The Express.
London, England, 1853-11-14 00:00:00

AN ORONO FON PATMONT OP MONET.

This was a cue tried before the Lord Chief Justice on the
Norfolk circuit, and came before the court on a:point re-
served. It appeared that on the 30th of March last the pri-
soner called at the bank of the Messrs. Alexander and de-
manded 8001., which she alleged had been deposited for her
there by Mr. Itumsey. Tne clerk refused to pay her with-
out an order, when she replied that Mr. Ramsey had told
her an order was not necessary, and went away. On the
following day she returned with an order, in the following
terms: • March 31, 1863. Sirs,—Please pay bearer, Mrs.
Smart, eight hundred pounds.—J. Runny." The clerk
asked her if her name was Smart, and if she had seen Mr.
Rumsey write the order. She replied her name was Smart,
but she had not seen Mr. Rummy write it. She was then
taken into custody, the order being a forgery The pr loner
was indicted " for uttering a forged order for the payment
of money" under the let Wm. IV. c. 66; and the question
for the conaideration of the court was whether the paper
was an order for the payment of money within the statute,
uit was not aldressed to Messrs. Alexander, but only
Sin." _ . .

Mr. Daunt now submitted that the prisoner should not
have been indicted for the forgery of an order for the pay-
ment of stoney under the act of Wm. IV. lie contended
the paper was not an order. In order to be ea, the names
of three parties mull appear on the face of it ; namely, that
of the party professing to have the authority to draw
it—which in this ease was James Ramsey—that of the
payee, which also existed, and the most important of all,
the person to whom the order should be addressed, which
did not exist in this ease. This order, though addressed
on the farm of it, was nothing but a letter to lire.
Smart.

The Loed Chief Byron—No, that doss not appear.
Yoe oussot go further than that there is an omission
of the name of the party by whom it was to be paid.
The Lord Chief Justice.—Suppose I all at Coatta's and
say I will give an order for some money to Mr. Duette,
and I afterwards write an order within; any address, wontici
net that be a good order
Mr. Dascnt—All I can say, my lord, I should con-
sider myself very lucky if I poetise cash for it. (Laughter.)
The Lord Chief Justice—Doyen my it le essential to the
validity of an order that the pencils who are to pay it be
named.

Mr. Daunt submitted it was, and that the tut in this
ease was, whether the instrument, if genuine, would be a
voucher in the hands of a hanker. He would draw their
lordships' attention to the ease of the " King v. Clinch," in
which it was held that in order to bring the case within the
act there must be ail the ingredients to make the thing an
order.

The Lord Chief Justice—The court decided in that ease
that it did not appear in the indictment to be en order, and
that was all the length they went.
Mr. Desalt proceeded to urge that a paper of this vague
and general character could not be described as an order,
which must be a clear direction to somebody having the
control xi the money or goods belonging to another, and
signed or purporting to be signed by that person, and in the
cue of a banker's cheque the person paying th• order must
have the benefit of ,the full compliance with the demand,
and lastly that it must be in such a shape that it would be •
complete answer on the part of the banker to any future
demand for that item in the account by the drawer.
Mr.Worledge, in'eupport of the sonviction, contended that
the order was a good one.
The Lord Chief Justice said the question was simply one
whether the omission of the words " Messrs. Alexander "
prevented the paper being an order. All the cues showed
that this was not necessary, and in his opinion the order was
a good one within the meaning of the act.
The other learned judges concurred.
Conviction affirmed.

THE (WEER V. TODDEN.-A JURY'S VERDICT.

This wes a case tried at the Olsmorganshire Sessions.
On the verdict being delivered, one of the jury wee sup-
posed to have said ' not guilty," and the priooner was dig•
charged, upon which the other jurors said the verdict
should have been "guilty:' The prisoner was then re-
placed in the dock, and a verdict of guilty was recorded.
Mr. Ottfard, on behalf of the prisoner, contended that
the verdict of " not guilty " having been once recorded,
the prisoner should have been discharged.
The Lord Chief Baron said the court were unanimously
of opinion that the conviction was right. Nothing had
been done more than wan ordinarily done in all the trans-
actions of lit!, namely, a mistake was corrected at the most
convenient time. and on the spot.
Conviction affirmed.

COURT OF BANKRUFTCY.—SATuaDAT.
'MEI Ng. eOIIIIMERNINI MSS.
IN it FFFFF AND 17/71.

This was the certificate meeting in the ease of Edward
Cowper Fyffe and Ebeneser Watben Fyffe, merchants, of
Howford-buildinprt, Fenchurch-street. The adjudication
took place in February, 1852 ; the interval which has
elapsed is owing to the principal transactions of the bankrupts
being with Caleura, where also they traded in partnership
with Edward Fyffe, jun. The accounts extend from the
let of January, 1840, to the date of the failure, and show a
large amount of liability. The amount due to unsecured '1
creditors is 14,1169/., to those holding security 31,9771.,
liabilities 7,0.31. The assets have yielded a dividend of g
in the pound, and a further dividend is expected. The
profile were stated at 9.1831., expenses 6,6131., losses
23,4941., partneri drawings 2,2671.
Mr. Linklater supported ; Mr. Lawrence appeared for •
creditor, who had given notice of opposition ; and Mr.
Rock for the assignees.
Mr. Linklater stated that all opposition had been with-
drawn. The bankruptcy had occurred nearly two years
ago; and the creditors were willing that the bankrupts
ahouid receive certificates of the third clam, higher than
which they did not ask.
Elia Honour granted hamscliata certificates of the third
M.