The British Press; or, Morning Literary Advertiser.
London, England, 1826-06-12 00:00:00

COURT OF RING'S BF.NCR.

.. .
MlDTl.Rllll‘.—Notice.—rndefended causes only will be tried in Mid.
(Ileum thi, day. Notice nits.l have been given at the Marshal's office. of
such causes as are undefended, or the record; will not be sent to West-
minster for trial.

Lotenov.—Notice-1 ndefended cauvev only will be tried in London
to-morrow. Notice must be given at the Blaming'. office, of such causes
as are undefended, or the records will not be sent to Guildhall fur trial.—
Dated June 9.

COURT OF EXCHEQUER.—Tnts DAT, AT Tay.
Bickford v. Warn, re I in the niattter of toett I Robins V. Curtis, petl-
port and petition —prlitioll of Unett tlon
Short Canoes.
Bowfin v. Barthel' Ward v. Henley

COl'ltT OF ADMIIRALTV.—To-lloaanw, AT A:Livia.
ourtb and last Session In Trinity Term, lB2o.—Before Lord Stowell

LAW LVTELLIGENCE.

COURT OF KING'S BENCH, SATURDAY, Just 10.
HALL V. FULLER AND CO.
This was an action of aseumpait for money had and received. At
the trial, before the Lord Chief Justice, at the London Adjourned
Sittings after last Michaelmas Term, a vetdict was found fir the
plaintiff, subject to the opinion of the Court on a special case.
The facts stated in the special case were these :—The plaintiff
kept cash at the house of the defendants, who are bankers. The
plaintiff having occaaion to pay a sum of V. to a tradesman, drew
a check for the amount upon the defendants, and delivered it to the
payee, who told him that he wanted to send it into the country, It
was drawn in the usual form, payable to the payee or bearer, with
the plaintiff's signature and the date. When the check was pre-
sented for payment, the amount was altered from 3/. to =Ol. No
suspicion being entertained by the defendant's' clerks, it was paid
at the counter as a matter of course. At that time the plaintiff
had not cash in the defendants' hand's to the full amount of the
check thus altered. In no instance had the plaintiff overdrawn his
account, and had never given the defendants notice that he wished
to have credit ultra the balance in hand. Great ingenuity had been
displayed in altering the check, and the fraud could not be detected
upon a cursory view. Soon afterwards, the plaintiff finding that
his account was overdrawn, the fraud wag detected. and he called
upon the defendants to indemnify him for the money which they
had so paid without his authority which the defendants refusing to
do, this cation was brought. The question for the opinion of the
Court was, whether the action was maintainable either for the whole
or any part of the amount of the check ?
Mr. F. Poi.t.owt, for the plaintiff, argued, that at the de-
fendants must, in point of law, bear the lose of a check ringed io
every respect, the same consequence would fellow where the forgery
was only of a part. Payment of a cheek, forged either in the
drawers or the payee's name, had been held to threw the loss upon
the banker, whose duty it is to take care that no fraud is committed
on his customers' money. The forgery in the amount of the check
was just the same as lithe check was wholly forged in all respects.
This, in fact, was not the plaintiff's check, and payment of it by
the defendants could not bind his effects. Suppose this were a deed,
and the plaintiff had been sued upon it, he might plead sine cat
fitetum. Here the drawer of the check had no means of guarding
against fraud; not so the defendants, who, supposing them to be
deceived, must hear the loss. Besides, as the cheek exceeded the
amount of the plaintiff's balance in hand, they ought to have paused
heal made inquiry befire they paid it, especially as the plaintiff had
never everdrami his account, and desired no accommodation. In
this respect, the defendants wee guilty of negligence, and a for-
tiori they must bear the loss,
Mr. Gountionste, for the defendant'', contended, that if this
action could be maintained, it would throw upon bankers a new,
and certainly a most fearful responsibility. Ile admitted that a
banker paying a check forged in the signature could not throw
the hoiden of the loss upon his customer; but it had never yet
• been decided that this principle extended to an alteration either in
the amount or in the payee's name. It WI'S the dutylof the banker to
look only to the drawer's name, which was the only criterion
which he might reasonably be 'supposed to have as to its genuine.
• ness. There was no analogy between a deed and a banker's
• check. The slightest alteration in an instrument of the former
description would vitiate it ; but not so of a check. If there was
any negligence in this case, it was all •on the side of the plaintiff;
• in paying a check to a person who told him that he meant to remit
it into the country.
The Loa& Cam, JUST Ter was of opinion that the action was
maintainable. It was the duty of a banker to take care that he
did not pay away his customer's money, without a sufficient au.
thority for that purpose ; and if he paid to a forged order he must
bear the loss, and it was immaterial whether the order was
forged wholly or in part. Here the defendants had paid a sum of
money belonging to their customer, which the latter had never au-
thorised them to pay, and therefore they could not charge him with
the loss. Under these circumstances, the defendant was entitled to
judgment.
Mr. Justice BAYLEY concurred. The banker was bound to
pay only to his customer's order; and if he unfortunately paid a
forged order, he alone must bear the low. It is the banker's duty
to see that a check is genuine in all respects.
Mr. Justiorfl 01.1lOYD was of the same opinion.
Mr. Justice LIT TLEDALE was in the Bail Court.
Judgment for the plaintiff.
COURT OF COMMON PLEAS, SATURDAY, Jules IL
BUDOUGALL V. YOUNG.
This was an action brought to enforce payment of certain tithes
alleged to have been imposer! on the inhabitants of the city of Lon-
don, ander the authority of the Statute of Henry 'VIII. The de-
claration stated, that that statute empowered certain persons to de-
• termirie the amount of tithes to be i.aid by the several parishes in
the city—that these persons assembled anrt, made their decree,
which was in pursuance of the directions of she statute enrolled in
the Court of Chancery. It then alleged the liability of the de-
fendant ueder this decree, and his refusal. to pay. There were
various special pleas, one of which denied that toe decree was en-
rolled; and another denied the plaintiff's right te maintain the
action, alleging that his remedy was prescribed in a particular
manner, which required that he should make his complaint to the
Lord Mayor; and in default of obtaining redress from the Mayor,
he should carry Ins complaint to the Lord Chancellor. Some of the
pleas were demurrid in ; and among the otter pleas, which were
mere issues, in fact, the Jury had given a verdict for the plaintiff;
ou the question whether the composition had been agreed to be. I
tween the parties; and for the defendant, on the question whether
the decrecbad been enrolled. A motion for a new trial hail been
made on behalf of the Plaintiff.
The Cm' Et. JUSTICE having stated the nature of the case, said
that jt would be useless to argue the question of a new trial, when
It might turn out that this action wen net Maiiiraletable In law.
The statute gave a particular right, which it directed to be enforced
in a particular manner; anti it certainly seemed to him that the
right could not be enforced in any other manner. If an Act of
Parliament gave him a right to a sum of money, and directed that
he should obtain it in a p micular manner, he should not be
allowed to say, .' I will take the money, but I will not take it as
you offer to give it me." At least, if he did say an, it would be-
come a question whether he possessed any right to sue. fur it In
smother way.
Tile Counsel for the plaintiff acquiesced in this objection of his
Lordship, and the argument on the motion fur a new trial was
postponed till the demurrer could be determined.
v. WOMBWELL.
Mr. Sergeant VAUGHAN moved fora rule to shew cause why the
service of the process in this action (at a house which the defendant
had himself named, and by putting it up in the Prothonotary's
office) might be allowed to begood 'service. Ile had nearly fallen
Into a very serious mistake, for lie had almost been about to de-
scribe the defendant as a wild beast, but lie believed that. in fact,
the defendant was only the keeper of wild beasts. (A laugh.) The ,
defendant had no settled place of residence, but moved about the i
country, like the wandering tribes of old, in a state of savage na-
ture.- The present action iris brought against the defendant to re-
cover damages" from hint for an injury he had inflicted on the plain-
tiff, by driving over him. When lie was asked where he could be
foubd, be desired that the process might be sent to No. 11, Angel-
street, Laotian. The process had been sent there, and a woman
dnswered the messenger, and told him it was not known where
the defendant was at that moment, but as soon as his temporary
place of residence was known the matter should be communicated
to him.
' The COURT said, that they thought this ver:ice would, under
the special circumstances of the case, be sufficient ; and the best
counselor the plaintiff was, to go on, and leave it to the defendant
i to object to the service.
SELBY V. EDEN.
This was an action on a bill of exchange, accepted by a person
resident in Berkshire, who made it payable in London. The spe-
' etal count of the declaration did not allege a presentation for pay-
ment in London, and it was cbjected that the declaration was for
that reason insufficient.
The Courr troy determined, after solemn argument, that by
the operation of the last Act of Parliament (Mr. Sergeant Onslow's
Act), an acceptance of a bill, " payable in London," was a general.
acceptance, and must be so considered, unless the words " and not
elsewhere" were added.

' r .

MWM

THE BRITISH PRESS.

FROM SA7'URDAY maurs GAZETTE.

Whitehall, June 7, 11126.
The King has been olea•tql to direct letters patent to be pax4erl under
the Great Seul of the totted Kingdom, constituting and appointing the
Hirdit Hon. Hubert Banks, Earl of Liverpool, ; the Right Hon.
Frederick John Robinson r Willltun Lowther, Esq. (commonly celled
Vitcount Lowther; Granville Charles Henry Somerset, E,ol. (commogly
called hound (iranvelh Charles Henry Somerset) ; and Francis Nnthaniel
Conynghem, Esq.
(commonly called F.url of Mount-Charles) ; and also
Edmund Alexander klarNaghten, Evq. to be Commissioners for executing
the offices of Treasurer of the Exchequer of;Great Britain, and Lord High
Treasurer of Ireland.

Whitehall, June 10, NM
The King has been plea..ed to appoint the Right Ron. Vrilliam Intr.
gerald rewey Fitzgerald to be l'ayinaster.tlenetal of the Forces.

Whitehall, June 8,
The King hag been plowed to nominate and appoint Rear-Admiral
Robert Waller Otway to be a Kul& Commander of the Most llonouruble
Military Order of the Bath.

Whitehall, June 5, 1826.
The King has.bven pleased to pre.ent the Rev. William Lloyd to the
Rectory of Narberth, with the Chapel of Robeston Walthan, In the county
of Pembroke and diocese of St. David's, void by the death of the Rev.
Hr. Spumous.