The Express.
London, England, 1866-02-27 00:00:00

COURT OF COMMON PLEAS.
Eiddnp st NW Prior io fie
.dr.7(pdore. Lord Chia

Justice Erie sod a Speelil Jury.).

BAT MI V. THu CONTRACT CORPORATION (LDITTRo).
This ease occupied iLe attention of the court for nearly
five d iys. Is was en adios ova a bill of exchange for
3,00 e/. dated the 4th Auguat, 1865, drawn by John Weems
and Go., accepted by the defendants and endorsed to the
plaintiff. The question in the cause was whether the
bill had been indorsed to tt., plaintiff the purpose of his
getting it discounted for the benefit of the defends/3M, or
whether there was so ciesdition of that kind so that he
coold apply it to his own purposes.
Mr. Kerslake. Q. 0.. Mr. Field, Q C.. Sir George Bony.
man, and Mr. AL Williams. appeared for the plaintiff ; and
Mr. Bovill, Q.C., Mr. Mellish, Q. 0., Mr. FL Jamie, and
Mr. Lanyon for the defendants.
Toe philutiff was an tron merchant in foulness in Grace.
church-strait, and he was also agent for the Aberdare Iron
Company. He had bad a great many large transeetioos
with Mews. John Watson and Co., who were contractors
for making railways and other public works. He had sold
them iron, lent them money, been surety for the perform.
sore of their contracts, end be bad been in Meer ways
connected with them. At the commememeot of 1865 it was
arranged that a portion of Messrs. Watson's cootraote should
be heeded over to the defendants, and a partner in Messrs.
Wetsoa's house and the de/indents became directees of
the company. The transactions between the wan won
of a complicated kind, sad amounted altogether to many
hundreds of thousands of pounds, and out of the affairs
several actions had arisen, of which the present one was
first tried. It was sated that is the next case the defen-
dants claimed from the plaintiff no less a sum than C)i,
A great deal of evidence wee given on each stile in
referenda to the transactions between the parties, and more
especially as to the terms &upon which the bill bad bees
endorsed.

The Lord Chief Justice, in summing up, said that the
turning point of the case wee contained in the evidence of
Mr. Hickson, a solicitor, who was one of the directors of
the company, nominated by Messrs. Watson under
their arrangement with the company ; and in
the evidence of the plaintiff. The defence was
that the plaintiff bad had entrusted to him to get
discounted abontso,oool. worth of bills, of whichthe3,oool.
bill win part, and that instead of applying the proceeds to
this purpose he used the money for paying debts due to
him from Messrs. Watson. Mr. Ricreou's evidence was
that the company were going to arrange with Gurney's for
discounts, and be in common with one or more directors
asked the plaintiff to use his influnno to raise money for
them, and he agreed to dose. Hesaid he should haven° diffi-
culty in getting them " • lit ye" for 30.0001. ce 40.0004 upon
bills drawn by Messrs. Watson and Co. He said that al-
though the discount would be is the mime of Watson and
Co., the proceeds would be for t. 6 company. Bills were
banded to the plaintiff for 12,0006, for 3,0001., end lee
32.0001. under the arrangement that they would be dis-
counted for the benefit of the company. Witting asked
the plaintiff soon afterwards whether he bad done the
bills, and when they would have the money. He Bead that
it would be uniedvieable to draw the money out
immediately ; it would be better to leave it fors me time.
Mr. Bateman, on the other hated, swore positively that
there was no such agreement made. He said that be bad
a balance due to him from Watson end 00., of 31,0001.,
and be sopliad to Mr. ()emend, who was a pertuer is the
firm of Wstaon and 00., end also a director of the company
to reduce the balance. Mr. ()versed brought him 32,000/.
of bulb, and said, "It you get them discounted
with Omani, Gurney, and Co. it may go in reduction
of your Wanes." The bills were discounted. Mr.
°mend drew oat 2,0001. of the proceeds, and authorised
the plaintiff to withdraw the remaitaLr, and be did so.
As to the 3,0001. bill Mr. Ovarend brought it, end said—
" Please put this to my ore lit," and as to the 12,0001.
acceptation they were bawled over as "moveable h(113116.
ties." In conclusion his lordship said that the whole of
the dispute was ceenqueot upon the faders of Meseta
Wa'son. and it would be for the jury to sty whether the
bills had been heeded to the plaintiff in payment of his debt
' due from Near. Watsoe, or upon an speemeet that be
should hand the proceeds of the bills to the defendsrets.
The jury retried to consider the matter, and after an
absence of 10 minutes found a verdict for the plaintiff for
the amount of the bill and interest, 3,0201. lib,

COURT OF BANKRUPTCY.
(Baton Mr. Commissioser Holzoyda
IX BB JAX 11331!1.11:0 MILL_

The bankrupt was •;atoekbroker of the Stook Exchange
and of Norwood. At the last sitting. • resolution was
passed for rcuspeadiog the prooriedinp and taking the mei
out of court oo payment of a composition of ss. fa the
potted ; sad an sdjourament for two months was ordered.
Mr. F. T. Dabois, on brhslf of the maiguess, now asked
fora further adjourome•t of two months, which was
orJered. The liabilities are stated at 17,8531.