The Express.
London, England, 1849-08-16 00:00:00

ASSIZE INTELLIGENCE.

HOME CIRCUIT.
CROYDON, AVOUBT 14.
Buou TRY Low CSR? BAUM AND firscur Ram
HARRIS AND OTHERS v. COLONRL Fox, 31. P.—BILL
TRANSACTIONS.

TMs was an action to recover from the defendant a very
large sum of money upon some bills of ixchanne drawn b
him. Berjeant Channell, B,vjeant Sbee, and Mr. Peacock
were for the plaintiffs; Mr. M. Chambers and Mr. Bramwell
were for the defendant.
The plaintiffs in the action, it appeared, were the partners
in the Plymouth Naval Bank. The pleas did not disclose
any substantial ground of defence, except that there had not
been due notice of dishonour.
The jury in thin cue returned a verdict x the plaintiffs.
The Chief Baron inquired what amount the plaintiffs went
for ?
Serieut Channell said the sum total of the bills was
8,7881. A verdict wan accordingly recorded fir Hilt amount.
Aprlication having been made for immcdiate judgment,
Mr. Chambers said he trusted the court would not allow
immediate judgment. He was instructed that for these bills
and others, to a very luge amount, not more than 2,0001.
had been given, and a bill in Chancery had been filed in
reference to the whole transaction.
After a short reply to the statement of Mr. Chambers by
Serjeat.t Channell, the Chief Baran said he should not grant
immediate execution.

hiatus e. Fox, Eect.
This was another &aims by the same plaintiffs against Mr.
George Sackvilie Lane Fox, the eon of the former defendant,
to recover the amount of sixteen bills of exchange, some of
which purported to be drawn by the colonel and accepted by
his son, others to have been drawn by Leon Solomon and
accepted by the defendant, and the wbole of which bore the
endorsements of Solomon and a person named Bejamin
Joseph, and also to have been endorsed by the latter to the
plaintiff's bank.
Mr. Chambers said the defendant in this ease was an ex-
tremely young man, en officer in the Royal Horse Guards,
and it happened in an evil day that he became connected
with Joseph and Solomon, and having soma expectations, it
appeared that Solomon resolved to make a terrific example
of him, His learned friend, Mr. Peacock, had gone through
the pleadings very elaborately, but he had omitted altoge-
ther to tell the jury what was the amount of the bills which
were the subjects of the present action. He would, how-
ever, tell them; and the fact was that, whereas the defend-
ast, a cornet in the Royal Horse Guards, had cnly come of
ego in tho beginning of the oresent year, the total
amount of these bills for which he was now sued,
was 14,7201., and, as he was instructed, and hoped he should
be able to prove, not more than 2,0001. had been advanced
upon them. His instructions were that this money had
been advanced while the defendant was under age, and the
bias had been obtained from hiss upon the representation that
a larger sum should be advanced, but he had never received
one farthing, and be was now called upon, under these
circumstances, to pay the large sum of money he had man.
tinned. He begged the jury to consider who were the plain-
tiffs in the present action. They were described as the pro-
prietors of the Naval Bank at Plymouth, and in
their presence he did not shrink from expressing
his opinion that it was perfectly clear they must
have known that this was not an honest mercan-
tile transaction, and he felt some confidence that the jury
would entertain a similar opinion. He would ask them
whether they considered that a bank of respectability would
have discounted the acceptances of a cornet in the Horse
Guards, who had only just come of age, to the amount of
14,0001., without making some inquiry. He felt certain they
would agree with him that no respectable bankers would
have discounted such bills, or if they had done so, they would
have shown clear and satisfactory reasons for such a proceed- ,
ing, and would at all events have produced evidence to show
that they were no parties to any fraud. His learned friend
had not called Leon Soloman, although they had heard he
was in court; but he should do so, and notwithstanding his
being a hostile witness, yet as he was aware that a ball in
Chancery had been filed, and as he should now inform him in
addition that a short-baud writer was engaged who would
take down every answer he gave, he believed he should be
able to get some truth out of him. Ilse learned counsel
again remarked upon the conduct of the Naval Bank, and
said he was assured that every respectable banking firm
woull shrink from the suspicion of being connected with
any dishonest transaction, and would feel it their duty to
produce their books and their clerks to clear themselves ;
hut here nothing of the sort had been done, and there was
not the slightest evidence of the plaintiffs ever having given
any consideration for these bills.
The learned counsel then called Leon Salomon. The
witness got into the witness-box, but declined to be sworn
to give evidence until he was paid his expenses.
The Chief Baron inquired who he was Buhl:lensed by He
readied, by the defendant.
The Chief Baron—Then be must pay your expenses, or
else I cannot compel you to give evidence.
Some discussion took place as to the amount that was to
be paid, and at length a sovereign was given to the witness
and he was sworn.
He was then examined by Mr. Chambers. He said—l
am a capitalist, and I am in the habit of advancing money to
gentlemen for their accommodation. I live in Maddox-
street, and carry on my bunnies there. I was formerly a
capitalist at Plymouth. It is my custom to travel about to
different parts of England to supply the officers of the army
with plate and jewellery and money.
Mr. 'Chambers—Then you are in the habit of going to
the places where the cavalry regiments are stationed for the
pumme of lending money to the officers ?
Witness—Yes ; but I em not particular whether they are
cavalry or infantry officers. (A laugh.)
Examination continued—l have kept a banking account
with the plaintiffs for 12 years. I also bank with the Loudon
ant! Westminster and Sir John Lubbock's bank. I have
known the young gentleman who is the defendant in this
action for two years. He is a cornet in the Blues, and he
was not of age when I first did holiness with his. I ad-
vanced him a small amount before he was of age. I
cannot say how much. it might have been 5001. or a
little more. I cannot recollect if it was 1,0001. He
owed me money when he came of axe, but it is impos-
sible forme to recollect the amount. It was not 5,0001. It
was 1,0001. ; but I cannot recollect if it was 2,0001. My
name is upon all the bills, and their amount is nearly
15,0001. Some of the bills were accepted at my house, and
others at the Horse Guards, where the defendant was on
duty. The id: bills for 7,500 i. were all accepted at one time.
At this stage of the ruse, it being seven o'clock, the further
examination of the whams was postponed.
Atrourr lb.
BAR= el. Fox. - - .

The above trial was eeweaed this awning, when the wit-
ness Lion Solomon was again called and farther examined
by Mr. Chambers. Ile said; I cannot recollect whether

these bills for 7,5001. were accepted at the Horse Guards or
army house. I have so many similar •ransactious that I
eannet recoliect than all. When 1 took them the defeielant
owed toe money. It was not 10,d00/. that Le owed me, but
he did owe me more than 4,1001. Ile owed the ne ney
jointly with his father, Colonel Fox. I canntt say how r..urh
to owed cue whin tie came of see. I swear that when he
renewed any hills I always give him the old ones. When he
gave me thee. bills I was to have advanced some m ,re
money, but I cannot recollect how much.
Mr. Chambers—Surely you can tell us how much more
money you were to give fur these bills for 7,6001. ?
Witness—l really cannot recollect. I daresay 1 gave him
eases money. I will swear I did give Lim some. I cannot
recollect whether it was 1001. or 1,0001. My books wou:d
leave enabled me to speak correctly to that transaction.
The Chief Baron inquired if the witness had been wh-
in-need to produce his books?
Mr, Chambers said unforturately he had not.
Examined a continued—l know I gave the defendant
several hundred pounds on this ceession.
Mr. Chambera—Did you make any inquiries respecting
the circumstances under which all there bills had been drawn
by the father and accepted by the son?
Witness —I daresay I did.
Mr. Chambers.—And were you not aware that they were
accommodation bills?
Witness.-1 dire say they were.
Examination continued.—l sent all the bills to my father-
in-law, Abraham Joseph, at Plymouth. Joseph and I are
not partners, but we do business toeether in the discount
way. The bill, were all sent to the Naval Bank, and Jeaeph
gave me some money, and I also had some from the bank.
The bark paid the lull value for the bills, less the discount.
They gave me credit for all the bills that were en-
dorsed by me ; and Joseph had credit fer those which
be endorsed. I cannot tell how much money came
to my share. 1 have no recollection of the nature
of the settlement with Joseph. I have no letters nor
cheques ref irriog to the transaction. Some letters paned
between us upon the subject. but I do not know whether
they are destroyed or not. The way in which we do burl
ness is, that I send Joseph all the bills I receive, and he hives
half: the amount ; and, when' they are paid into the
!shied Bank, credit is given us fur the amount of the bills less
the discount. We usually don ie the profit upon every
transaction, but I cannot say how much Joseph bad fur hes
share of these bills. I swear that the back placed the fu'l
amount, less the discount, to my credit. I don't know how
much discount they charged. That depends upon circum-
stances. I will swear it was rot 60 per cent. (Two hello
for 2001. each, drawn on the 2nd of April, at one month,
date were here shown to the witness.) He said, I die-
counted these two hills for the defendant, and gave him
1001. in cash and 3001. worth of jewellery for them. These
bills were discounted for me by the bank, and at that
time they held the defendant's dishonoured acceptances
for 3,7001.
Mr. Chambers—Did not the bath make any inquiries
with regard to these two additional bills when to large an
amount of dishonoured acceptances wore already in their
hands ?
Witness—they made no inquiry of me. In continuation
he said thic he paid in the two 2001. bills of the d-fendaot'e
with two of Colonel Foes acceptances for 5001. each, and he
produced his banker's book to show that credit had been
given him for 1,3911 15s. on account of these hills, SI. 6e.
only having been, as it appeared, deducted for interest.
The witness was pressed a good deal upon the subject of
the transactions with the bank, but ho persisted in the
statement that the plaintiffs had given full Talus for the bias.
Mr. Chambers asked the witness whether he had ever got
any bills discounted by his Loudon bankers.
The witness said he would rather not answer the question.
The Chief Baron asked Mr. Chamber, if he could carry
the case any farther ?
Mr. Chambers replied that he was afraid he could not.
The Chief Baron then addressed the jury, and !aid
that the formal evidence which had been given
on the previous day entitled the plaintiffs to a
verdict ; but the defendant had endeavour. d to make
out the pleas he relied upon by calling Leon Solo-
mon. There was no doubt that _he was a hostile

witness, hut the defendant was entitled to call hint, and it
was to be regretted that be had also not been subs united t
produce his books, the contents of which, he said, would
have enabled him to speak more clearly with regard to the
matter. It was impossible not to see what was the nature of
the transaction between the defendant and some of the
harties ; but the plaintiffs sued as hankers and bowl fide
ollers of the bills, and upon the evidence that bad b: en ad-
duced they were in law entitled to a verdict.
At the same time he felt it his duty to state
that it was not customary for respectable banking
firms—and there was nothing before him to lead to
a conclusion that this bask was other than respectable—to
bring actions in this manner upon their customers' bills, and
it certainly was the habit of the eminent Lontion bankers to
return such hills when they were dishonoured to the parties
from whom they received them, and they never brought ac-
tions upon them except under particular circumstances. He
must therefore admit that he concurred with most of the
observati.ms that had been made by Mr. Chambers
upon this point, and he would aad that if re-
spectable parties did not lend their assistance in
this manner,' persons would not be able to scramble
through dishonest transactions so easily as they often
did by such means. He did not impute to the Naval
Bank at Piymouth that they had dune so on the present
occasion, but he did hope the present proceedings would be
a caution to them, for upon 1,011143 future occasion they might
meet with a jury who wculd take a very unfavourable view
of their conduct. His lordship concluded by stating that it
was highly important to the mercantile community that the
law regarding bills of exchange should be strictly enforced,
notwithstanding that some unfortunate persons who had been
swindled out of their acceptance might occasionally be the
sufferers, and he felt it his duty, therefore, in this caw to
tell them that in law the plaintiffs were entitled I. a
verdict.
The jury, after consulting a short time, asked his lord-
ship if they were to understand that they were bound to
return a verdict for the plaintiffs ?
The Chief Baron said he thonght they were. The
' plaintiffs had done all that the law regarding bills of ex-
change required of them, by proving the signatures of the
endorsers and acceptors, and it was then the duty of the
defendant to impeach the instruments, and the jury must
understand that it was not only necessary for him to show
that the bills had been fraudulently dealt with, but he must
also show that the plaintiffs were cognizant of it, and he
must impeach the hills in their ban's. A good deal, no
doubt, had been proved in the case which told its own story,
but he could not see anything to impeach the title of the
plaintiffs, and they were therefore by law entitled to re-
cover.

The jury, after a abort con%ultation, said they were sorry
that, under the direction of his lordship, they had no power
to return any other verdict than one for the plaintiff.
A verdict was then recorded for 14,4701., the jury refusing
to give any interest far the period the bilk had b.= over-
due.