The Express.
London, England, 1849-06-19 00:00:00

COURT OF EXCHEQUER,YEarsomr.

Nut Paws.—Bl7ollll SiD P. POLLACK. C. 8., •KD • MIDDLES= COM.
DOE JUIT.

BENNETT O. FIEND) AND ANOTHER.-ACTION AOAINST
THE SHERIFFS OF MIDDLESEX.
_ _

This was an action brought by the plaintiff, a builder and
licensed victualler, carrying on business at Camberwell, to
recover compensativn in damages from the sheriffs of Mid-
dlesex, for certain injuries alleged to have been ietlicted on
him by re4son of the miscoaduct of the defendants' officers.
The declaration stated that, while the said officers had been
engaged on the 11th of May last in the execution of a certain
writ of aspire, issued against one Edward Russell, they had
unlawfully seized on the said Russell's horse, and had so
negligently, carelemly, and improperly guided and controlled
it, Out the pliintiff was violently thrown from a gig in
which he had been riding with the said Russell, and that by
reason thereot he had suffered various bruises woucds,injuees,
&r. The defendants pleaded not guilty, and also • plea of
justification, stating that they were bound to use all proper
means to have the writ entrusted to them against the said
Russell executed, and that their officers had not used more
force or violence than was necessary for that purpose.
There were 16 witnesses called on both aides : amongst these
on behalf of the plaintiff was
Elward Russell, who stated that he was a commission
agent, living at Kennington—On the 11th of May last, the
plaintiff was driving with him in a gig in the direction of
Westurinster-bridge. It was about 4 o'clock in the after-
noon when they reached Bridge-street. The street was
very much crowded with carriages of all sera, and on arriv-
ing at the corner of Parliament-street he slackened his pace.
Immediately afterwards two men, who afterwards proved to
be the sheriff's officers, rushed at his horse's head and
turned it nand, driving the gig into the middle of the street.
They refused to leave off their hold of the horse and wit-
ness whipped it as hard rs ho cculd to keep out Of the way
of the drays and other vehicles behind. The animal, which was
young and spirited, plunged violently, and ultimately the
pig was overturned and the plaintiff was throws out, wit-
ness falling over him. Witnen had riot known the men to
be sheriff's officers when they laid hold of the bone, and
told them afterwards, wt en he was taken into custody, that
if they had shown him the warrant, or told him what they
wanted him for, he should not have persisted in whipping
the hone or proceeding over the bridge.
Cross-examined—l lashed at the men as well as the hone.
While I was doing so • man came up on the step of the gig
to seizes me, and I struck him on the head with the butt end
of my whip, but I don't think I knocked hint down. After
the accident I was arrested and taken away in a cab. The
*arrant was not produced until I h reached Charing-crors
on my way to the lockup house. The warrant was out for a
year and a half. It was first delivered to the sheriff of
Surrey, but I evaded it for that time, thanks to one of the
sheriff's officers, whom I bribed not to execute it. I gave
him altogether 41. or 51. His name is Colman. Re was
assisting the others when I was arrested.
The evidence was very conflicting as to the details of the
lion, but several witnesses deposed that Mr. Russell's
conduct—which was extremely violent, had occasioned the
accident, and that the officers had not used more tone than
was necessary to enable them to discharge their duty. It
was submitted for the defendants that there was no evidence
to chow what damage the plaintiff bad sustained. Mr.
Russell's object manifestly was to elude the officers by
driving into Surrey. They. were, therefore, not only justified
in stopping him from driving over Westminster-bridge, but
they were bound to seize his horse and do all they had done.
If they had not the defendants might be made answerable
in an action for negligence at the snit of Russell's creditor.
The officers were merely discharging their lawful duty, and
they had been most brutally treated.
The Lord Chief Baron, in summing up, said the whole
question seemed to turn upon the fact whether the jury be-
lieved that Russell was driving the gig over the bridge to
escape the office rs, and that he lashed his horse when he
found he could not do so ; or did they believe that the
sheriff's officers had seized the horse and backed it only for
the purpose of upsetting the gig ? He could not conceive
what object they could have had in doing so. Russell was de-
scribed to have raid " I would have stopped if you had told
me what you wanted." Could the jury believe that he did
not knew it well ?
A verdict was returned for the plaintiff, on the plea of not
guilty ; and for the defendant'. upon the issue raised by the
justification. In effect the verdict passed for the defendants.
The next cause in the paper was at the suit of Mr. Russejl
against the defendants in the above case, which occupied the
court all thq.

EXCHEQUER CHAMBER.—YEsnaney.
Depose Ms.. PAITFAON AND TIM IMOD, Of TITZ Ql7lo2l's
1372101 A:ND CONDON PLLAS ON ENDOW MOD rnsCorierot EXCDEQVID.
JONES S. CHAPMAN.—JEDOMENT.
The court gave judgment, affirming that of the court below.
WILLIAMS V. DEACON AND OTHERS.—THE ABINGDON
DANE.—A PAYMENT TO A BANKER'S AGENTS TO THE
CREDIT OF A CUSTOMER • PAYMENT TO THI BARRER.
This me came up on a bill of t xeeptions to the ruling of
the Lord Chief Baron, on a trial before a special jury at the
sittings after last Michaelmas term. As the case involves ,
an important point connected with banking business,
and is of interest to commercial men, we subjoin a state-
went of the facts as disclosed at the trial. The
action was brought for money had and received by the
defendants to the use of the plaintiff, and upon an account
stated. The defendants pleaded the general issue. The
plaintiff, who resided near Abingdon, in Berkshire, was
trustee and executor to a lady who died in January, 1843.
He invested her property in the Three•and-a-Quarter per
Cent. Annuities, and, pursuant to her will, paid the divi-
dends half-yearly to two other nieces. He executed a power
of attorney, to enable Mr. W. Jackson Taylor, of Capri-
court, to receive the dividends, and directed that gentleman
to pay the amount into the bank of the defendants, Messrs.
Deacon, Williams, and Co., of Birchin-lane. The plaintiff
also directed that the lodgment in the defaidante bank
should be made to his own credit with the late banking
firm of Knapp and Co., of Abingdon. Mr. Taylor com-
plied with those instructions from the time he first received
them, is January, 1843, up to the 14th of October,
1847, when he received the kelt-year's dividends then due,
amounting to 1271. de. 9d., which he paid into the defend-
ants' bank, es he had previously done. He made the pay
meat by a cheque on his own bankers, and gave the defend-
ants' clerk verbal instructions that it should be planed to the
credit of James Williams, Big. (the plaintiff), in account
with Mews. Knapp and Co., of Abingdon. On the after-
noon of that day, and about an hoar after the money had
been thus lodged with the defendants by Mr. Jackson'
Mean. Knapp and Co. stopped payment at Abingdon.
Neat morning the plaintiff discovered the establishment
was closed, but ascertained from one of the Jerks that the
Mesas. if app and Co. had sot that received advice
0 the martin of the dividends to their meet No

advice rt ached Knapp and Co. until Saturday,
the 16th of October. The plaintiff then set out for
London, and waited on the defendants. He demanded
the money back, on the ground that it had been paid in
within an hour of the stoppage of payment by Knapp and
Co., at Abingdon, and that it had not been transmitted to
them as directed. One of the monaacrs, on behalf of the
defendants, refused to return the money, and stated that
their own acceunt with the bankrupts had been very con-
siderably overdrawn—that the money in question, with
other sums, had been placed to the credit of Knapp and
Co , in liquidation of the defendants' demand against that
firm—and that Knapp and Co. had been in the used
way advised of the payment to the plaintiff's cre-
eds. It appeared the firm of " Knapp and Co."
consisted of only one person. He was declared a
bankrupt, and his estate realised only 2e. in the pound.
On behalf of the plaintiff it was submitted that the de-
fendants had failed to comply with the express directions
of Mr. Taylor to place the money to the plaintiff's credit
with Knapp and Ca., beet that, on tho contrary, they had
placed it to their own credit with that firm, which they had
no right to do.
Mr. Martin, for the defendants, observed that the ques-
tion at issue in this case was of general importance,
not only to the bankers of London and the mereantle
world, but to the put lie at large. Now, the facts which
wire of the greatest interest were very few. On the
morning of the 14th of October, 1F47, there was a balance
of 6141., due from Messrs. Knapp and Co. to the de-
fendants. During that day they received 1,1001, end paid
away 1,2001. on Knapp and Co.'s account. There WAS,
therefore, on the payment of the money in question a ba-
lance due to the defendants by Knapp and Co., even upon
that day's transactions. The learned gentleman was pro-
ceeding with his statement, when he was stopped by the
Lord Chief Baron, who intimated an opinion that if those
facts were proved the plaintiff should be nunsuited. The
payment to the defendants on the 14th of October, to the
credit of the plaintiff, in a-count with Knapp and C..,
should, in accordance with the established course of limi-
ness for years, be regarded as a payment to Knspn and Co.
personally. It was just the same as if the money had been
received by Knapp and Co. themselves on the 14th of Oct°.
b.r. The defendants c mild not refund it to the plaintiff
without being chargeable with a fraudulent preference, and
he could not in that avdon recover it from the agents of
Knapp and Co.
A verdict was therefore directed for the defendants, and
the plaintiff's council tendered a hill of exception.
Mr. Watson having been heard in support of the case of
the plaintiff in error,
The Court decided that the judgment of the Lord Chief
Baron was right. The plaintiff had instructed his broker to
pay the money in account with Knapp and Co., and though
the money was paid into the bank of the defendants in
London, it was in reality paid to Knapp and Co.
The judgment of the Lord Chief Baron was accordingly
affirmed.