The Express.
London, England, 1851-06-28 00:00:00

AYES.

Adair. IL A. W. Ferguson, iiiionsi Pilkinittnn, lames
Ayßooby, Henry A. Foley, John H. H. port g, Neon.
Aleock, 1 homaa F. rite:, Matthew Rawdon, Cul.
Austen T. C. rotten., C. Rice, toward It.
Arm:stung, Slr A. French, F. 111-11, Ilymy
Baines, lion. M. T. Lirahano, lion, bit J. Russell, Lord John
Baring, lion. Sir F. T. Or.umer, T. C. linwsil, Fr. C. 11.
Ban, Jlrhsel T. Hamner, Sir John Nitro 4, George P.
Bell, Jaeoh Ilan., Richard Ileyrionr, lord
Betkeiey, Admiral /Ism., Ala mender Blaney, Robert A.
Bernal. Ralph Hate.% ilun. John ambh, Joha A.
Bethel!, Moined liaises, Benjamin &inertia', Itt. lion.
Binh. Sir T. B. Ileaism, Thomas H. Sir Woo. 'I.
Hlewitt, R. J. Heniage, O. H. W. Spearman, lirmy I.
Brucklehurst, John Hubhouse, T. B. Stantoh, woo,. It.
Brockman, E. IL Ilumphery, Mr. Ald. Tsnered, Henry W.
Brotberton, Joseph Hutt, ,A Blum Thirloseise, K ilph A.
Brawn, Wiliam Jsykeon, M Rhein Thompson, Colonel
Charlie, W. J. Kershaw, James Vetney, Or lisrry
Clay, Joints Lobouehere. lion. H. Viihirs, Hs n. Chow
Clay, :fir W. LORI/. G. (7. Wakley, Thomas
Cockburn, Sir A. Lockhart, A. E. Watkins, Col. Lloyd
Collins, William Lushiticton Charles Wawn, John T.
Cowper. Ho. W. 0. M'Gregor, RAW Weaw.Prasser. F. R.
Craig, Sir W. G. Mg acurt, Sir John %Tricia, Brodie WU
Crowder, R. It. Mahon, The O.C. Williams, William
Ihtshamo ..BorGeo. H. Matheson, Col. Wiiiyams, liemphr7
Dawes, F.lward Mishirsta, Ertl of Witson, James
Dunesn, litOrfff Murphy. F. Slack Wood, Kt. lin. Sir C.
Dund is, Admiral O'Cuoiyeil, M. J. Woad, Mr Mikis. P.
Irundsa, Main. Sir D. Oswald, Alesandee Wysill, Marmaduka
Ellis, Juhn listen, air JOl/12
Elliot, lin. John E. Page t, Lord C. 711V./1111.
Evans, William Park( r, John Hater, lion. W. H.
Fergus, John Perl.o,llalidat 11111, Lord Marcus

NOES.
Arbuthnott, lion. U. Furrer, J.l.e, Mon, Sir Henry
Arrhdail, Captain M. Moray, 1140. Henry Moody, Charles A.
Ark wright, George Ylo)er,Jo-o Horgan, Occur:us
&tithe, 11. J. YOftern. '‘‘llilBlll Morris, David
Baird, Janie* Fox. Saci.i.le W. L. alullungs, Joseph Re.
Baleuck, Ir. IL Freirdlett, Juno, W. IC ,piss. Joseph.
Baldwin, C. B. Cielw..y, Viscount Ne.... 1, John
li.inkes, Ci? rge Gilpin, C. keel Newdegstr, C. N.
Barrow, William H. Owed ,n, Admiral thpaul.ton, Lord
Bennett, Philip GreonalL Cipbett Packs, Charles W.
I.entinek, Lord li. Grogan, Edward Pskingion, Sir J.
lirrseley, C. I. G. Gwyn, Howe/ Plikfltl, noliert
I.l..lontore, itiehard MIRO, Sir Henry Pluni?tro, J. hn P.
Blundiord. sl %also( Hslewelt. ErhoundG. I'rirer, Bleb:lrd
MA:yr, Thainas W. I leer), Thomas I% Pugh, David
Bowles, Admiral Hamilton, rico. A. Reid, Cplonel
noyd, John Hamilton, I. ml C. Richsuds, Hie/ord
13n-c^, Mu-grave I larit4, Hon. Capt. Busir.:,t, Copt..in
tiro:lley, bray Itra.d, Lours S.u.d.ri,Ge.irge
Broads-04d, llrnry Henley, Jos. %Vanier Scan% Iln. Prunes
Brooke, slr A. B. !(wrier, Hon. J. C. ti. :sham, Vi-elint
Lunbory, 'Anna/nil. littlysrd, Robot C. Smyth, John G.
Burghley, Lord llioiyird, T. lt. Snoillett, Air:ander
Campbell, Sic A. L llodesn, W. N. Stsion.r, Ilierard
I:ht....Smith Ilurr.by, John SUR -t.l, .lupuctits
Christopher, It. A. Hothoni, lord Stanley, Hon. E... 1.
Clive. 11. B. Hushes, We,. B. Stephen...l, Robot
Coh4old. John C. Inglis, sl • 4. 11. Stuart, Henry
.. •

Compton, IL C. Jernlyn. F.arl Stuart. John.
Corry. lion. 11. 1.. Jolitre, So W. G. LI. Tay La, Thomov E.
Cranford. It. W. Joner, C.n.tain Tot:aim-T. Sir Fred.
Calif.', William Knightly', sir C. Thoritill, George
Nevins LA.iv.d A. S. Lacy, Henry Clinks Tolima .the, John
Down. Benjamin Leith, George C. Tit r, Fir i -corgi,
thol, Juno W. Lenrox, Lord A. Vivian, John E.
Waif, George Leon x, Lord 11. Vise, IL. H. It. 11.
Douro, Mai qui, of Luidway, !tn. Cot. I% alpii.e, tip neer H.
Drummond, Henry Locknart, William Wab.h., So .1,41 If.
Ducknorth,Sir J.T.B. Long. Walter Whit/T.lde, Janus
Putter:lndic, tin. A. top-a, Sir lis'ph Wgram, Lorin, T.
Buncombe, lion. 0. Lovraber, henry Willoughby. Sir 11.
Duneult, /oho Lygon, lion. tiemensl %Yodel-tome. Edmond
Dunna, litorge Mackie, John Wynn, 11. W. W.
Du Pre, C.G. IV...en. Witco, sir Ed. 1E1.1..10.
bigartis. Henry Matinee:l, f. P. Bereatotil, Willi int
Y.Yelln, %Plias J. Maxwill, Iln. J. I'. illacketia,e, 'W. Y.

CIAO.* 1, line 21.—Amen town prorwed, to bare out the words
"the hue brad, rm. ript." laut,tion That tlt woods pro-
peed to be lets out et.ud putt of we Tue Iluum rbled ;
Ayes, 109; Note, IhS.
•

AYES.

Adair, IL A. S. Prl. y. J bu 11. 11. Palmerston, ':.count
Airiamby, henry A. Folitio, Matthew Parker, John
Alcor., I h moo FOrte.Ctle, I. Pilkington. James
Mute', I bomaa C. Fr. ettun, Col. It wed oh Coloncl
Arms:roug, slr A. Ire., h, Fit,trephen Itice i. It.
Balms, Rt. llon.M. T. Utah an, Rt. lion. Sir Rich, henry
Baring, lion. elr F. T. Jar., Itwicl y, sir John
Haw, Michael T. °ranger, T. C. Russel., hood John
Bell, Jacob Grentell, U. P. llowell, P. C. 11.
Berkeley, Admiral Grey, kta ph W. Scroee, G. P.
Bernal, Ralph Ilatnier, So Jahn Seymour, Lord
Brthell, Richard Ilardcaale, Joseph A. Shaft", !Lobe. tD.
Itireb, Sir Thomas 11. Minis, Richard Sheridan, Itichad B.
Itewnt, Reg:Lail J. °ratio. Alexander tilaney, R. A.
Brockl.buto, Julia Mitchell, Rt. lion. J. Smith, Ith • Ilon R. V.
.—_,.. . ,_ .

Brockman, L. D. limns, Benj.. in Smith, John A.
Isneherion, Jma els I lendlant. lin:moils E. Soentrailie,lln.Sir %V.
Brown, W. lierle.W. U. U. W. Bp. arm.. Ilene, J.
Chaplin, W. J. IlubhoLee, Tito... B. staid., W. 11.
Clay. J.inie. lloi limn, ttol.rt Tancred. 11. W.
Clay, air William ilumphery, Mr. Ala. Thialuarine, Itslph A.
Cott non, SBA. J. E. Hut', William Tlionmeon, Col.
Collin!, W Min a J.ich'oe, Willi.= Verne), Sir I iarry
Cowper, lion W. P. Kerelanw, in es Viii. ra, lion. C.
Craig, •itW. G. Labouenere, lion. U. Wakley, ThORIUS
C-awforel, R. W. Lew,, li.o. C. Watkins, Colonel L.
Crowder, liich,ril B. Mackinnon, W. A. Wane, John T.
IMM..aI, Sir G. U. 11Plate/nr, John WrWrit.Proraer, Y. B.
I kiwis 1...1w..r.1 M.'Llgeart, Sir John V.:dim; B. 511. his
DAwnon, lion. T. V. 11Lili.m, The lr, nn. tk linanni, William
lionean, Viocti..nt Mathe.on Colonel Wil•on, Janice
InoLnu, U....rae MmApi, Ito K. M.L. Wuml, Bt. Iln. Sir C.
Media, Admiral Mulginr.., Marl of Wood, Sir W. P.
Liimaruslß.ll.ol.Sir D. Murphr, Franck B. Wyeill, Marinnduke
Elliot, Its. John L. O'Cmineil, M. John
Fergus, John Ord, %doom TFLI.I.Ien•
het gumn, Colonel Owen, sir Jahn Ilnyter. Kt lion. W.
Florin:ark, !Jou. J. Pogo, Lord C. Hill, Lord Marcus

OF THE PRIVY
COUNCIL.—YurrzeDAT.
lINPOII2 Tfa CUMCILLOD OF TM Dtcur er LAPCM77I. TES JUDOS
OF TM ADMIALTI CoMT, TM Milan lion. I I. L Zia", MD
_TIM leas Cum, Lam. _

JUDICIAL

WillrODON AND CYASS T. BILLINCIRCINT.—JCDOIIIINT.
The Attorney-General, Dr. Harding, and Dr. Hayford,
appeared for the appellants; Dr. Addama and Dr. Twin
re resented the respondent.
It appeared that the testatrix in this case, Elisabeth
Whitworth, spinster, died on the 16th day of September,
1849, at Exeter. She made her will on the previous day.
She bequeathed the whole of her property to the
appellants in this case, and she appointed Mr. Jo-
seph Whydden her sole executor. The will was drawn
by Mr. Toby, solicitor, Exeter, by whom, and by
the nurse who attended the testatrix, it was attested.
These were the only witnesses which were examined in
the Prerogative Court. The learned judge in the court be-
low pronounced against the validity of the will, upon the
ground that the evidence of the capacity of testatrix, at
the time of the execution of the wiU, fell short of what was
legally requisite under the circumstances of the case. Mrs.
Sarah Chase, one of the appellants, intervened, and ten-
dered an allegation, but its admission was opposed on be-
half of the respondent. From this decision the appellant,
Joseph Whyddon, appealed. The first question which
came before the council was, whether the intervener
or the original appellant had, under the peculiar
circumstances of the case, the right to bring forward
by plea and proof additional evidence in support of the will.
The council decided the preliminary point an the negative,
and the ease then proceeded upon is merits. The decease)
lady was at the time of her death a resident in the house of
Mr. Whydclon, who, it appeared, was employed in a solici-
tor's office in Exeter. The testatrix died suddenly of an
attack of the cholera. The will excluded the relatives of
the te.tatris from all participation in the property except a
direction that the property of her deceased father should
be devised according to the provisions of his will.
The question in the present instance was whether
or not the execution of the will was the act of a competent
testatrix. The learned judge in the court below was of
opinion that the proof was inadequate to sustain the act,
anti he pronounced against the validity of the will on the
ground that it was not proved that the deceased was of suf-
ficient capacity to give effect to an instrument of that de-
scription.
It was contended on behalf of the appellant that the evi-
dence sufficiently established the capacity of the testatrix
and the due execution of the will.

-.„..
The Council eJfinned the judgment of the court below,
with wets.

EQUITY COURTS.-YESTERDAY.
Bar.* Loop Cawcworna (Vtat CIANC.UAR)*

IN RE THE CRIEWTOW, FOREST or DEAN AND 6Lot:-
CI:67ER JUNCTION RAILWAY COMPANY.-A MOTION TO
DISCHARGE AN OILLEIL FOR WINDINO-CE NEILS NOT BE
ADVERTI,Eu.
. .

Mr. Stuart and Mr. Terrell moved to discharge an order
made in January, 18.1, fur winding-up the affairs of the
above company under the Winding-up Act.
The motion wu opposed by Mr. liethell and Mr. Glasse,
on the ground that this application ought to have been ad-
vertised in the public newspapers, in pursuance of the pro-
visions of an act passed in 1849, which directed that when
any petition for the dissolution ur winding-up of a company
should have been presented, every subsequent petition re-
lating to the affairs of the company shuuld he addressed to
and be marked for the same court, and should be advertised
once in two daily newspapers at least seven days before the
hearing thereof.
lord tranworth decided that the chase iL the above act
referred only to every subsequent petition or dissolution or
winding-up, and it was not necessary that a motion to dis-
charge an order for winding-up should be advertised.
The further hearing of the case was postponed.

COURT OF EXCIIEQUER. --E:4TERDAY.
dirrilwe 1:1 I.l.aNco.—New TRIAL NEE',
Coe v. PLATE.—FACTOUY Acr.

Mr. Hugh Hill resumed his argument in support of the
rule which had been granted in this case to arrest the judg-
ment. The action was on the case to recover compensation
for injuries received by the plaintiff, in consequence of the
unprotected condition of the shaft of the defendant's mill,
in which she had been and was at the time employed, as a
substitute fur one of the regular hands. It was uuw con-
tended—lest, that the defendant was not liable, as the duty
cast on him as a millowner by the Factory Acts, to provide
proper fences fur the machinery, was limited to those classes
for whose protection the nets were passed—namely, children
or young persons under 16, within neither of which deno-
minations did the plaintiff fall. But for the statute law
this action could not have been sustained, and it was, there.
fore, nucessary to see that the declaration disclosed a ground
of action under the statute. Besides this, there was another
objection to the declaration, which ought to have contained
an allegation that at the time the injury was sustained
and the breach of duty arose the machinery was a work for
the purposes of currying on the businessuf the mill. It would
clearly be nu breach of duty under these statutes if the fences
were not kept un the machinery during the hours when the
mill was not at work, or while the engine WAS undergoing
repairs, and yet an accident might happen to persons in-
cautiously going too near to the machinery at such times,
for which the defendant could not possibly be made rope*.
Bible under the act. This declaration, however, might
apply to such a ease, and that being so it was clearly bad.
The learned gentleman was stopped by an intimation from
The Court, which expressed its adoption of the last ob-
jmtion to the declaration. No doubt the action depended
entirely on the statutes, and, in order to maintain it, the
plaintiff must bring the defendant clearly and technically
within its provisions. The declaration ought to have con-
tained such an allegation as would show that such a breach
of duty hail been Committed as was contemplated by the
legislature. The first objection could not be sustained, fur
the statute created a plain duty to fence off the machinery,
and, when that was neglected, the millowners' liability
arose, and it did not matter to what class of persons the
party injured might belong. At the same time, if the in-
jury an.isi: at a time when the mill was not at work for the
purposes of business no liability ensued, for the act only
meant to compel the millowner to fence off the machinery
when so at work. Under these circumstances the declara-
tion ought to disclose a state of things when the duty would
arise, and as this was deficient in that respect the judgment
must he arrested.
Judgment arrested.
1)oa r. _

This was an action of ejectment, on the trial of which, at
Turk, before Mr. Baron Platt, it appeared that the lessor of
the plaintiff was a tenant, in common with many other par-
ties, the 'iambi: of whom lie left uncertain by his evidence.
Ilia lordship thought, that having given proof of a title to
some portion of the estate, the plaintiff was entitled to a
general verdict if the defendant could not show a better
title, and, accordingly, the verdict was so entered, subject
to a motion to enter it for the defendant.
Mr. Watson and Mr. Warren appeared for the lessor of
the plaintiff, and Mr. Atherton for the defendant.
Mr. Baron Parke and Mr. Baron Alderson expressed
their opinion to be that the plaintiff ought to recover fur
only as much as be could prove, and that being clearly only
entitled to a part if he retained the general verdict, the
sheriff would give him a writ of possession under it of the
whole, and the defendant might be prejudiced thereby as
regarded the other parties. luder all the circumstances of
the CAse their lordships thought that the CAx might be sent
down for a new trial, when the plaintiff ought to prove dis-
tinctly the exact amount of his interest.
Mr. Baron l'latt retained the opinion formed by him at
the trial,'.though with diffidence. As the rest of the court
thought there ought to be a uew trial, it was perhaps the
best result of the case.
Rule absolutely accordingly.
llr PRIVIIIIIMORI PA& Bases WAIT= AND MIDDLIMA SrSCIAL
Juana.

BELLAMY AND ANOTHER ;:11711110111BANIES ANL OTLIZEIS.
PAYMENT or CHEMED'.
This action was resumed yesterday morning, and eon-
eluded. The declaration stated that the plaintiffs haring
drawn a cheque on the defendants in favour of one Edward
Bryant Garry, or bearer, fur 2,5061. 175., according to the i
custom and usage of bankers crossed it " to the Batik of
England, to the account of the Accountant-General ;"
whereupon it became and was the duty of the defendants,
as bankers of the plaintiffs, not to pay such cheque except
into and through the hands of the Bank of England. There
was also another count on which no question turned and the
usual money counts. To the first special count the
defendants pleaded that there was no such custom or usage
as alleged therein, and payment to the money counts.
The plaintiffs were both professional men, one being a re-
tired solicitor, and the other a barrister; were the trustees
of the marriage settlement of the Rev. Mr. Franks, who
died in 1834, leaving issue after a commission of lunacy had
been issued against him. Under the settlement the younger
children were entitled to certain policies effected on their
father's life to the extent of nearly 11,000!., which was not
realised until 1843, when proceedings arose in Chancery,
wherein Mr. Garry, then a respectable solicitor, repre,
eented the younger branches of the family. In the month
of June, 1843, it became necessary for the trustees, under
an order of the Court of Chancery, to pay the sum of
2,59031. 17s. into the hands of the Accountant-General, and I
Mr. Gluey accordingly drew • cheque fur that sum on the
defeueLints, with whom the plaintiffs had opened an ac-
count a few days before. The plaintiffs being desirous of
insuring the cheque, Mr. Bellamy added the words
" generalrnenapoid costs account" to the body, and both
having the cheque, Mr. Bellamy crossed it " to the
Bank o England, for the account of the Accountant-
General." It was then handed to Mr. Gorey, who erased
the crossing, and added the name of " Gosling and C 0.," I
his private bankers, to whom he paid it. The cheque was
paid duly by Messrs. Coutts and Co., the defendants, and tl
fur some time it was thought "all r4ht," but Mr. Gorey
on being pressed for the Accountant-General's certificate
for the payment, forged it, and being discovered was tried
and convicted of that offence. The following witnesses
were called in support of the plaintiffs' case.
Mr. Tristan, a solicitor, proved having received a letter
from Mr. Bellamy, at Brighton. enclosing the cheque in
question on the 24th of June 1845. It was accompanied'
with another cheque from Mr. Bellamy for 410!, on the de-
fendants for Mr. Garey's costs. Does not remember whe-
ther the latter cheque was crossed " Gosling and Co ," is
in Oarey's writing. Ile was convicted for forgery. He
represented the younger branches of the family of the Rev.
Mr. Franks.
Mr. George Strange a cashier in Gosling and Company's.
proved that Mr. Stranghan, since dead, presented the
cheque in question, and one for a smaller amount drawn in
favour of Gorey by the plaintiffs to the defendants. He

said they were paid into our bank by Glarey. I saw no dif-
ficulty shoat this cheque.
Cress-erzainined.— I consult my principals sometimes
whoa I pay double crossed cheques. Some are paid and
some are refused according to the accounts given by the
parts. This explains itself. I frequently get such cheques.
When the parties are respectable we pay without hesitation.
I should not have paid this, as it is for so large a sum, with-
out
inq.
Mr.
Bevan, of the firm of Barclay, Bevan, and Co., de-
posed that he had been connected with that bank for 20
years. The rule for the clerks was to refuse to pay double
crossed cheques, and never to pay them without reference
to the partners. The rule is stronger is the case of a large
cheque like this. I consider the lint crossing is a special one.
Cross-examined.—l am aware that the Accourit.xist:Geleral

is always paid in cash. We had an account with the Bank
of England. Payments to the Accountant-General are
always in cash. I don't know the process of payment.
I always understood the rule to be general.
Mr. Joseph Tapp, chief clerk of the London and West-
minster Bank, proved that the London banks invariably
refuse to paykdoublesrossed cheques. Our instruction to
cashiers is to refuse to pav them even when presented by
I bankers. It makes no difference whether they are pee-
sented by bankers or by a private individual.
Cross-examined.--We refuss to pay unless some reason is
given by the party presenting the chequq. There are cases
an which the cashier will consult the principal.
tie-examined.—Where the payer removes his account
from the bankers whose name was crossed would be deemed
a satisfactory reason.
Mr. Kirby, cashier to Messrs. Jones Loyd and Co. said
they had no precise rule with reference to double crossed
cheques. They sometimes paid them, when the parties pee-
muting them gave satisfactory explanations. Until they
received such explanations they refused to pay. He cer-
tainly should not have paid the cheque in question without
inquiry or reference to his principal.
Cross-examined.—l think if proper explanations were
given, the cheque would have been paid. Since this ac-
tion our attention has been drawn to the subject of
crossed cheques. Before we should have paid them, if they
came through any bankers.
Mr. Bentham of the London Joint Stack Bank said,
that the custom of bankers is to refuse to pay double
orossedcheques. Such is our custom.
Croes-examined.—There are instances in which reference
was made to the m :wager, but I don't remember any in
which payments of double crossed cheques having been
made.

Re-examined.—When we receive ouch cheques, we send
them in and take uur chance of payment. Some have
been paid and others not.
Mr. Matthew Marshall, chief cashier of the Bank of Eng-
land—Our clerks arc always directed to throw double
crowed cheques out of the change of any bankers, and to
refer them to the principal of that office, who required ex-
planation of the circumstance under which the double cross-
ing had taken place. Some are paid after explanation, and
I should say that, judging from the few cases brought be-
fore ma, the explanation is generally satisfactory. I never
knew of a case of a cheque btiniplouble crossed where the
fir.t crowing was a special one. rho Wink would in such a
case exercise special caution. The account of the Ac-
countant-Ueneral is limited to cash, or its equivalent, a
draught on the Bank of England. We should have refused
this draught in its original state if paid in to the account of
the Accountant-General. Ile is particular to reeky.: no-

thing but money.
Cross.examined.—l know of uo preventive to the pay-
ment of a cheque crossed in the name of one banker to any
other hanker. The only effect of crossing a cheque with a
banker's name was to prevent its being paid to any ordinary
individual. I apprehend the custom of crossing cheques
arose from the desire to prevent the mere finder of a cheque
from getting it cashed in fraud of the drawer. It insures
payment through some bankers—that is all. I know of no
custom which prevents the holder of a crossed cheque from
putting out the original banker's name and putting in
another, and receiving the money. I know that the bankers
pause hen called on to pay double crossed cheques, but
there is no custom not to pay. I believe the caution has
proceeded from the comparatively recent practice of crossing
which is connected with the institution of the clearing
house, in order to identify the bankers by whom the cheques
were paid. When the name of the payee was respectable I
-should not hesitate to pay it.
Ite-examined--Taking into consideration that this cheque
could not have been received at all at the Bank, and that it
was presented for payment by Messrs. Gaslhig, a most re-
spectable tirm, if they stated their belief that their customer
was a respectable man, the cheque would have been re-
ferred to the governor.
Mr. Henry Bryant Reynolds—l am principal of the town
office of Messrs. Glyn and Co.'s bank. 1 have been con-
nected with them tor upwards of 20 years. Our general
rule is to refuse payment of double-crossed cheques, but
they are sometimes paid when the cases are satisfactorily
explained. I almost always refer to one of the principals.
Such a cheque as this would certainly not be paid, but
would bc referred to one of the partners, whose directions
would be taktn. _ _ . .

Cross-examined—l have paid double-crossed cheques
myself. I should do so when the second bankers were the
bankers of the payee.
Mr. George Taylor, cashier of Sir Claude Scott and Co.—
The custom of our house is not to pay double-crossed
cheques. We refer to the principals in all cases. Some-
times they are paid.
Mr. Mark Rushton, cashier of Mears. Cocks and Bid-
f a double-crossed cheque was presented to me, I
should either refuse it on my own responsibility or refer it
to our of the partners. Our general custom is to refuse
them. I have always done so.
Cross-examined —Ours is a small house. I cannot refer

- - to many instances.
Mr. Oliver Vile, resident manager of the London and
Westminster Bank at Westminster—Our custom is gene-
rally to refuse double-crossed cheques. The special form of
this crossing would have led me to exercise special caution.
—This being the close of the plaintiff's ease, and some dia•
eussion having arisen as to whether the custom alleged bed
been proved, the learned Attorney-General recalled most of
the witnesses fur the purpose of proving the custom not to
pay crossed checks except to the bankers whose names
were crossed. The evidence having been given,
Sir F. Thesiger submitted that there was no case to go to
ej
thMr. Baron Martin thought there wax evidence in sup-
port of the first count.
Sir Y. Thesiger then addressed the jury for the defen-
dants. They were perfectly justified in resisting this claim,
preferred so long after the plaintiffs account with them had
been closed. Ile would call several witnesses who would
prove the custom to he directly the reverse of that relied en
by the plaintiffs.
The following witnesses were then called.
Mr. E. W. Stanley cashier to the defendants.—i re-
member the fact of Mr. Strahan presenting two cheques,
but it is so long since I cannot speak to the circumstances
positively. I don't know whether the other cheque was
crossed. I think I referred the matter before payment to
one of the defendants. I have been sixteen years at
Mears. Cants and Co., and have been cashier for nine or
ten years. I have known cheques presented by one
banker to have been paid, although they were crossed in
the names of other bankers. Messrs. Gosling and Co. were
Garey'S bankers then. 1 paid both cheques at the same
time.

Cross-examined—l hue some indistinct recollection of
having spoken to one of the partners before I paid the
cheques. It is my usual practice.
Mr. Penny, clerk in the house of Williams, Deacon, and
Co., since 1103—Our custom is to pay crossed cheques to Use
bank, and not to un individual over the counter. There is
no custom preventing payment to other bankers. I have
known multitudes of eases of cheques paid to other
beakers than those to whom they were crossed. We gene-
rally pay cheques when a fresh crossing is put on and the
first has been erased. There is no custom to prevent the
payee of a crossed cheque from erasing the first bank and
putting in another instead of it.
Cross-examined—lt seas formerly the habit to make suck
calmts without inquiry, but, within the last 3 or 4 year',
is,paarally made. We arc satisfied if the cheque
eeMOS Mei a respectable bankers'. We have had many
UM of is erased evening. I should say the first crossing
ins i mistake, and I should pay the cheque if it came from
a napsetable house.
Kr. Hughes, cashier of Willis and Co., of Lombard-
siseet.—There is a custom to pay crossed cheques to any I
beakers presenting them—we require them to put their
names to them. We pay doubly-crowed cheques when the
first cross is erased, to the banker presenting it. I should pay
either, the object of crowing being to secure payment to
some banker merely. There is no custom to prevent the
holder of a cheque from striking out a banker's name and
patting in another instead of it.
Cross-examined—The reason I should require the banker
to put his name is for my own satisfaction. If this
cheque had been presented by a west-end banker, I should
have paid it, because they do not go to the clearing house.
Mr. Drewett, of the firm of Drewett and Fowler—l do
not think there is any invariable custom with respect to
cheques of this description. I know of none to prevent its
payment to the bankers presenting it. If presented by the
payee's bankers, where there were two crossings, I should
pff tie
_elope.
Qui—mmwd—l should not pay as a matter of some,
Ist iirsidi make inquiry.
Xi.Osulp H. Baruett—l am a partner for at=
Os be GE Barnett, Hoare, and Co., of Lom
U on holedinal came with a crossed cheque, inueseloallin
FP Wallith and if it proved satisfactory he would be PAIL
u golossiell by a banker, different from the crewed
I weal be she inquired into, and the cheque would be
1 geli le las use way. I know of no custom to prevent
OOP • cheque under such circumstances. If a cross
weed,too and another bank added, I should inquire. I
have always found the banker presenting capable of giving
satisfactory explanation. I should certainly have paid the
cheque in question.
Cross-examined—A slight circumstance would have been
sufficient. I should have seen at ones that the drawer
acted in ignorance of the practice at the bank. I have
often paid the cheques to parties presenting them on in-
quiry which satisfied me of their respectability, and I have
never found reason to regret it.
Mr. Vera Face—Au explanation would be required ; if it
was satisfactory the cheque would be paid. I should con-
sider
I was running a very great risk if I did not pay the'
cheque in question. The direction should be written in
the body of the cheque, and not in the crossing.
Crow-examined—l should say it is not for the customer
who places his money in my hands that caution should be
used in paying a cheque doubly crossed. There is caution
to be observed, certainly, for the customer. I would not
pay a cheque crossed to one banker and presented by

another without inquiry. Some reason satisfactory to me I
should require.
Mr. Bnsunquet examined—l am a partner in the firm of
Messrs. Bosanquet and Co. of Lombard-street. Them has
been a very strict custom regarding the payment of cheques
within the la't four or tire years. Previously, ifs cheque
had five bank-me names on it it might be paid to any of
them providef it was presented by a banker. If a cheque
doubly crossed, with one crossing struck out, the constant
practice was to pay the bankers whose names were not
struck out. I don't recollect a case within the last three or
four years that I paid bankers whose name was not crossed
on the cheque. Prior to three or four years ago there was
no custom at all.

Cross-examined—l don't know what has given rise to
greater strictness.
Mr. W. W Fuller examined—l am a partner in the
house of Fuller and Co., of Mooigate-street. We should
not pay a crossed cheque to a private individual except
upon a very satisfactory explanation, nor a cheque doubly
crossed without a similar explanation.
Cress-examined—The general rule is to pay the banker
to whom the cheque is crossed. But if I find that payment
may be made without risk, then I pay.
Re-examined—lf it be presented by a different banker
and a satisfactory explanation is given, then we pay.
By Baron Martin—l am speaking of the practice at my
own banking house.
Mr. George Stone said—l am a partner in the firm of
Stone, Martin, and Co. The general custom is to pay
cheques to b takers to whom they have been crossed. If pre-
! seated by a different banker I should make inquiry, and
pay it if it proved satisfactory. I speak of the practice of
my own house.
Not crow-examined.
Mr Dalton Scott examined—l have been thirty-nine
years acquainted with banking business. I should hesitate
to say that a cheque crossed to one banker and presented by
another would be paid on a satisfactory explanation. I
should consider it satisfactory that the banker presenting
the cheque was the payee's banker. The same answer applies
to the case of two banker's names crossed, and one of them
struck out.
Cross-examined—lf the funds were intended by the
drawer not to reach the drawee I should submit it to the
principal.
Mr. J. Banbury examined—l have been a partner in the
house of Sapte, Banbury, and Co., of Lombard-street, for
eleven years, and seven previously. It has been the prac-
tise to pay the cheque which was presented by a hanker. It
was sufficient for us that it was presented by a banker.
Mr. Teshicr examined—l am clerk to Messrs. Smith,
Payne, and Smith. Our rule is always to pay cheques pre-
sented by a hanker. We should pay it to any banker who
presented it. lam not aware that any custom exists among
bankers not to pay the bankers whose name was mentioned
in the second crossing.
Cross-examined—l never refused to pay a cheque doubly
maned, or referred it to the principal. I have no recollec-
lection of saying a few days ago that I made inquiry which
proving satisfactory they got their money and went away.
Mr. John Wormald examined—l am a partner in the
house of Child and Co. of Temple-bar. It is our practise
to pay cheques presented by bankers. If it came through
a banker's we ask no questions.
Cross-examined—We make no inquiry at all.
Mr. John Clutterbuck examined—l am cashier at Meters.
Hoare and Co.'s, of Fleet-street, for 12 years. Our custom
is to pay cheques to the hankers presenting them. The
rune answer applies to the ("33C of doubly. crossed cheques.
Cross-examined.—l should make inquiry, and if there
was anything very doubtful I should refer it to the
principal.
Mr. T. A. Rush examined.—l am a clerk at Messrs. Drum.
minds and Co., for 31 years. Since this case has been
pending we are mire particular, but previously we should
pay the bankers presentin7 the cheques.
Cross-examiued.—l should make inquiry as n matter of
business.

Mr. John Robinson examined.—l am 3d years clerk in the
House of Coutte and Co. I have never been cashier, but I
have constantly seen cheques where there has been any
difficulty. The principal inquiry would be, does the payee
hank with the banker presenting the cheque ? If so, it
would be deemed sufficiently satisfactory. The crossing is
not for the security ofthe drawer, but of the payee. Messrs.
Coutts and Co. did neap', the cheque in question without
due 011asideration.
Cross-egfunined.—The drawer sometimes crosses a
cheque for his own security; but generally it is not
crossed for the security of the drawer. It is the rule of our
house not to give up paid cheques without an acknowleg-
ment for them.
The defendants' case having closed,
The Attorney-General then proceeded to address the jury
for the plaintiffs in reply. The relation of lender and bor-
rower sulaisted, it was true, between the hanker and his
customer, but superinduced upon it was that of principal
and agent. There arose not only the obligation to pay the
amount of the plaintiffs' cheques, but to pay them accord-
ing to his directions and orders. Bankers were bound to
observe the directions of their customers, and were liable,
if they departed from those instructions or neglected them.
The answer given by the defendants was, that they had
paid the cheque, but tothat it might be said, " if you have
paid it, you paid it in your own wrong, disregarding
the instructions we gave you on the face of
the cheque itself, to pay into no other bands but
" those of the Bank of England." Those were your in-
structions, and you, the defendants, had no right, without
flaking for the plaintiffs' concurrence or consent, to pay the
cheque to any one else but the Bank of England.
Mr. Baron Martin summed up the case. If it was their
opinion that it was not the duty of the defendants to pay to
the Bank of England only they ought to tiud a verdict for
the defendants: but if they were of opinion that they were
guilty of negligence, they should find a verdict for the
plaintiffs. They should recollect the cheque was "to pay
to Gary or bearer," and that it was not to pay the Bank of
England alone. The question was whether the defendants
were guilty of negligence in paying the cheque to Messrs.
Gosling and Co. His own opinion was that payment had
been made to Gorey in accordance with the order of Messrs.
Bellamy and Foster, the plaintiffs. However, the question
was whether the Messrs. Coutts and Co. had been guilty
of negligence in paying the cheque as they had.
The jury, after considerable consultation, found a verdict
for the plaintiffs. They found that it was the duty of the
Messrs. Coutts and Co. to pay the Bank of England only.
Counsel for the plaintiffs : the Attorney-General, Mr.
Knowles, Q.C., and Mr. tinthank. For the defendants :
• Sir F. Thewiger,Q.C., Mr. Serjeaut Channell, and Sir John
Bailey.

WANDSWORTH COUNTY COURT---YESTERDAT.

BEMIS I. P. PRAM. Kw, AND A Jc&T.
INDIAN BIRDS, _

The parties in this case live at Petersham, near Rich-
mond. Plaintiff, a retired officer of the East India Com-
pany's service, returned to England about four years since,
bringing with him various living specimens of rare birds,
procured at a great distance in the interior of India, and
among them a pair of the species called the Silorus, or
Demoiselle. These birds were of remarkable size, and
somewhat resembling the heron, and highly valuable as
the first of their kind which had ever been brought to
England ; so that the Earl of Derby offered 100 guineas to
possess them. They were said to be, moreover, as tame as
the fowl in the park, allowing persons to stroke their
plumage, and readily feeding out of any one's hands. The
defendant is a wealthy member of the Middle Temple, and
on the 19th of May was at the house of Mr. Buckles, near
plaintiff's residence, when one of the birds flew into the
grounds.
The plaintiff's case was, that while the bird was there,
defendant came out at the garden gate and poked a stick
towards the bird, with the intention of hitting or pushing
the bird, when the bird pecked at the stick, and the de-
fendant seized the bird by the throat in a violent manner,
and dragged it some distance. The bird struggled to release
itself, and made use of its claws with such effect as to tear
the defendant's trowsero. Mr. Rogers then came to the de-
fendant's assistance, caught hold of the bird's legs, and,
between them, having rendered the bird lifeless, carried
it to the kitchen entrance of Colonel Powney's house,
threw down the bird, and exclaiming—" there's your bird,"
went away. In a minute er two, the housekeeper
came out and found the bird in its last struggles, it dying
two or three minutes afterwards. Plaintiff now sought to
recover 30/., which he alleged was below the value of the
bird. It was contended for the defence that the bird was
wild, nnreclaimed, and dangerous, from its size and the
power of its talons, and that defendant had only taken the
necessary measures for his safety.
The judge summed up, saying that if the :plaintiff had
proved his case the only facts for the jury to consider were
whether the bird was of a dangerous character, and whether
the defendant had only acted in self-defence.
The jury consulted for a few minutes, and returned a
verdict for the defendant.
The judge allowed dell costs.

THE POLICE COURTS.
MANSION-HOUSE.
Herman Lau was bmught before Sir Peter Laurie on
Thursday, charged with having uttered a forged bill of cx.
change for the suns of 1,2501.
Mr. Mullen, of the firm of Bush and Mullen., solicitors
to the committee of bankers for protection Irons forgeries
and frauds, attended for the prosecution, instructed by
Messrs. Nicholson, of Lime-street. Mr. Ilobler attended
for the prisoner.
Mr. John Conrad I. Thurn, of No. 24, Lime-street,
City, said—l know the prisoner, and have known him for
the last twelve or fourteen years. Yesterday he brought to
no the bill of exchange produced for 1,2501. As he took
it out of his pocket-book I saw some other bills in the
pocket-book. The bill purports to be drawn by Ruslem
Jee Cowarsgee upon Messn. Small and Co., of London,
dated Calcutta, April 29, 1851, payable six months after
sight to the order of Messrs. Robinson, Raiford, and
Co. The prisoner requested me to advance to him
1,0001. upon that bill, as he was, he said, going to Man-
cheater to buy some goods there. He told me that he had
got the bills by the last overland mail, which arrived only
a few days ago. I asked bias to leave the bill with me.
He did so, and when he returned I gave him into the cus-
tody of Daniel Forrester, the officer.
Cross-examined by Mr. Hobler—The prisoner did not
offer any other bills to me. I do not know the drawer.
I do know Messrs. Small and Co., the endorsers.
Mr. Robert Francis Robertson, of the firm of Small and
Co:, of the Old Jewry, merchants, said—We are the Lon-
don correspondents of the Calcutta house of Robinson,
Raiford, and Co. I knew the person who purports to be
the drawer of the bill many jeers Ifo in Calcutta. The
acceptance to the bill produced is an imitation of my hand-

writing. It is not accepted by me or by my authority.
I know the writing of Robinson, Raiford, and Co., of Cal-
cutta. I should say the endorsement is not in their hand-
writing.
Cross-examined by Mr. Hoblcr—l know several parties
who accept bills.
Re-examined by Mr. Mullen—We do not make our bills
payable at Jones Loyd and Co. Ido not know the hand-
writing of the acceptance. We do not accept in that way.
Our acceptance, are stamped.
Daniel Forrester, the offioer—l took the prisoner into
custody at the office of Mr. J. Thorn. Upon searching him
I found a pocket-book, which I produce, and in it I found
certain documents which I also produce, viz., two blank
printed forms of bills of exchange, and also two bills of
exchange, the one for 1,1501., and the other 1,2001., drawn,
accepted, and indorsed in the same manner as the bill for
1,2501.

The prisoner gave me his address at Park End Cottage,
Lee-road, Blackwell ; and I went there last evening, and
found, amongst other papers there, those which I now pro-
duce.

Mr. John Young, clerk to Messrs. Small and Co., said
all the 1011 presented to our house come through my hands
when I ant at the office. I was there on the 19th of June.
None of the bills produced were then presented for accept-
ance. The acceptance is not in my handwriting nor in the
handwriting of any member of the house.
Cross-examined—We enter all bills in our bill-book. I
ma have been absent a short time on the day in question.
The prisoner was then remanded.
Robert Poster was brought up yesterday before Alder-
man llooper, charged with having. endeavoured, by ficti-
tious representations of distress, to impose upon Mr. Sheriff
and Alderman Carden.

The Sheriff said the prisoner called at my office to solicit
relief and assistance from me. Ile said that he had lately
been discharged from Maidstone gaol, to which he had been
committed for theft hy Mr. Taylor, the magistrate at
Greenwich; that Mr. Taylor, when he was released from
confinement, recommended him to apply to me for relief,
and that he was anxious to get home to Nottingham, but
was afraid to beg, and was already too well acquainted with
the fruits of dishonesty to make any other attempt in that
way. I suspected that he was telling falsehoods, with the
view of exciting my commiseration for a penitent offender,
and I closely (invite:men him, and have ascertained that the
whole of the circumstances detailed by him had no founda-
tion whatever. lie stated that he was tried before the Re-
corder little more than four months ago, and that he was
confined in Newgate, but not one of the persons about that
prison knew anything at all about him.
Win. Collier, one of the Mansion-house officers, said that
by the direction of the Sheriff he took the prisoner to New-
gate for the purpose of having him identified by any of the
turnkeys by whom he might have been seen during his so-
journ there after his alleged conviction as a thief, but nut
one being knew him.
The prisoner—l was tried at the Old Dailey sessions in
February last for stealing some articles from an ironmonger
at Greenwich, and I had tour months imprisonment. I woo ,
tried in the name of Sharpe, but my real name is Robert
Foster. . . . .

Alderman Hooper referred to the Old Bailey register,
and found no entry of name or offence. The Alderman then
said—You are not aware that we keep books by means of
which we can readily detect impostors.
The prisoner—Well, I don't know what you may keep,
but I know that I was tried and found guilty.
Collier said the prisoner, in going along the street in
custody, said that he had been advised by others to go to
the Sheriff, or he would never have thought of such a thing.
The Sheriff—l told him, when I first saw him, that if I
found upon inquiry his statement was correct, I should take
care to have him sent home comfortably.
Alderman Hooper—l have no doubt at all that although
he has practised deception in his representation to the
Sheriff, for the purpose of exciting pity for a repentant
thief, he has been more than once in gaol. I consider the
case a very bad one, and I sentence the prisoner to imprison-
ment as a rogue and vagabond for the term of six weeks.
The Sheriff said he could not help expressing surprise at
the facilities which were afforded to impostors by the ex-,
cessivc credulity of persons of property and respectability
who actually seemed disposed to swallow every tale of
misery, although it is well known that the grossest knaves
are the most exquisite performers.
The Lord Mayor requested that the press would acknow-
ledge his receipt of the second half of a Bank of England
note fur 5/., from S. M., fur the sufferers by the Grace-
church-street calamity.
GUILDHALL.

Isaac Solomon was again brought before Ablerman
Farebrothcr, charged with having a quantity of stolen
plate in his possession without rendering a proper account
of the same.—Conriaed, and sent for two months to the
Rouse of Correction.

iORSHIP-STREET._

Thomas Fletcher, described as a horse-hair manufacturer
in New Nichol-street, Bethnal green, was charged with
wounding a young married woman, 'lamed Mary Anne
Bragge, with intent to murder her.
The prosecutrix. who was very weak, stated that pri-
soner had funned a strong attachment towards one of her
sisters, but his affection was not at all reciprocated by the
latter, who had recently proceeded to the Continent. The
prisoner, however, had been since in the occasional habit of
visiting at her house, and on the evening of the 19th inst.,
while she was conversing at the street-door with one of her
lodgers, he presented himself in a state of great excitement,
and having ascertained upon inquiry that her husband was
from home, requested to speak to her alone, as ho hail
something particular which he wished to communicate. She
accordingly invited him into the parlour, on entering which
the prisouer intimated that he bad been informed by her
husband that she had received a letter 'thin her sister ap-
prising her of her intention to return home in a few weeks,
and commenced upbraiding her with her unkindness in fail-
ing to furnish him with intelligence in which he felt so deep
an interest. She used her best efforts to pacify him,but became
much alarmed on observing in his hand an open clasp-
knife, and was endeavouring to avoid him, when the pri-
soner caught hold of her and struck her a violent blow on
the left side, which caused her to stagger back several
paces. The instant he had dealt the blow, the prisoner
darted out of the room and escaped from the house, and
she was not at all aware of the serious iujury she had sus-
tained until some time afterwards, when she felt a trick-
ling sensation under her clothes, accompanied by a sense of
faintness, and on taking off her dress she discovered that
the upper part of it had been perforated by some sharp in-
strument, together with her stays, which were completely
saturated with blood, and that she hail received a severe
stab in the left side. She was immediately removed to the
London Hospital, where she hail ever since remained, and
her husband proceeded in search of the prisoner, and ulti-
mately gave him into custody.
William Slater, a silk weaver, who was in conversation
with the prosecutrix when the prisoner reached the house,
fully corroborated the first part of her evidence, and ex-
pressed his confident belief that he was sober at the time.
Remanded.