VI /MRS.-
" RIGGING THE MARKET."

Mr. Crowder, Mr. Holland, and Mr. Fisher appeared for
the plaintiff; Mr. O'Malley represented the defendant
White; Mr. Wood counsel for the defendants Captain
Douglas and Mr. Witham; and Mr. Hodson represented
Sir J. M. Doyle.
The plaintiff in this case is a sharebrolter, and
brought the action against the chairman and some of
thee director of the Ceylon Land Company, to recover
1731. lla. 6d., alleged to be due under the following cir-
cumstances. The company had been formed with a capitol
oh 200,0001. in 11. shares, and the shares not being sold WA
quickly as was desirable, the directors held a meeting in the
beginning of Msrcb, at which they agreed to a resolution
wrodeby they authorised Messrs. Leathern and Tripp to
buy a number not exceeding 200 shares within a cer-
tain time at a premium of 3a. 9d. per share, and to
resell the same when they had an opportunity, so that the
market value might be increased. This resolution was
sighed by all the defendants, except White, who was abroad
at the time, but who was said to have been represented by
Leathern. The plaintiff accordingly purchased the shares
under the direction of Menu. Lenthom and Tripp, and .t
was in respect of his expenses and trouble in this transac-
tion, generally called " rigging the market," that this
action was brought.
An application was made to his lordship by the counsel
for the defendants to amend the record, Sy allowing a plea
to be inserted to the effect that this was an illegal transac-
tion.
Lord Campbell, however, refused to do so.
The learned counsel for the defence then addressed tee
jury on behalt of their respective clients.
Lord Campbell directed the jury to find for the defer.*
dant White, as there was no evidence connecting him with
the resolution.
The jury returned a verdict for the plaintiff, as agairnt
the ether defendants, for the whole amount claimed.
Lord Campbell expressed a hope that alter toe ex-
posure that had taken plan, they should hear no more
of the practice of " rigging the market."
RANICIIN r. eARKINSON.—A. HOTEL BILL.
Mr. Temple, with Mr. Millward, were cousin, for thee
plaintiff; and Mr. J. Browue for the defendant.
The plaintiff in this case is the landlord of the
Railway Hotel, at Staines, and sought to recover
421. 3e. W., the mould of his bill, for the beard
and lodging of the defendant and his two servants,
and for provender supplied to the determent's horses. 'at e
plea was never indebted, except as to 301., which wits paid
into court.
It appeared that, in May last, the defendant, with
one servant and a carriage and two horses, hair gone
to the plaintiff's house, and had remained there until
the lith of June. He had been joined, slur l.'s
arrival, by a second servant. He was at first gcni.4
away Without settling his account ; but he ul'ituately
gave the plaintiff an I 0 U for 401. 16e., and went
away, -leaving one servant behind him, who stayed for
six weeks longer. It was elicited that this man bad
been employed after the defendant's departure by the
plaintiff to driving persons from his house to the camp at
Chobbam, and it was contended that the item for his hoard
ought to be struck out of the bill, the amount of which was
also sought to be reduced by the amours% of a gig which the
ds feadasit was said to have *old to plaintiff.
The jury returned a verdict fur the plaintiff.
ABRASSAYNT e. ItOTIBY.

In this case, which was tried yes,erdsy, and reiulteil in a
verdict fur the plaintiff,
Mr. berjtatt Shee this morning applied to he.. lordship
to stay ezecstiva oa the gruuoti that the verdiLt woe
against the ev.tlenc::. es the plAiatiff was not worthy of
credit.
Lord Campbell said he could not interfere. to
might have found differently it he had been on Ust. 3t.t
this was entirely a question fur their cousitteretivn.

COURT OF COMMON PLEAS.— YEsTERP

•IITINW AT MAI ru::• IN LOINPON:7111a011i CUli JLIT:CE 21LIAVIS

• If • •PICIA. JVILV.
LEWIS V. CLIFTON, asier.-161tEACII OP CONTRACT.

This was an action to tee tier damages kir a bream of
contract, in refusing to allow tut plaintiff to cut and carry
away part of a quantity of timber whim. Le had purchased
by auction of the dtieudaiit. Sir lto..ert Jultmt Criftoo,
Bart. The defindant pleaded, ti,st, that he did not pro-
mise; second, that the plaintiff ass not teas y and willing
to have certain et the trtts tioinbert d ; th.rL, that the de-
fendant permitted teiut to earl ~way the uutba• ; fourth,
that the el lendant was Induced to titter int.. the contract by
+Au fraud at the plaintiff: fifth, t• at the I.l:nntiff had taken
other tri es in mai:lin:V.ou and tun tunny), ni tilt)* !eft; and
matt., that elli- plaintiff had truthluhl.i.ly iciku son carried
an:.-3 a gnat number of tuts.
The Attoiney-General, dlr. Gray, and M-. title, ap-
peared for the plaintiff; and M. lfwrteal,i swat
totp
James, Q.C., and Mr. Mau kit,, wess, e...ahar
~ e lier.
fendam. r- ',' ,nr.2l: .. :
' It atptared, according to the filaidAll's4dlsq Ugs4 fs .4.
°mix r-ineteliant at Tip.ou, in St.alittialiga, Alla tpi is..
dant is a gentleman now about f itectr iceestbott • *id
a few years Ago he iulittittd the ClAfftufit . . Ow
i car:y part 01 1953, whilst Sr. Robert was is. ridic watt
v. t:-...,:,-,L ~,..
cs `i
I, 74 lir -,!
44:1ftpc t -,..
r- p-i.. izl
ti#