The Sun.
London, England, 1855-11-07 00:00:00

REECE V. HARRISON.

Mr. Sergeant Shee moved for a rule to show cause
why n new trial should not be granted in this case on
affidavits, on the ground that evidence had been impro-
perly received, misdirection on the part of the learned
judge who tried the case, and that the verdict was
against evidence. The action was tried at the last
Middlesex sittings
_before Mr. Justice Erle, and
was an action brought by the endorser of a pro-
missory note for 3001. given by three persons, of whom
the defendant was one, to a person named Strasbourgh•
The pleas were—let, that Strasbourgh had not endorsed
the note ; 2d, that the note was obtained by the fraud
of Strasbourgh ; 3d, that the note when overdue was
endorsed to the plaintiff ; 4th, fraud and covin, no value
or consideration being given fur the endorsement; and
sth, that the plaintiff acted in taking the note as the
agent of Strasbourgh, and was in collusion with him,
Strasbourgh having obtained and procured the note by
fraud. The defendant and the other two persons whose
names were on the note were three of the directors of
the London and County Assurance Company,
Strasbourgh being appointed in October, 1854, ma-
nager and inspector of country agents. Shortly
after his appointment it appeared by the
evidence that the company was in want of money, and
they applied to Strasbourgh to lend them 3001. He re-
fused to lend the amount to the cempany, but consented
to lend it on the note of an individual director, or "on
your's, Doctor," addressing the defendant. On the Ist
November Strasbourgh gave a check for 2921. 105, less
71. 10s. discount. At the next meeting of the board a
note was prepared, drawn on the 7th November, and
signed by the defendant and two other directors ; but,
before Strasbourgh took it, he said he must have the
date of the note altered from the 7th to the let of No
vember, the day on which he advanced the money, and
the note was altered accordingly. Several of the direc-
t( re on the trial stated that the note was altered after it
had been given to Strasbourgb, and although they did not
stateit, they insinuated that he had altered it, and had com-
mitted a fraud on them by not permitting an inspection
of his books to show he had not discounted the note
with money belonging to the company, but no evidence
was given that he had any money belonging to the corn
pany. It was not even suggested that Strasbourgh was
a defaulter. The probability was, that Strasbourgh had
not sufficient money of the company to discount this
bill belonging to them, because he had but been recently
appointed, and his duty was to go round to the country
agents and receive money from them.
Lord Campbell asked why Strasbourgh had not been
examined on the trial.

Mr. Sergeant Shee said it arose from an accident, but
the defendant made his appearance in court when the
learned judge was summing up to the jury.
Lord Campbell said the court could only grant a rule
to show cause why the verdict should not be set aside
on the affidavits, on the payment of costs.
Rule granted accordingly.

LEAKS v. YOUNG AND ANOTHER.—Mr. Hill, Q.C.,
said this action was tried at the last Liverpool assizes
before Mr. Justice Crowder. when a verdict was re-
turned by the jury, by direction of the learned judge,
for the plaintiff, with ls. damage, and with leave to the
defendant to move to enter the verdict for him. The
action was one of trover, brought by direction of the
Lords Justices in a case of bankruptcy against the plain-
tiff, a woollen manufacturer, and the defendants, who
were the assignees, and a question arose on the trial
with respect to the petitioning creditors' debt and the
act of bankruptcy.
Rule granted.

FRAY V. POTTER.- —SLANDER.—Mr. I3ovill, Q.C., in
the absence of the Attorney-General from indisposition,
moved for a new trial in the case which was tried at the

last Guildhall sittings, before Lord Campbell, and was
for slander, when a verdict was returned for the plaintiff
damages 1001. on that portion of the declaration charg-
ing the plaintiff with having sent an anonymous letter
to the defendent. The action was brought by the plain•
tiff, principal lady's maid to Lady Zetland, against the
defendant, an elderly person, who had been 25 years in
the same service as housekeeper in the London esta-
blishment, and the alleged slander was stated to have
been uttered at Marlborough, in the presence of Lady
Zetland, and was to the following effect :—That the de-
fendant had received an anonymous letter from Mrs.
Fray, and the language was of such a disgusting nature
that it was not fit to be produced in any court, and she
believed she had been aided by Mrs. Hislop and Emily,
and concocted by them, because Mrs. Fray could not
have been aware of what had been going on
in the establishment for so long a period back. She
the❑ knew it was her letter, because she had received
one from her last week, and was similar to it—badly
written, badly spelt, and altogether like her. That Mrs.
Fray was often under the influence of drink. In fact,
she was often drunk, and according to her own admis-
sion, at the servants' table, she was a drunkard. That
she on every possible occasion made improper overtures
to Gunn, the groom of the Chambers, in every hole and
corner of the house, and that., in faith, the young man
had been a second Joseph in her hands. She assured
her ladyship what she bad said of the plaintiff was per-
fectly true, and that she was unfit to be about her lady.
ship's person, or any woman—indeed she was not a re
spectable person. The effect of this, the plaintiff
said, was to deprive her of her situation, and
injure her character. The learned counsel said
it would be necessary to call their lordships'
attention to the age of the defendant, which
was over 60, because the plaintiff had made certain
assertions with regard to her and Gunn.

Lord Campbell—That is the love, not the law of the
case. What he left to the jury was, that if they be-
lieved the defendant made the statement complained of,
bona fide, after being summoned to the presence of
Lady Zetland, it was a privileged communication, if
the plaintiff was entitled to especial damages if she lost
her situation in consequence.

Mr. Bovill then referred to the evidence given on
the trial, and to that of the plaintiff's, which showed she
was labouring under various grievances, such as being
rung to dinner, and having to put coals on her own fire,
which caused an ill-feeling on her cart, and he was
prepared to show, from the family physician, that the
plaintiff was suffering at the time from nervous excite-
ment, bordering on insanity, and that it was her lady-

ship's intention to have discharged her in consequence
without notice. He asked for a rule on the ground of

misdirection ; second, that the finding of thejuryshould bo
for the defendant, and not the plaintiff ; thirdly, that the
finding of the jury was imperfect and unsatisfactory ; and
fourthly, that the verdict was against the weight of
evidence.

Lord Campbell said the learned counsel might take a
rule generally.

COURT OF EXCHEQUER.
(Sittings in Banco.)
Jowl. V. HINTON.

moved for a rule in this case to
Mr. Bramwell, Q.C.,
show cause why the verdict should not be set aside, and
a new rule granted.

This action was tried at guildhall, before Mr. Baron
Martin, and was brought to recover back a sum of
money paid by the plaintiff to the defendant, for the
purchase of a quantity of raisins then in Messrs. Hall's,
wharfinger, wharehouses, the defendant at the same
time, according to custom, delivering to the plaintff the
warrant for the delivery of the goods. The warrant
ultimately turned out to bo one of a number of forgeries
by a person named Anderson, who was subsequently
tried for forgery and was transported. The learned
counsel contended the defendant had done all that was