The Express.
London, England, 1868-12-15 00:00:00

VOVITIVR V. WACICTNNON.

The plaintiff io this case, Sir Woliam Porter, waa the
bead of a firm 'of solicitors carrying on burinere at Nor-
wich, and be sued one hill of exchange for 3,0001. which
bore as endorree the name of the defendant, who war for-
me' ly M.P. for Rye. The main itofenee war that the
name of Mr. Meckintion had been forged. but there war
alto a plea that the indorrement had been obtained from
him hr fraud. _

Q.C.. Sir George flonprian. awl
Mr. T. Salter appeared for the plaintiff; and Mr. Ser joint
lial'antine, Mr. J. Brown. QC., and Mr. Archibald fur
the defendant.

It appeared that in ISGG the Mani Railway Company
seal eho the Seabrook Barbour Company were hmtuht
forward, and that the defendanen estate in Kent was
like'y to be eonsiderably lettered if them *theme' wore
caned one Ile wan thee fore meets intercede, in the
pm:um of the rimjianies; he signed a guaruideo for
2,Et01. in tropeet of one of them: and the plvietitr+ cam
was that the defendant signed the bit in aneation to
advance the intelests of the other. The defendant's
signature, it was said, wise obtained by Mr. Callow, the
"fiercely to the railway company ; but it was rather a
singular fact that this person ha) sinr been convicted of
haling forged the eignatures of directors of the company
to cheques. The plaiiitifro conavel, in maths/lion,
stated that there was net the slightest intention to
impute anything dishonourable to the defendrt in re-
sisting this claim, but be was a gentleman new nearly $0
jeer* of age, and it was believed that his memory was
intim, and that lie bud altogether forgotten that h 2 Led
signed the bill.
Edward Bannister Callow, who was brought up in
custody mid wore the convict dress. said—l was furuierly
secretary to the Elham Midway Company, which corn-
piny was farmed for the purpose of making a line from
lid the to Canterbury. The act was obtained in thee. The
defendant wan a supporter of the scheme, and his son was
one of the directors. I applied to the defendant to give
pecuniary assistance to carry out the scheme. I applied to
hem to give a guarantee to the National Provincial I tank. I
shelled conve rearm with him about the Seabrook liarle star
Company. Be wan very anxious to get the bill, for the
success of the railway would so much depend upon it.
In November, leeq. I wan in want of furls for the Se.a•
brook scheme ; nod the bill in question is dated the nth
November. (The bill was handed to the witness.) I
know the signature of Arthur C. Cooper, the drawer of
the bill. Ile wan a clerk in the Elhank Valley office, and
he is now in China I believe. I accepted the hilt and
Cooper endorsed it. On the 11th November I drove to
the defendant's house, known as Aerise-park, and I had
with me my father-in-law and my little boy. I went in,
leaving the others outside. I saw Mr. Maekinnon,
junior, first, and afterward+ I raw the defendant.
asked him if he would give nie a guarantee for the
Harbour Company. the mar as he had done for the rail-
way company. I remiuded him that the guarantee fur
the railway company bad gone on all right ; and then I
asked him to sign this paper (the bill). 1 merely asked
him to sign his name there (the back of the bill). 1 asked
him for it as a guarantee. 1 did not toll him it was a bill.
Having got his signature I came away. auil returned to
my house at Sand ate. thi the 13th 1 handed the bill to
Parker, who said he would get it ithseouutel. I was cm-
wieted this year of forging some cheques of the filial:tuns
the Elliam Railway Company.
Crors-examined-1 believe that Mr. Mackinnon signed
the hill under the belief that it was a guarantee. I forged
the cheques, and I pleaded guilty to the charge. The
aggregate amount of the cheques was enitg.
Thu Lord Chief Justice called the attention of the
counsel to the evidence that Mr. Mackinnon had signed
the bill believing it to be a guarantee.
Mr. Ferjeant liallaatine raid that even if that were a
perfect answer to the action Mr. Mackinnon could not
adept it as !Ca sole defence.
Mr. Thomas A. Pcoley said that the bill came into his
hands in November, ISO. He teak it to Merle. (Myra,
the defendant's bankers. He pointed out the defendant's
name, and asked Mr. Currie if it was a good bill as re-
garded that name, and was told that it was. On a subse-
quent occasion he asked Mann. Olyn to discount the bill,
but they declined to do so.
For the defence Mr. Mackinnon wan called, and he
stated that he never signed the bill; but he added that
the signature was exactly like his.
In crass-examination it appeared that the witness had
forgotten that he was examined in 1666 at length before a
committee of the House of Commons in reference to the
Elbam Valley Company, and that he had also forgotten
that be had signed several documents in reference to the
compsny.
The further hearing of the case wan aslimiroed.