The Express.
London, England, 1850-02-18 00:00:00

Katy intelttaence.

EQUITY COURTS.-SATURDAY.
Biota MI VICE CRANCHLOIL OF ENGLAND.
NIIHAU v. &MAIM-DEMI:ILIUM Tu ♦ lIILL FILID

AGAINST TIN LONDON AND WIIIITNINSTER BANK.
The question In this case arose out of certain trinoactione
between the London and Westminster Bank awl the New-
caele Joint-Stock Bank. It appeared that the London and
Weerninster Bank had acted as the London bankers for the
Newcastle Bank, who had become indebted to the London
Bank in the sum of 20,0001.—that in December, 1845, en
agreement was entered into by peons acting for the two
banks, by which it was arranged that the sum then due
should be carried to a separate sect unt. and that various
promissory note, amounting to the value of 41,0001., given
by the shareholders in the Newcastle bank, sboull be
lodged with the London bank as a collateral security for the
sum which was then or might thereafter becom edue to the
London bank. It was also agreed that the Linden bank
should not swept aoy drafts of the Newcastle hank, except
upon a dep.sit of cash on acceptances of London banker,.
It further appeared that in November, 1846, the I.OlldOQ
b..nk commenced an action against the plaintiff, who was on•
of ten shareholders who had deposited a note of hand foe
2,0001., and recovered judgment for principal and intetest.
The plaintiff paid 1,0001. on accaunt, and the London bank
also brought actions against the Newcastle bank sod the
other shareholders who had deposited promissory notes and
reco‘ered judgments against them to the amount
of 130,7011., after which the London bank ao-
cepted a release of the clu,ms on their behalf,
but had lately proceeded to revive the judgment obtained
by them against the plaintiff. The bill was bled against
the London bank, to restrain them from these proceed:up.,
on tag ground that they had advanced money without fur-
ther security, contrary to the terms of the agreement of
1845, whereby the debt had been increased. A demurrer
to this bill now came on for argument, and it was contended
that the promissory notes were given as security for thy sums
which might thereafter be advanced, and that the increased
debt had been allowed for the benefit of the Newcastle
bank.

The' ice. Chancellor said, as he understood the case, it
canto to this—that, by the agreement of December, ISi5,
the promissory notes were given for the purpose of be-
coming a security to the London and Westminster Huh,
and oLe express stipulation was that the sum of 30,0P0/ , the
sum then due, should be transferred to a separate account,
and the promissory notes were to be given as a coelab red se-.
curity for that sam, and the same notes were also to be held
as security for any other sums which rcfait become due to
the London and Westminster Rank. That was a part of the
transaction which could not be got rid of. The story
amounted to this—that after the above transaction there
was a settlement to a certain extent of the ac-
counts between the two banks, and on the settlement there
was ex fepted the sum of 1;2001. which represented
the amount unpaid upon the plaintiff's note for 2.0001. and
interest. It app•ared to his Honour there was nothing on
the face of the bill stated why the defendants, the L-ndoa
and Westminster Hank, ea holders of Wet note, should not,
if they could, recover at law against the ',tainted. The de-
murrer must therefore be allowed.

11

COURT OF EXCHEQUER—SATURDAY.
Nnn Patty.—Bitrosi Si. F. POLLOCK, c. 8., AND C MIDDLIMIt‘
SPICLAL doer.
O'Coretton, M.V., v. BECADSHAW.—ALLICiID LariaL.-e-
Till LAND Courasy.
This cause was brought to a conclus.on on Saturday,
after occupying three entire days. The plaintiff baying exa-
mined witnesses in reply to the evidence adductd in support
of • he plea or justification,
Mr. Roebuck, U.C., on behalf of the defendant, addressed
tke jury upon that evidence. Ile contended that the plea
was c.inet merely made out. It not only appeared that the
land scheme was illegal, but that the bank" was frauds-
h nt. Both schemes emanated from it ftw persons, who
called themselves " the dekgates of the worklng chum."
Now, those individuals were just as much retitled to the de-
acription esey had assumed, as the three tailors of Tooley- street
—daughter)—who, in bye.gone days, represented themselves
as " th.. people of England." (Laughtsr.) With ri spot to
Mr. O'Connor himself, he (Mr. Roebuck) charged him with
everything alleged in the libel complained of, and the justi-
ficauen which had been pleaded. Thu evidence tally iota-
bished she truth of every ono of the statements mode by
the d fondant against Mr. O'Connor. Every charge was
proved as clear as the sun at noondlay, in its irmost bril-
liancy on the brightest summer's day. No less thin 112.000!.
had been collected by this company out of the pockets a the
poor wcrking claws by mull weekly contrihrions. In
some instances, they did not exceed 3d. a ws.k, au,: it,
htrefore, was the more incumbent on those to wh.nn thme
sums were entrusted to hold the trust sacred, and protect it
from imposture and imposition et every sort. The fact was
distinctly proved that every penny of that lar,.e sum
of money was paid to Mr. O'Connor. account in the several
bnLks in which it had been lodged bj his orders from time
to lust. It'd name was not inintien.3l as treasurer in any
of the rules, although he always acted in that capacity. Its
ono but Mr. O'Connor dealt with the money, which wen
also a violation of the rules. stating that the subseriptiJna
should be invested in the public fund.; that the treasurers
should be opp.dated by the board of directors, and that no
money should be drawn from the bank without the authority
of the directors. Ti. financial secretary stated that no suok
thing ever took place. Accounts were to be kept ; no men-
tioa was made in the rules of the Norther it N,ar, but there
stone was any trace to be found of the aubseriptioas. All the
mousy was paid bj the tikanci..l steietary to dlr. AL'Clo
wk.
CA
V• • '
• GC
. .

1