The Express.
London, England, 1867-11-05 00:00:00

COURT OF COMMON PLEAS.

Sttings in Banoo.—(Before Lord Chief Justice llovill
and Justices Willes, Bytes, and Keating.)
THE C..NFLUIS ettoNZ QUARRY COMPANY V. PARREFt.

This was an action to mover the amount of eight cir.
(-Lir notes which had been issued by the NsAional Bank,
kt which bad been lost by some means before they reached
ti,,. ',UMW' hands abroad. The bank was willing to
Lod beck the money upon receiving a particular form of
isdemnity ; but the parties would not agree upon the
temp, of the indemnity, and hence the present action. At
the trial the plaintiff was nonsuited ; but the question
tow was whether a verdict should be entered for the
Jettudant ; and this question was regarded as one of some
roportance in reference to the construction to be put upon
circular notes.

The Lord Chief Justice, in delivering judgment, said
dist the court were of opinion that it was not obligatory
pop the holder of ettonL, notes to cash them, although
be had purchased the right to do so if he thought proper
nal that in the event of his not requiring to use them
Abroad, he might, after reviewable notice of his electing
not to use them, require repayment at his banker's hands.
Thu was Put an unreasonable holding, because the banker
would have the use of the money while it remained in his
bands; but as to the terms of repayment, whether any
discount was to be allowed, the documents furnished no
information. This right to demand repayment of the
money, however,could only be exercised when there was
no possibility f the banker being called upon to pay
upon the circular notes : but in this case the notes had not
been delivered up to the banker, and there was nothing to
show that they had been destroyed, or what had become
of them. This being so the bank was not liable to refund
the money. except upon having • proper indemnity, and
the question of the sufficiency of the indemnity offered
in this case should have been disposed of at chambers
under • provision in the Common Low Procedure Act.
The judgment of the court therefore was that the non-
suit was right, and that the rule should be discharged.
Rule discharged.

COURT OF BANKRUPTCY.
Melon Mr. Commissioner Hokepi.)
IN RE NALGANINI.

This bankrupt, who was described as a merchant and
promoter of public companies, of Crosby House, Bishops-
gateotreet, was made bankrupt as a lunatic, under the
lOtfth sec. of the act which provides for cases of that de-
scription, the petition being filed by Mr. Aldridge, solicitor
to the official assignee, who was appointed by the court
to represent the bankrupt. He has since so far recovered
as to be able to file, or at least sign accounts, which show
liabilities of :3,4711. On the other aide there is a mention
of some shadowy claim dating back several generations ;
and the bankrupt statcs that his assertion of that claim
WWI the principal cause of his being confined in a lunatic
asylum.
This was an adjourned sitting for examination and dis-
charge. There was no opposition, and his Honour granted
the order.

(Before Mr. Commissioner Winslow.)
IN RE g. HARRIS.

The bankrupt was a swine merchant, of Jewi y-street,
Aldpte. Debts about 1,7001.
Mr. Morgan, for the assignees, did not oppose ; Mr.
Irethertield opposed for Mr. Fernandez, wine merchant.
It appeared that the bankrupt had purchased eight hogs-
heads of sherry of the opposing creditor, for 200/., giving
bills at six months, and had transferred the wine to Mr.
Garrott, of Bristol, who had advanced him 2001. for the
purpose of making a journey to Sweden.
An adjournment was ordered for cash and goods ac-
counts.