The Northern Daily Times.
Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1856-08-12 00:00:00

SARDINIA

A project has been set afoot for a subscription
to present the Sardinian Government with 100
pieces of ordnance for the fortification of Alessan
dria, and has been recieived in other parts of Italy
with enthusiasm No doubt the notification that
the Government has entertained the idea favour-
ably, which was published in the official Gazette
the other day, will further increase its popularity,
as it will be interpreted elsewhere that the Sardi-
nian Government is ready to accept the gift for the
protection of Italian interest.

LORD MAIDSTONE AND ACCOMMODA-
LLS.

(BEFORE LORD CHIEF BARON POLLOCK AND A SPECIAL JURY )
MATHER V. LORD MAIDSTONE,--On Saturday last this
action was tried at the Surrey Assizes, Guildford, to
recover the sum of £l,OOO upon a bill of exchange accepted
by the defendant. The material defence relied upon was,
that the defendant had given the acceptance in question
in lieu of a bill for the same amount, which he had accepted
for the accommodation of the Hon. Francis Villiers, but
that instead of receiving that bill, a bill hearing a forged
acceptance was handed to him. Mr. M. Chambers, Q.C.,
and Mr. Lush appeared for the plaintiff; and Mr. E.
James, Q.C., Serjeant Ballantine, and Mr. Holt were
counsel for the defendant. Mr. James addressed the
jury, and said that the plaintiff in the action was a betting-
house keeper, and he sued the defendant upon a bill of
exchange, drawn by the Hon. Francis Lawley, and
accepted by the defendant, and dated the lith of March,
1855. Lord Maidstone, it appeared, had been for a great
many years on the most intimate and friendly terms with
the Hon. Mr. Villiers, the second son of the Earl of Jersey,
and in January, 1852, that gentleman asked him to accept
two bills of exchange for his accommodation. The learned
counsel read a portion of a letter written by Mr. Villiers
to the defendant in which he stated that he was so
" infernally bothered" for money, that he had ventured to
ask him to put his name to two bills of exchange for his
accommodation, telling him at the same time that he
would run no risk, as the bills in question would
never arrive at maturity, but would be strangled in
their birth. Lord Maidstone consented to do
what was asked by his friend, and he ultimately, in the
month of January, 1 852, did accept two bills for £l,OOO
each, drawn by Mr. Villiers, and for which he did not
receive any consideration whatever, but merely a memo-
randum, stating that the bills had been accepted for the
accommodation of Mr. Villiers. These original bills were
of three months date, and it appeared that when they
became due they were renewed, Lord Maidstone still
continuing to put his name to the fresh billJ, and renew-
ing the old ones. And things went on in this way until
the beginning of March, 1854. when a person named
Edward Rawson Clark, called upon the defendant, and
told him that one of Mr. Villier's bills, accepted by him
for £l,OOO, would become due in a few days, and he
required a fresh bill and the interest for the renewal.
Clark was known to his lordship in connection with
former renewals, and he therefore, having no suspicion,
and imagining that the bill referred to was one of those
that he had originally accepted for Mr. Villiers, and
which had been renewed, gave Clark a fresh acceptance
for £l,OOO, and:a cheque for £lOO as interest, to renew
the bill that was then coming due. Mr. Villiers at this
time was not in England, and Lori Maidstone procured
the signature of the Hon. Mr. Lawley as the drawer of
the fresh bill, and he accepted it, and it was upon
this acceptance that the present action was brought.
He had stated that at this time Mr. Villiers had
left the country, and from circumstances, which the
jury were probably aware of, this gentleman had never
returned. Lord Maidstone was most unwilling to cast
any obloquy upon his friend under such circumstances,
but he had at the same time a duty to perform to himself,
and when he discovered that a certain class of people were
determined to make use of the position of Mr. Villiers to
extort money, there was a point at which concession must
stop, and, under the advice of counsel, and he had no
hesitation in saying that he (Mr. James) was the person
who had so advised him, he determined to resist the f re-
sent action, which was merely an attempt to plunder him.
He had already paid a considerable sum of money in con-
sequence of his connection with these unfortunate bill
transactions of Mr. Villiers; but, finding that there was
a regular system of extortion intended to be practised, he
thought it right,to lay all the facts before a jury, and if
they should .be of opinion that he ought to pay this bill,
he would do so. The learned counsel then went on to
state that shortly after he had given Clark the new bill,
the old one was handed to him, and, upon examining it,
he discoverd to his horror that his signature had been
forged. He had given a fresh bill for itso,shiaedabtnosssudlhtibgaittrphlhhosetOeuueygsaiblth:CiletlehdlfrueuotpqsuhtoehUbadneett
for £lOO, and he applied to the plaintiff or his agent for
tttwcohhi
was
egcs
genuineuivmgei
svttehrestitutioncircumstances
uae
upseepoch,
being
acceptance
aonhdntgahet
dhetaah
mentioned.
soreveenre
gsitnneie
onsr
by
rye,
action
ot
ietsonAnttl
could be entertained. Lord Maidstone himself had
paid one of the £l,OOO bills, for which, as he had
told them, he had never received one farthing,
and the friends of Mr. Villiers had taken up
the other, so that there could be no doubt that the
one in question was a forgery, but it was due to Mr.
Villiers to state, that whatever his faults might have been
on other matters, he was not. believed to have been the
author of this particular forgery, and the jury would very
well understand that when a certain class of persons
becamewould
naoctq übaei n
pt eadr
twi
ci
ut hl a tr hhaeiennpdloetsaaci
learned
ninioencridgl
uocdfaoeudadnvl r.
asbenylVt
atsightl
aelei
teliornmfsg,
made an
aeytionsT,
oferwdefrutrotteixertorotbsmerovn
the virtual question for the jury was whether the plaintiff
had given real consideration for the bill upon which the
action was brought, or whether he was not cognisant of
the nature of the transaction, and in that case he would
not be entitled to recover.
On cross-examination, lord Maidstone said: These
two £1 .000 bills that I accepted for the accommodation of
Mr. Villiers were the only ones for which I received no
consideration. I accepted three others for him, one for
£l,OOO, another for £l,lOO, and a third for £2,000, .end I
had a portion of the proceeds. Th- £2,000 and the £l,lOO
bills were running when Mr. Villiers lest, but they have,
since been paid. I had never accepted any accommoda-
tion bills before. The two £l,OOO bills were of course
renewed a great many times, and when Mr. Villiers
brought me the old ones, I put them into the fire. I
wrote a tremendous letter to Clark complaining of his
not delivering me up the, old bill aft, r obtaining my
acceptance and cheque. Mr. Francis Lawley, the drawer
of the bill, is also abroad, as well as Mr. Villiers. I
complained to Mr. Stewart of the bill having been pre-
sented at my house, and he explained that it was necessary
for this to be done in order that the holders of the bill
might have a remedy against the other persons whose
names were on the bill. The signature to this bill is not
at all like my writing. It is rather a desperate act sign-
ing a bill, and I always do it with a dash. (A laugh.)
Re-examined: All the bills accepted by me for the ac-
commodation of Mr. Villiers have been paid and with-
drawn. I relied on his meeting them. I had no means of
knowing into whose hands he passed the bills, but he
always told me that they were "kept quiet." (A laugh.)
I understood of course by that, that they were not circu-
lated. Clark did not tell me into whose hands the .£l,OOO
bill was paid.
The witnesses for the plaintiff denied the charge of
forgery, and gave indifferent evidence as to the regularity
of the transaction.
The Lord Chief Baron, in summing up, said, that if
they believed the plaintiff had made out. to their satisfac-
tion that he had given value for the bill in question, he
was entitled to recover the amount. His lordship then
called the attention of the jury to the facts adduced in
evidence, and said the question they had to decide was
whether the plaintiff was a bona, fide holder of the bill or
not. _ _ . .

The jury almost immediately returned a verdict for the
defendant, at the same time expressing their opinion that
there had been a fraudulent conspiracy in this matter, by
some persons or other, but they were unprepared to say