The National Register.
London, England, 1821-07-29 00:00:00

THE NATIONAL REGISTER

The Solicitor General observed, that it was the first
time they had heard of the name of Bere : had they
known the facts stated by Stun, the action would nut
have been brought.
MATTHEWS V. OXENFORD.
The plaimitisought to recover of the defendant part of
a large sum of money, which he advanced to him and
others fur the purpose of carrying on speculations in the
public funds. It appeared that the business did not go
on prosperously, and the defendant did not pay his share
oldie fund. The defence was, that it was a gambling
transaction, but the jury under all the circumstances,
found a verdict for the plaintiff—Damages 5001.
COURT OF COMMON PLEAS.
MONDAY, JULY 23.
DAVIS V. THE BANK OF ENGLAND.
This was a case of great public importance. The
plaintiff, Mr. Horatia Davis, is brother to Captain John
Henry Davis, who escaped from Giltspur-street Compeer,
in April, last year, where he was confined on a charge
of having forged the names of Messrs. Drummond, the
bankers; and the present action was brought to recover
the price of 10,0001.3 per cent. consols, and 751. long
annuities, the property of the plaintiff, which had stood
in his anaime, and was transferred by a forged power of
attorney.
Sergeant Lens shortly stated the plaintiff's case.
It was admitted, on the part of the bank, that the
Stock in question had stood in the plaintiff's name, and
had been transferred under a power of attorney, which
was produced. Lady Davis, the plaintiff's mother,
proved that the plaintiff's name to the power of attorney
was a forgery ; and that her name, which appeared to it
as a witness, was also a forgery ; and that the name of
John Henry Davie, the other witness, was genuine.
The plaintiff's case closed here.
Sergeant Bosanquet addressed the Jury for the Bank.
The Learned Sergeant said the Bank Directors would
never depart from the honourable line of conduct they
had hitherto adopted of making good to the holders of
Stock any property that might by forgery have been taken
out of the Bank, unless the party should by his own
conduct disentitle himself to any redress. In the pre-
sent case it would be proved that 50001. of the plaintiffs
3 per cents. had been transferred on the I2th of October,
and 50001. on the 16th of November, 1819, under. a
forged power of attorney, and the amount paid to John
Henry Davis's bankers, Messrs. Drummond, and placed
by diem to his credit. Ott the llth of January, the day
the dividend on this stock was payable, the plaintiff re-
ceived front J. H. Davis 1501. the exact antoant of his
dividend, and he received from the Bank '2Ol. dividend
on eight hundred !sounds, 5 per cents. without de-
manding payment of the dividend upon his 3 per cents.
from which it must be inferred he then knew his bro-
ther had transferred the stock. But his brother was put
in prison on the 3d of March on a charge of forgery ;
and the plaintiff has admitted that on the sth of the
same month he told him that lie had made away with
his in,6001. 3 per cents. and 751. long annuities ; yet the
plaintiff gave ri.) information to the Bank, who, before
his brother's escape on the 7th of April, might have
taken steps to obtain justice. In September following,
when his brother was safe in a foreign country, the
plaintiff sent to the Bank for his dividends on stock,
which at least he knew in March last had been fraudu-
lently transferred.
The case for the Bank, as stated by Mr. Sergeant Bo-
sanquet, was fully proved in evidence.
The Chief Justice, in charging the Jury, said, that
whatever might be the result of this new and singular
case, in his opinion the Bank Directors had exeicised a
sound discretion in bringing it before a Jury. The case
of the plaintiff was to be lamented, as, if he do not re-
cover, lie was ruined by the act of another, of which lie
had no privity, and must stiffer the loss of his fortune
by his fraternal affection. Still the law makes no
allowance for his feelings, and if alter lie had know-
ledge of the fraudulent transfer lie concealed it from
the bank, it was sufficient, in the view of the law,
to deprive him of any remedy that the bank might have
suffered injury. It was clear, front his answer in Chan-
cery, that he knew of the fraud in March, but concealed
it from the batik till after his brother had been long out
of the country, by which means he deprived tlitut of
any possibility of obtaining either civil or criminal jus-
tice.

The jury, without hcsitaiion, plowitineed a verdict
for the defeadant.

SECONDARILS' OFFLCE, JULY 23.
IHILTAL /MAI:LT.-STEPHENS V. BHOGDEN.

This was enquiry to assess the damages to which the
plaintiff was emitted, in au action for an msatilt, in which
the defendant had suffered judgment by default. The
damages were laid at HMI.
Mr. C. Phillips stated the plaintiff case. He said the
action was fironelit for such cumpensation as damages
could make for a grievous assault, that had been corn
witted by the defendant on the plaintiff. The defendant,
by allowing judgment against him by default, had admit-
ted that he could not deny or justify the assault of which
the plaintiff complained. The plaintiff brought the sub-
ject before a jury with pain; lint he felt it his bounden
dnty, both as a man and a citizen of London, who had
been cruelly injured in his person and hie feelings, to ap-
peal to a tribunal of his fellow•citizens for such redress
as their verdict could afford. The plaintiff. Mr. Stephens,
is a jeweller, living in Castle street, Hulbot ; Mr. flrog•
den, is also a jeweller, living in Bridgewater-square,
Barbican. It happened (that some tine since inform'.
Lion was given to the master goldsmiths that the jewel-
lers were in the habit of selliag mourning rings without
the Hall stamp, by which ineims they avoided the pay-
ment of a fee that is charged on affixing the stamp at tile
Hall, The master goldsmiths, in casiseqbence of this in-
formation, called a Court of Wardens, to take the sub-
ject into consideration. The jewellers were alarmed, us
they bad great nuniliers of those inastamped rings on
hands, and they called a meeting on the 3 Ist of Ma;, to
consider how they should act. This nseetiog was re►pect-
ably attended, and Mr. Stephens was pt e•ent. A Mr.
Mq.iitgot asked w liu gave the information to the master

•