The National Register.
London, England, 1820-02-07 00:00:00

4)oIL(C.

MANSION-HOUSIL
A case of considerable importance to those who are
engaged in Bill transac►ions. came on before the Lord
Mayor. A practice has been developed within the last
few days, and it was slated at the Mansion-house, that
eminent houses in the city are every day suffering from
speculations s 'fat to this, of which the following is

au ostiline :
A young mass of very respectable appearance and fa-
mily WAS attended before the Lord .Mayos by his Nob-
citor. lie was cisarged by an Attorney wits having ob-
tained from hie at suns of money. upon a cheque for
1401. which had been got possession of under false pre-

tences.
The complainant stated, that the defendant had as-
sured hint that he had given valve fur the cheque, which
would tie taken up in due tinie, the drawer being a
highly respectable person. and the complainant was in-
duced by this representation to hand over the amount of
the cheque, partly in cash and partly in bills. It was
soon, however, ascertained that the defendant had given
no value for the cheqpe, although he had obtained it
upon the promise that he would do so. There were se-
veral cases of a similar kind to a considerable extent

against the defendant.
Tile drawer in the cheque said, the defendant7eame
to I , and stated that he was about to purchase a large
quantity of linen goods from an eminent merchant is
the city. upon which considerable profit would be lead,
.and that if the witness would give his cheque for 6301.
he should be covered by having the goads placed in his
hands. Aco scion was to be given tn. the witnc-s
upon the sale of the goods, and this induced him to
give hischeque, which he post dated, at the desire of
the defendant, for the accommodation of the merchant,
who was to give the disposable articles for it. Next
morning the defendant called upon the witness, and
stated to him that he had put the cheque into the hands
of the merchant, who seemed inclined to think that if
the amount were divided between three cheques, the •
arrangement would be of more utility to him. The
w.k.ess wrote three cheques to the amount of 6301. and
gave then► to the defendant,.who said the merchant had
still in his poSicemati the large cheque, but upon receiving..
the others, it would be immediately given up. The.
defendant was not as good as•his word. He made fre-
quent excuses, and declared that he had called upon the
merchant, hut could get neither goods nor the cheques.
The witness said lie should stop the payment, and .h:
defendant soon a. ter produced two of the cheques which
had been last given, but the first cheque for 6301. and
one of the last cherwes• for 1401. were not returned.—
Payment was stopped, and those two cheques, notwith-
standing the assurances of the defentlam,were presented,
tint fur 0301. by the merchant, and that for 1401. by the
present complainant. The witness declared in the
Balk that he sl Id resist the paymehht, on the ground
that the cheques had been fraudulently obtained. Since
tins event he had been. informed against before the
Commissioners of Stamps-, pier hav big post-dated the
:eherres.—He was fined in the mitigated penalty of lop.
for having post-dated one oh them; but the Commis
Goners lhav ing heard from him the circumstances of this
transaction, inflicted no penalty fur the other cheque.