The Express.
London, England, 1853-05-17 00:00:00

THE EXPRESS, TUESDAY EVENING, MAY 17, 1853.

g.au) futtiiieence.

COURT OF QUEEN'S BENCH.—YrxrcunAY.
STRING* AT NIA PM, AT GulLlMAll,—buroas LO) CAIIPILLI. AND

CONMAI JV41114

BELLINGHAM O. GRoVE.—ACTION TO RECOVER PAY-
MENT FOR WRITING ♦ LITE OP THE DELI OP WEL-
LINOTUM.
. . .

This was an action for work and labour, to which the
defendant pleaded never indebted and a set off.
Mr. Bramwell, Q C. (with whom was Mr. ?danisty), said
that the plaintiff was a student of Lincoln's Inn and the de-
fendant a I rioter. Shortly after the funeral of the late
Duke of Wellington the defendant called upon the plaiutiff
and asked him to write a pamphlet life of the duke. lie
agreed to do an, but at a subsequent interview the defendant
said that so many pamphlets had appeared upon the sub-
ject that he thought it would be better to bring out a book
of about 350 pages. Accordingly the plaintiff set about
compiling the work, and completed it alter 12 weeks' h.rd
labour. Mr. Grove received it from time to time, and ex-
pressed himself satisfied with it. No sum was named as
the price to be paid for the work, and the present action
was brought to reeseer 401., which would be at the rate of
about 21. 2s. a sheet. The defendant had paid MI. into
court and resisted the payment of the remaining 161.
Mr. Temple, for the defendant, contended that the MS.
was miscalculated, sad that the amount paid was more than
sufficient to satisfy the plaintiff's demand, reckoning it even
at 2!. 2e. per sheet. The defendant contended that 32 pages
went to a sheet, whereas the plaintiff had calculated a sheet
at 16 pages.
The jury found a verdict for the plaintiff for 301.
This was the last day of the present sittings.

COURT OF EXCHEQUER,-YESTERDAY.
lirrrnms A? U tat Paws AT OVILIMALtr-BrIFOIIIII. BALM MAMA

Aim Commos Ram.
BLCIWITH O. DAWIIIB.—CONFLICTING TVITIXONT.

Mr. O'Malley and Mr. Hawkins were for the plaintiff,
Mr. Serjt. Wilkins appeared for the defence.
This action was brought to recover the sum of 2.51. 19s
for work and labour ; the defendant pleaded never in
dehted, payment, and a set-off. The claim was made for
alterations in the shop of the defendant, a grocer. In op-
position to this demand the defendant stated that he had
furnished the plaintiff with a chest of about 821 M. of tea,
the value of which was more than the amount claimed by
the plaintiff. This statement was proved upon the oath§ of
the defendant and his shopman, while on the other hand
the plaintiff swore that he had never received the tea.
Mr. Baron Martin, in leaving the cane to the jury, said
it was for them to weigh these adverse statements, and say
which side spoke the truth.
The jury returned a verdict for the plaintiff for 211.
Mr. Baron Martin fully concurred in this finding. His
lordship regretted that he bad not the power to commit the
defendant and his witness, as he believed that they bad
been guilty of perjury. Unfortunately there were not two
witnesses on the other side who spoke to the particular Tact
in dispute, and thus he had no power to order the com•

Mr. Woutner--Supposino a bill of exchange to be drawn
by a third person against a letter c.f credit which had not
been advised, I presume under no circumstances would you

pay it.
Witness—Decidedly not.
Mr. Wontner—You remember the first occasion of the
prisoner coming, when he received of you a portion of
the 1001. ?
Witness—Yes.
Mr. Wontner—He showed you the letter of credit?
Witness—Yes.
Mr. Wontner—Did you tell him that you would look to
your correspondence to see whether you had any advice
upon it?
NVitness—l do that always.
Mr. Wontner—Did you not say to him, " I will look to
our correspondence and see whether we are advised upon
it ? "
Witness—l may have made that remark—it is natural
enough. I generally say I will look to the 'deices.
Mr. Wontner—Would you take the letter of credit away
with you, or would you en his presence look is the ad-
vice' ?
Witness—lt is all publie,whether I take it away or not ;
there is no screen. I should, in his presence, look for my
letter of advice, and if I found it inspect it.
Mr. Alderman Wire—Always in the presence of the party
presenting it ?
Witness—Yes ; I may say always.
Mr. Alderman Wire—No question seems to arise upon
that, because the prisoner had not exhausted his letter of
credit.
Mr. Edward Merewether—l am proprietor of the Albion
Hotel, 3, Bridge-street, Illackfriars. On the Bth March the
prisoner came to stay at my hotel. He did not give me
any name. On the 11th, ho said he should probably dine
there. lie returned betweea three and four o'clock in the
afternoon, and in a hasty manner ordered his bill, and went
away in a esti in a great hurry.
Charles Thaue (the officer)—l was at the shop of Messrs.
Moses and Son on the afternoon of the 11th March, with
Mr. Debenhain ; the prisoner left there in a cab. I followed
him in another cab tethe corner of Bridge-street. I there
lost sight of him ; that was as near as possible half-putt.
I have seen the driver of the cab in which the prisoner
went away from Mr. Merewether's hotel.
Mr. Rudolph Prommel—l am manager of Messrs. Mon-
teaux's money-changing office, in the Haymarket. On the
morning of the 6th March, the prisoner came to our office,
and brought about 6701. in Fredericks d'or, Louis d'or,
Napoleons, and florins, for which I paid him the sum of
6741. by cheque on Messrs. Ransom and Co., our bankers.
I asked him his name ; he replied Louis Oriel, and I wrote
it down. He told me that he lived in Commercial-road
East. On giving him the cheque, he said he had also
about 100 Russian half-imperials, which he brought on the
same afternoon, about half-put three o'clock, and for
which I gave him another cheque on Messrs. Ransom and
Co. for 811/. I accompanied him to the bank, and saw him
receive cash for the cheques, amounting to 1,4881.
Mrs. Susannah Abbott—l reside at 63, Cambridge-street,
Edgeware-road. The prisoner lived in my house from the
15th to the 29th April. He said his name was Permentel.
Mr. Mullens—That is the case upon the bill of exchange
given by the prisoner to Messrs. Shickler. On a future
occasion 1 shall be prepared, on the arrival of Mr. Wilson,
who has been sent for from St. Petersburg, to go into the
case of bills amounting to 3,8001, also in pursuance of this
supposed letter of credit, No. 41.
Mr. Alderman Wire—How do you shape your charge,
Mr. blasts ?
Mr. Mullets—The charge I make against the prisoner is
that of attempting, by false pretences, to obtain the sum of
6001. from the Union Bank of London, and I ground that
charge in this way—the prisoner goes to the banking house
of Messrs. Shiekler at Berlin, and there makes a statement
to them, either verbally or in writing, I do not care which,
but which is afterwards reduced into writing, and signed
by himself, that in pursuance of a certain letter of credit,
No. 41, from Messrs. Duncan, Spearman, and Co., he has
authority to demand from the Union Bank of London the
sum of 6001. He puts that into writing, and signs it. It
is a bill of exchange ; it may be a letter or anything, but it
is addressed to the Union Bank of London. According to
the facts which have come out to-day upon the evidence
of Mr. Debenham, I will take it to be sufficiently proved—
for the present at all events—that that pretence is wholly
without foundation, and that the prisoner at that time had
no authority to draw upon the Union Bank of London for
6001.
Mr. Alderman Wire—lt is not pretended that he had
any authority except that which ho derived from letter of
credit No. 41.
Mr. Mullens—Precisely so ; and we have proved that the
Union Bank had no authority to pay. I suppose my friend
is to contend that this pretence was made at Berlin, and
therefore is a pretence not within the jurisdiction of the tri-
buns!' of this country. I presume he will say, that whatever
the prisoner did was completed at Berlin ; that the fraud
was intended to be committed upon the bankers there, and
not upon the Union Bank.
Mr. Wontner, in the course of a very able argument, and
at considerable length, contended that the prisoner had not
been proved to have committed any offence rendering him
amenable to the laws of this country, however much he
might have transgressed the law at Berlin.
Mr. Alderman 'Wire—This is • case of so much import-
ance both to the commercial world and to the prisoner him-
self, that I shall remand it in order that I may have time
to consider the law as applicable to the case, whether or
not I have authority to rend him to trial; because I w old
not subject him, • foreigner, to the ignominy of a trial
unless I thought • conviction would follow. Therefore I
shall remand the case for a week, which will enable Mr.
Wontner, who says he has not had time to look into the
cases, to make himself better acquainted with the state of
the law, so as to shake, if he can, the impression which I
have, that the prisoner must be committed for trial.
The prisoner was then remanded for a week.