The Sun.
London, England, 1839-03-23 00:00:00

BILLS OF EXCHANGE.

TO THE EDITOR OF THE SUN.
Sin,—ln your Paper of last evening appears a state-
ment of facts of which I conceive the following to be
a summary :—" A. B. draws a bill of exchange on
C. D. ; C. D. accepts it, payable at a London bankers.
On the day it becomes due, but prior to its present-
ment, a forged bill, precisely similar, is presented at
the bankers', who being advised of the former bill,
pay the forged bill believing it to be the true one.
The true bill is afterwards duly presented, but the
bankers refuse to pay it, on the ground of their
having paid the forged bill, and in so doing only fol-
lowed their instructions. In consequence of such re-
fusal A. B. applies to C. D., the acceptor, for the
amount, and he, refusing also, is arrested' forthwith.--
Query, Who is to be ma de accountable P
Although I cannot style myself one of your " com-
mercial readers," I have, I think, afforded a solution
of the question.

As the bankers received the money on account of the
bill, A. B. had, in the first instance, the power of treat-
ing them as his agents for the purpose of that receipt,
and therefore in the event of their refusal to pay, whilst
they had the money in hand, he might have recovered it
from them in an action for money received to his use
(De Bernalsv. Fuller, 14 East,
.591 n.) ; but there
being no privity of contract between the parties, it is
probable that such (assumed) agency was determined
by the payment mada under the circumstances detailed,
and consequently that the bankers are not now liable to
A. B.—(See Williams v. Everett, 14 East, 583.)
As, however, the bill was duly presented for pay-
ment at the bankers, C.D. was liable, as acceptor, to A.B.
on their default, even supposing that (under the sta t. 1 and 2
Geo. IV., c. 78.) such presentment were necessary to
render him so ; and the fact of the banker having or
not having received the amount, or having or not having
wrongfully paid it away, will not, it would seem, in any
manner limit or effect the responsibility of C. D., who
still remains liable to A. B.—(See Dent v. Dunn, 3
Campb. 296.)
But though the bankers are nat liable to A. 8., and
the latter has his remedy against C. D., yet as they re-
ceived his (C. D.'s) money for a specific purpose, i. e., for
payment of the bill accepted by him, and have not so ap-
apnlidedwiitli boy)
errenabsyo n
sufferivhe reesolf,aCn
i.alDd. a
Inmust
.p a ye.i B
D. will be.,
able to maintain an action against them, the bankers,
or such damaie. (See Cheap v.HarfleyS,Y.R. .127. Hall
v. Fuller, 58. and C. 760. Chitty on Bills, 287,) or
even according to a recent case before he has sustained
any real damage at all. (See Marzetti v. Williams, 1 B.
and Adol, 415.-1 am, Sir, your obedient servant,
London, March 19,1839. LAW STUDENT.
A

.CEIDENT BY A STEAMER.—On Monday
afternoon two young seamen belonging to the Hanoverian
ship Titia, Captain T. Roelofs, were going down the
river in a boat, on their way to the vessel in Limehouse
Reach, when they met the Greenwich steamer, of Green-
wich, coming up at full speed, and the foreigners, terrified
at the rapid pace of the steam-vessel, could not pull clear
of her, arid she ran them down, swamping their boat, and
forcing them into the water. A boat from the steamer
was immediately lowered, and others put off to the assist-
ance of the men, who were picked up and landed at the
Thames Police Office, where they stripped and dried them-
selves and their clothes Before a large fire. The poor fel-
lows were in a state of great exhaustion, and one of them
received a severe blow in the face when the collision hap-
pened. Very little injury was done to the boat, which was
towed to the shore bottom upwards. A quadrant, look-
ing glass, and other property was lost.
A GENTLEMAN.—In one of the bail cases that
came before the Insolvent Court yesterday, a person was
described as a "gentleman," who held a situation of clerk
to a navy agent. Mr. Commissioner Law said the descrip-
tion of " gentleman" would not do. It was oftentimes as-
sumed by persons who were not entitled to the appellation.
All the proceedings would be carried on by the phrase
"gentleman." He refused the bail.