The Sun.
London, England, 1806-05-30 00:00:00

LANG V. VICCARY.

This was an Mtion for an Assault.- The Plaintiff
was a poor barber, residing at, St. Luke's, Chelsea,
and the Defendant, a baker, in the same neighbour-
hood. In the month of May, 1805, the Plaintiff
owed a small balance to the Defendant, of is. 4d.
for which he summoned him to the Court of. Co-
nscience. The debt, however, being paid in the
mean time; the Plaintiff went. to the Defendant's
house, to remonstrate with him about' the costs, and
while in conversation with his wife, the Defendant.
came behind him, knocked bim down, fraaured his
jaw, and broke one of his teeth. It appearing, how-
ever, in the course of the evidence, thatthe Plaintiff
was not quite sober at the time, and behaved in ra-
ther a tumultuous manner, •

Lord ELLENBOROUGH intimated to the parties,
that this cause might be much better adjusted out
of Court ; the Learned Counsel acquiesced in his.
Lordship's opinion, and the Case was accordingly
referred to the arbitration of a mutual friend. •

Some other causes, of no public interest, were
disposed of, and the Sittings at Westminster con-
cluded.

The Sittings at Guildhall will commence on Mon-
day next..

COURT OF SESSION.

THE Dire&ors of the Bank of Scotland, a good
many years ago, conceiving that they might extend
the business of the. Bank beyond the limits of Edin-
burgh, resolved to establish branches in almost every
town in Scotland-; and the arrangement was no
doubt beneficial to all parties. To the country it
extended a useful fund of credit ; and though the
more general circulation of the Bank Paper Was the
primary object in the institution of these 'branches,
the Bank received advantage by their becoming
very naturally the deposits,ol. the money belonging
to numerous persons in their neighbourhood. The
case now to be detailed took its rise from this last
circumstance.

In the year .1793 'the Diredors of the Bank of
Scotland had established one of their branches in the
town of Brechin, and appointed a Merchant:in that
town, and two of his sons, to be their Agents there,
under a constituted firm. These :people:somes'time
ago became bankrupt, when'zt was discovered, that
besides .taking in ,money for the Bank, they had re-
ceived a great .many sums, to the amount cf. 5001.
or 60001. for which they kad: not accounted to the
Bank, but which the personOodging-them stated
they had meant as Bank 'deposits. For these. the
,Agents had given receipts on a copper-plate engrav-
ing, bearing a be dated at the:" Bank's Office," and
in other respeds containing the usual style and words
of Bank vouchers but, in signing these documents,
the Agents did not add any:designation immediately
indicating their havingrvaed for the Bank in the re-
ceiving of that, money. When the failure happened,
the Dtre&ors of the. Bank of Scotland, refused to re-
tire these documents, on the following, among other
grounds : that their Agents were not entitled to take
in money, so as to bind the` Bank, on'documents ,in
. the form granted by their Brechin Agents. With a
view. to try the validity of such a defence, an action
Was brought against the Directors on one of these
receipts. wolld exceed our limits to enter into a`j
particular ;detail of the arguments of the parties M.
. this cause.; sutfc.: it in general to state, that on the
part of the Bank it wrs maintained, their Agents
were not entitled to takein money, for behoof of the
B.ank,,except in payments on caskaccounts and-fbr
promisSory notes, which last Were to'boe sealed with
the Bank's seal, countersigned by the Accomptant,
&c. and this plea was enforced by a reference t(i
y'acard which was hung up,in The office at Brechin,
:nct to advertis&rnents iu the Newspapers, Bic.. it