The Express.
London, England, 1868-05-26 00:00:00

COURT OF COMMON PLEAS.

Sittings at Nisi Prius in Middlesex.—(Before Mr. Justice
Keating and a Common Jury.)
GUIDER C. KAHN.

This was an action upon a bill of exchange for 155/.1/35.,
which purported to be drawn by Charles Angell, accepted
lby the defendant, and endorsed by his son, John Kahn, to
'the plaintiff. The defence wee that the defendant's name
was forged.
Mr. Daly appeared for the plaintiff, and Mr. Huddle.
ston, Q.C., for the defendant.
A lady, who said that the defendant was a revered friend
of bets, and that she enjoyed an annuity at his bands,
was called, and stated she believed the acceptance was in
his writing.
John Kahn said that his father accepted the bill for his
accommodation ; and turning to Mr. Huddleston, who had
made sonie observation, expressed his opinion that it was
not that gentleman's place to speak.
Mr. Justice Keating said that it was not the witness's
business to judge of that, but to give evidence.
Witness continued—The acceptance was his father's
writing, the bill was drawn by Angell, and endorsed by
witness.

Cross-examined—Angell was a friend of his. Be knew
where he had lived, but did not see why he should give
his address. On being further pressed he said that Angell
had lived in Pimlico, in Ebury-street, but he refused to
give the number.
Mr. Justice Keating asked whether the question was
material.

Mr. Huddleston said it was, for his case wu that there
was no such person as Angell.
The witness being ordered to answer the question, said
that Angell had lived at 2.5. He called himself a gentle-
man. The defendant accepted the bill at his residence,
44, Finsbury-circus, and wanes'''. wife was present. The
plaintiff was a gentleman. He lived at Brighton ; he Kept
a tobacconist's shop for • certain purpose—for discount.
Witness himself was a aletk, but be refused to say to
whom, because it had nothing to do with this business.
Mr. Huddleeton declined to asked tho witness any
further question.
Mr. George Kahn, the defendant, said that he was 85
Tears old, and until two yurs ago he had been a ship and
insurance broker in the City. He never accepted the bill,
and he did not know the drawer. He had already paid
one similar bill for 741., although his signature had
forged.
Mr. Towne, defendant's nephew, and Mr. Rutledge, who
had been his clerk for 40 years, expressed their opinion
that the signature was not his.
Mr. Oldershaw, • solicitor, who had paid the previous
bill, was called.
The jury, however, said that it was hardly worth while
to hear more evidence, for their minds were made up, and,
atter hearing a short address from Mr. Daly, they found a
verdict for the defendant.
Upon the application of Mr. Huddleston the bill was
ordered to be impounded.

COURT OF EXCHEQUER.
Sittings at Niai rrius.—(Before Baron Pigott and a
Common Jury.)
LLOYD r. BURItt:P AND ANOTHER.

This case raised an important question under the Church
Minding Acts as to the liability of churchwardens to pay
a minister's stipend out of the pew rents.
Mr. Prentice, Q.C., and Mr. Longley appeared for the
plaintiff ; Mr. Thos. Jones, Q.C., and Mr. John Thomp-
son for the defendant Bumip ; and Mr. Kydd, for the
other defendant, Reeve, who allowed judgment to go by
default.

The plaintiff, the Rev. Henry Robert Lloyd, was per-
petual curate of the district church of St. Mark's, Ken-
nington, having been licensed to the curacy by his Grace
the Archbishop of Canterbury on Sept. 19, 1864, and he
brought the action against Mr. Burrup, the elected
churchwarden of that church, and Mr. Reeve, the
miaister's churchwarden, to recover 275/., be ng
two-quarters of his annual stipend which became due on
the nth June, 1867. As already stated Mr. Reeve
allowed judgment to be entered by default, but
the other defendant resisted the claim on the
ground that no pew-rents had been received ap-
plicable to the arrears in question. It seemed
that some differences had arisen between the Rev. Mr.
Lloyd and his parishioners, and that the pew rents had in
consequence fallen off. The contention, on his part, was
that his stipend was a first charge on the pew rents, and
that at the time of bringing the action the defendant had
money in hand from that source, auiple to cover
the arrears due, and which was properly ap-
plicable to payment of his claim. A portion of the
pew rents bad been devoted by the defendants to
the repair of the church and other purposes connected with
it. Under the Church Building Acts the stipend was to
be paid out of pew rents received during the year, and the
question whether the defendants had enough money in
hand to p►y it depended upon the period at which the
computation of the year should commence.
After a long discussion, the parties came to an agreement
as to the actual receipts and disbursements of the church.
wardens, and there being no question of fact for the jury
they were discharged from giving a verdict, and a verdict
was formerly entered by the learned judge for she defen-
dants, with leave to the plaintiff to move, in order that all
the questions of law involved in the case might be argued
in the court above.

POLICE COURTS.-(THIS DAY.)

CLKRKENWELL.
♦ TRADESMAN RENT TO PRISON FOR MINTING His