The Express.
London, England, 1849-01-13 00:00:00

THE EXPRESS, SATURDAY EVENING, JANUARY 13, .1849.

which theidefeadant said he weld pay 2001., which he se-
cuttingly did, and eau his promissory note foe 3001., 1001.
nouns Mho= the debt. Long before the promise. .r
notetiemme dun the dedendent was advised that he had nut
bees geneerly treat d in the Berkeley Club; that it was nor,
as lie. Winne had suggested, • fair chance batween man
and memed play ; and be, therefore, had refused to pay the
premhese, one. The defendant had also MUM to believe
that thistle* had ben endorsed by Roberts to Nathan, and
y
Nathan te Lewis, without an consideration. Mr.
Roberts gelid be ea lad ass witness before the jury ; and he
Mr. Mumbey) had no doubt that it would be proved that
this bill mut even in respect of • gaming traneeeticn, sad
think* M defeetlant would be entitled to • verdict.
Mr. Mena Rebuts was then examined by Mr. Humfrey.
He end he wee the attorney to whom the promissory note
fee 300 i. weaned. payable. He was concerned for Atkins.
Atkins lived at Brampton, and wee a bill th.colinter. Wit
nets had No means of knowing that be kept the Berkeley
Club. Witness held the defendant's cheque for 6001., and
applied to him rensectiog it. Winces had the cheque fre.m
Mr. Midas. He lad sued the defendant on a previous pro.
ensue note toe 3001., arising out of another transaction.
With regard to that transaction witness took 1601. down from
the defendant, and gave him six months' time to pay el., ba-
lance in. On that occasion the defendant paid the *lance
upon the promissory note some time before it became due.
! the 0001. cheque, the defendant called an witness
sit37:iti:t
e could not pay it, and wished to have 1001.
take,. off. Witness did not believe that the defendant
said that the cheque was given for money last at
play. Witness was in the habit of lending money, and that
Net was well known. Witness asked the defendant if be
made the transaction his own, whether he would certainly
pay. The defendant said he would, hat he wanted twelve
muffle time. Witness then went to Mr. Atkins, who said
he would not give the defendant tine, and be then asked
him what he would sell him the cheque for, and Atkins said
4501. Witness then gave Atkins that sum for the cheque.
The defendant aftirwards paid 2001. down, and witness took
• promissory note from him for 3001.. and let him off the re-
naming 1001. Witawe had no recollection that the defend.
ant mid that the cheque of 6001. was given for menu lost at
play. His distinct impression was that the defendant did
not say so, for, if he had, he should not have been inclined
to have bought the cheque of Atkins. Witness w..uld not
deny that he had heard that the former cheque of 3801. was
given for money lost at play at the Berkeley Club to Atkins.
It was so averted by the defendant's solicitor.
Witness disoonnted the promissory note in quake
with Nathan about the 7th or Bth of April, but the prom..
eery Note stiff remained under witness's control on the 29th
of April. It remained so much under witemes control that
he wrote to Capt. Ramsey, telling him he could pay it to
witness, which would have been a convenien.e. Witness
was sere there was nobody likely to be present when Mr.
Nsthan paid him the money for the promissory note. He
bad been in the habit of having money transactions with
Mr. Nathan. Witness was indebted to Mr. Nathan at the
time when be discounted the promissory note with him, acd
the balente he received from Nathan on account of that
transaction was 321.—Crowexamined by Mr. Watson :

Bess bought the cheque of Atkins, so that he might have
made 601. by the transaction. There were few regiments
with which witnets did writ* business.
Mr. Watson here submitted that the evidence did not
prove the defendant's pleas.
Mr. Jambe Erie replied, that if a bill was tainted with
illeeali.y in the first ii.stance, it was incumbent upon the
plaintiff to show that he gave value for it.
His lordship then proceeded to sum up. He said there
were a great many pleas placed on the record by the de-
fendant, by which the plaintiff was called upon to show his
right to recover. The fact of the defendant's having made
the note was denied, as was also the eadoreement by Ro.
bens to Nathan, and by Nathan to Lewis, for consideration.
These facts had been established on the part of the plai..tiff.
It was, however, upon the subsequent pleas respectittg the
note being given fir a gaming debt, that the defendant re-
lied. If are eras any doubt is the minds of the jury as to
this fact being proved, they must find their verdict for the
plaintiff. As the law stood, any contract made to pay
money bet in an unlawful game was void, as also
was any bill of exchange or promissory note given
under such circumstances. The wooed point made
by the defendant was that the promissory note
had been endorsed without consideration, but every holder
of any such instrument must be presumed to be a boob tide
holder until reason for believing to the contrary was shown.
If the jury wars satisfied that the note in question was ori-
ginally given (or a gaming debt, and therefore tainted in its
inception with illegality, they would find their verdict for
the defendant. Abe, if they believed that it had
be-n endorsed to the plaintiff without consid, ration, they
would likewise find their verdict for the defendant. The
questions that he would now leave to the jury were, was
the promissory note tainted with gaming in its inception ?
Did the defendant lose money at play to Atkins in respect of
which the note in question was given to Roberta as a secu-
rity to repay to Atkins part of the money which the defend-
ant had so kit ? sad was the bill endorsed without any con-
sideration by Roberts to Nathan, sad by Nathan to Lewis ?
The jury then retired to consider their verdict; but after
they had been absent for a short period, Mr. flunkey said
that he woad not trouble the jury to come to a verdict, as
he had arranged the car with his learwel friend. His client
had always been willing to pay the 3001, which he admitted
to be a debt of honour, but he refused to pay the costs. 'the
plaintiff was now willing to take the 3001. without the auk
—Mr. Lewis said he did not comment, but Mr. Roberts said
he would pay the costs.
The jury then returned into court, and the forma of with-
drawing a juror was gone through.
COURT OP COMMON PLEAII.-YIBTERDAY.

________.
&Wei, In BIM,.
CATLIN V. HILL AND VTHatas PIOPRIZTORS OF THZ
DIAMOND Senatt PACILIT COMPANT.—CoLLIstorr —This
woe an action tried before Mr. Juties Cresawell at the List
Middlesex sittings after term, brought by the plaintiff, an
heraldic engraver, to recover compensation for an injury ab
lest d to have been sustained by him, owing to the negligent
conduct of the persons in chum of the Sapphire steamboat,
belonging to the defendants. At the trial it appeared the
plaintiff was at the time of the accident a passenger on board
the Boos of the Thames, which left Hungerford (or Grave.-
end at ten in the morning, and having passed Northfl et
Point, was nearly opposite to Roshermlle pier, when the
Sapphire, a larger boat. come up astern. The Sapphire at-
' tempted to pus on the mouth side but was prevented by the
other beet poring her helm at the same time ; she
then struck in between the Emit shore and the
800 s of the Thames, and the two hosts ran a
short distance side by side, both putting across the riser to-
gether, each endeavouring to out-manoeuvre the other, so as
g, tin tint at the pier there to land their passengers. The
Sapphire, in passing ahead, struck against the anchor of the
Sous of the Team's, the shank of which projected beyond
deck •ns the larboard bow, and the anchor staring up from
the shock, tame in contact with the leg of the plaintiff; who
wm close beside it, and he was finally obliged to have his
leg antrutated. There was much evidence on both sides at
the via as to which of the two vessels was to blame, and it
was also proved the anchor was not so fastened as to be made
secure on deck, but was sterned as is in g..neral usual on
river steamboats.—The learned Judge told the jury the
plaintiff would be entitled to recover although the
anchor was not properly secured, if in their °pi-
, nion the collision was to be wholly attributed to
the negligence and improper management of the persons on
board the Sapphire, and that there was no want of care or
management conducing to the accident on the part of th.
persons having charge of the vessel on which the plaintiff
was on ooard. The jury having found a verdict for the
plaintiff, damages 9001., Mr. Montage Chambers, Q.C., now
moved for a new trial on the ground of misdirection, and
submitts d it should have been left to the jury to say whether
the accident resulted from the want of proper care in the
lashing of the anchor. He also moved on the ground of the
verdict being against evidence and the damages exceasive.—
Rale nisi termed on the latter ground', and granted on
the first point only.

COURT OF EXCIIRQUER.—Ynannwir.
Nom Pam at Westminster. —Before Mr. Baron Rolfe and • Middlesex
common Jury.
The first sittings of this branch of the Court of Exchequer
commenced yesterday. Than are one hundred causes set
down on the list for trial. Of these upwards of twenty un-
defended nuns were disposed of yesterday
Bueeiv v. ELLIKTON.—LIABILITT ON • BOND.—Mr.
Petendorff appear< d for tips plaintiff, Mr. Bailey, a farmer
in Yorkshire, who sought to recover from the defendant, an
attorney's clerk at Darlington, the sum of 3511. 19s. 6d.
From the statement of the learned counsel it appeared that
about twenty years ago, the plaintiff and defendant were it.
'p as farmers, and that their business transactions
ad to various lawsuits. The defendant had a sister
=grof anannuity of 201. a year, secured upoa an estate
a father, a proviso being made that the estate was
la be released from thin charge on the payment
le her of 2161. An arrangement was accordingly entered
into for the release, a bond being given for 2001, and 26/.
paid down to Miss Ellertoa. This was in the year 1833,
and the arrangement appears to have been made in conse-
quence of the defendant being in want of money at the time.
The plainiff was made a party to the bond, as security far
the defendant. In the mouth of April, in the present year,
the plaintiff, who had during the interval heard nothing
more of the matter, received a letter demanding from him a
sum of 3001., as arrears of the annuity. Au action wag
afterwards commenced against him, which he satisfied, after
declaration, by the payment of the amount and costs, which
amounted, together, to 3511. 19s. 3d, which the plaintiff now
sought to reccieer.—Thes• fact. having been proved
in evidence, Mr. Huddlestone, for the defendant, applied
for a nonsuit, on the ground that the plaintiff was
bound to prove that he wup legally obliged to pay the money
which he alleged be had paid —Mr. Petersdorff contended
that the release was not in respect of the annuity, but only
of the chap on the estate.—Mr. Baron Rolfe said, as it
had been proved in the course of the plaintiff's ease that the
defendant had said to the fstaintiff, after payment of the
money, " You have been obliged to pay the money and we
d aye dme you," then was a queen= for the declass of a
kilo. He shwid, however, reserve leave to move the grunt
on ibs Pint. —Mr. Buddlestone then addressed the jury foe
the defendant, and contended that the money raised by means
of the bond had bees applied in payment of the partner-
ship dtta due by the plaintiff and defendant as tannin.
The darn:int had a "set off" against tea claim, hut the
plaintiff bap deeded the statute of limitations in bee.—Mr.
B, cs gage 6,1/41 It was admitted that there was no other
annuity shin this!, and these was no breath of the condition
of the bled. The annuity was discharged by the deed of
release bp the coasaarsea of 2251., sad than was no legal
pulp*i ea SM kiiin,"iff to pay the money.—Mr.
unfilled to cat triunes's, and the jury thereupon re-
tuned a nudist for the datesdent.

COURT OF HAICHRHITCY.—YarraanaY.
Balm Mr. DossaDAGootir Ormitsua.
A GOOD liras —W. 810c:hall, aaptha inaouracturor,,
Bt. Nome sad Hammersmith, MA formerly a proprietor of I