The Express.
London, England, 1860-07-26 00:00:00

ACTION FOR TREBPABA.

This case commenced at 10 this morning, and is expected
to List over tomorrow.

The counsel were, for the plaintiff, Mr. What.ly, Q.C.,
Mr. Huddleston, Q.C., and Mr. Phipson ; for the defend-
sate, Mr. Gray, Mr. Scotland, and Mr. Motteram.
This cause was en action for treepase, brought the
Right Ron. Sir Robert Peel, Bart, against John h
Jennings, mayor for Tarnworth in 1859 ; Francis W y,
smother member of the corporation ; Francis Willington,
town clerk ; Thos. Argyle, his partner, and two labourers.
The declaration set forth that the defendants broke and
interfered with certain stakes situated on the banks of the
river Tame, and removed certain timber piles, cat males,
Lc., from the Tame. Thedefendanta were further charged
with trespass. The defendant. denied Sir Robert's right to
place the stakes whence they were removed, and denied
the trespase.
Mr. Whitely, in stating the case proposed to show by
documentaiy evidence and by credible witnesses that Sir
Robert had the right to the fishing on the stream, and also
the right to some rush beds there ; and that half the
river belonged to the tight hon. baronet, whilst the other
half was claimed by the corporation of Tsmworth, as
lords of the manor of the borough. The borough was very
ancient, there being evidence of its having been in
the hands of Sir Philip De Marmion in 1219, mentioned by
Sir Walter Scott, and then showed how Drayton Manor.
which originally belonged to the crown, had passed into the
hands of the Peel family, sod to which estate a portion of
the Tame now belonged. Sir Robert, wishing to preserve
that portion of the river that belonged to him, had piles
driven in, on the 20th of September last, at a point where
there had been piles before. On that date the defend-
ants took men to the spot, plied them with wine,
and drew up the piles. The learned counsel
showed bow particular the first baronet had been,
as far back as 1790, to secure his right to
the river, because he at one time purposed to put up mills
upon the Tame. Mr. Whately mentioned a return to a
commission in the reign of Philip and Mary to inquire into
the property of Humpliry Cumberford, in which the fishery
upon the river here ;v.vr recognised as one of his possessions
as far back as 1555. The plaintiff had mho a right to the
rash beds, and had rented them out to a man named
Moore. . .

Evidence in support of the plaintiff's case was being
taken when oar parcel was despatched.

HOME CIRCUIT.—Lswg9, JULY 23.

CIVIL SlDE.—(l3eforo Mr. Justice Blackburn and a Special
Jury.)
EARL' r. HUITT.

This was an action to recover the am aunt of 2131. Hs. 6d.
Mr. Edwin James, Q.C., Mr. Hawkins, Q.C., and Mr.
Gates, were for the plaintiff ; Serjeant Shea, Mr. Lush,
Q.C.,
i and Mr. Thompson Chitty were for the defendant.
This action was brought under the following cirenra-
stances. The plaintiff is a farmer at Worthing, and the
defendant is a banker at the same place, and the plaintiff
kept au account with him. It appeared that on Thursday(
the 7th of July, the plaintiff received a cheque for the
above amount from a person named Kidd, upon Mama.
Moline= and Co., hankers, at Lewes, and on the following
morning he paid that cheque in. This cheque was wet to
London to be passed through the clearing house,
and did not come down to Lewes until Monday
morning, when it appeared Kidd had stopped pay-
ment, and the cheque was consequently dishonoured. The
case on the part of the plaintiff was that if the cheque had
been despatched by the cross post on Friday night from
Worthing, it would have been presented on Saturday in-
atead of Monday, and would have been paid, and there was '
some evidence that this would have been the case, although
it appeared that the account of Kidd was not In a very satis-
factory condition, and the Lewes bankers would have had a
consultation before they paid it. Several country bankers
were examined, and they stated that it was their custom
in the case of cross country cheques being paid in
to send them off by the same night's poet, but it was ad-
I milted that upon some occasions it was customary to keep
them till the next day.
Ou the part of the defendant it was contended, firstly.
that there was no evidence that if the cheque had been
presented on the Saturday it would have been paid ; and,
secondly, that since the establishment of the country clear-
ing-house, in 1858, it was the custom of country bankers to
pass these cheques through the clearing-house ; and the
defendant and several other country hankers were examined
and gave evidence to that effect.
The learned Judge, in the result, left two questions to
the jury. Had it been made out that the cheque would
have been psiti if it had hero presented on Saturday? What
was their opinion as to the custom of bankers with regard
to cross-country cheques ?
Tho jury said they were of opinion that the cheque wou'd
have been nail if it had been presented on the Saturday,
and that they also thought it had been made out that the
custom of country huskers was to send the cheques to the
places where they were made payable on the Name evening
they received them.
The learned Judge upon this finding directed a verdict
to be entered for the plaintiff, but leave was given to the
defendant to move to have the verdict entered for him
upon a point of law.