The British Press; or, Morning Literary Advertiser.
London, England, 1825-12-17 00:00:00

MT. &TIMM SPAPIIIE then adverted to theirlit
would result to the commetce of thte todotty If the jury should find
for the plaintiffs. flank of Boglaed notes, which constimtcei such
An excellent medinor of citculation and for trossniirA:en to the
country, would titer, be coesidorebly deteriorated in politic eszitna-
tion. Numerous decisions had established that honk-notes were to
be regarded as cash, with the view that the facility and safety of
transfer and eirculatiou should •be enjoyed by the comintiniiy. He
bad frequently refused to mark bank-nines with his aerie and ad.
areas when asked to do so, because lie knew that as such twos were
cash his compliance was unnteeesary, and that the practice could
Only verve to gratify inquisitive or impertinent examination. All
strictly requisite was the name, and not the address; and in the
present case the name of the piny had been given. In record to
the Hue and Cry what oompalsion existed to read it ? No man
of busi..eas or of vote would thick its perusal worth the trouble.
For his art he never read it. 'The litre mei en, *dm he in.
terracing to Magistrates and napericons wnneeted with td polite
but to men of ordinary occupations it ~as merely nominal in town
and country. If the plointiffs adopted-the nroptr mode ef pub-
lishing the loss of their money, they should have advertised in well-
lowan papers. No imoutation of fraud lOf sonirkt the defendants
from the plaintiffs, and he was sure that the jury could not Fatal.
tously assume its existence. which was essential to constitute a find.
ire for the plaintiff'..., Though the rule of ascent errpeer was
applicable to bills of exchange, the ease wits eliffsrent as to bank-
notes. The person who tlioemutted bills of co!iange should ascer-
tain the lawful poomision of the party preaentli • bait there was Co
such p;r:l with ITS' to boak.notts. The low which coodicuted
them cash had establislied a • fell ronfidence. The negligence wits
is this instance to be ascribed to the plainioffit.' who advertised in
only two Phheta, and could not bear to sutject themselves to the
trifling expense of sending even one of diem to the cottony hankers.
As the plaintiffs had not done so, and thereby prevented the occur-
twee of the present action they should sustain the courNuence of
their own pegtigeaoe. The mute innocer.t p trims should not be
Made the sufferers.
The LOUD CASES' JUSTICE, in summing up, told the Jury
that the two principal questions for Qitrw were s First, did the
plaintiff use sufficient dilligence in publication of the loss? and.,
nest, did the defendants exercise due cantior in Inking a note oG
such large amount ? For, though It was a bank-note, and so rec-
koned as cash, still proper caution was indispeuseble. The Jury
would find for the defendants if they thought plaintiffs' exertions to
give publicity were not adequate. lut if they beliertd that the de-
rendents, acting under the responsibility of their clerk, by whom
they were represented. had not been duly cautious, then they wets
liable, though without eny criminal imputation. Ills Lordship.
having conorientedea the facts, was of opinion that the plain:int
were not negligent to a deFee of liability, and that the defendatais
clerk seas cot sufficiently Inqoisidire when tie took so large a note
miss a complete strareen On n strict examination of the facia be-
fore them the Jury would decide according to the propriety of the
case.
The Juni% after a short consultation, gave a verdict fur the plain.
tiffs for WU!.
After the record of the verdict, the Jury, by their foreman, ex-
pressed themselves quite convinced that not a shadow of suspicion
attached to the defendants in taking the note.
The LOWD CHIEF JusTici agreed with the Jury, and added,
that It was but fair to the conduct of the plaintiffs to state that ma.
*ion of criminality had never been insinuated by them.

WALKER. V. 'EAT.
This action was brought to recover c,imperstition from the de-
fendant, who is a proprietor of hackney-earthen. for an injury ails.
fettled by plaintiff, who wu upset by the negligent driving of a
servant of the defendant.
Several witnesses were called to prove, that though there was roll
room to pass freely by the plaintiff:, who was in a gig in HOlborn,
yet defendant's coachman negligently drove agnir..t the gig, whereby
it was upset, the shafts were broken, and the plaintiff was thrown
out and much hurt.

•
The piaiotiff's Counsel said that his client's object was not to get

Several witnesses, on the part of the defendant, attributed the ac-
cident to the rapid driving of the plaintiff.
The Jury, after twenty mit:stets absence, returned Into Court,
and pronounced a verdict tor the plaintiff—Datr.ages EU. 17s. W.

COURT OF EXCHEQUER, °LIT'S !NN-COvaT,
rRIDAY, Dec. N.

[Before the LORD Ctitcr Bwitox.l
The Court was occupied during the whole of tic day in hearing
the conclusion of arguments in the tithe case of Itclde r r. 31s2nea.
which contains nothing of public importance.
His LORDSHIP did not givejudgireat.

SECONDARIES' OFFICE, COI.IMAY.STREET, Dm 16.