The Sun.
London, England, 1837-01-21 00:00:00

VICE-CHANCERY.-(THIS DAY.)

Causes of no public intere.st occupied his Honour, the
Vice-Chancellor, the whole day.

ROLLS' COURT.-(THIS DAY.)

BANK OF ENGLAND V. LONDON AND WESTMINSTER BANK
This case came on before the Court upon motion for an
injunction against the defendants, to restrain them from ac-
cepting any bill of exchange at a shorter date than six
months.
Sir F. POLLOCK appeared for the Bank of England in
support of the motion. The Learned Coimsel said he
should read a note of the elaborate and argued judgment of
the Court of Common Pleas, which was the best way in
which he could revive the recollection of his Lordship upon
the facts and circumstances of this case. Having done that
he should say nothing more than that he considered the
onus was on the other side, to displace the effect of the cer-
tificate which the Court of Common Pleas had returned
in favour of the Bank of England ; and he hoped the Court
would think they were entitled to the interference that was
asked.
Mr. WIGRAM and Mr. RICHARDS followed on the same
side.—The Court of Common Pleas had clearly decided
that the defendants were acting illeg and the Court of
King's Bench had come to the same decision upon a similar
question in the case of " Broughton v. Manchester Water
Works." The Court, therefore, would have no difficulty
in granting the injunction, it having been distinctly and
clearly decided what the defendants were doing was illegal.
, The ATTORNEY-GENERAL (with Whom was Sir W.
Follett, Mr. Pemberton, and a Junior from the Common
Law Bar), commenced by saying he was a good deal asto-
nished to hear it said, that the case of Broughton v. the
Manchester Water Works was in favour of the plaintiffs.
That case had been overturned again and again, and the
Court of Common Pleas, by the judgment they had formed
in the present ease, had repudiated that decision, and con-
curred with the decision by which that authority was over-
turned. His Learned Friends seemed to think it was a
matter of course that his Lordship should now, without hav-
ing heard the defendants on the merits of the case, grant an
injunction by which the London and Westminster Bank
were to be prevented from accepting any bills of exchange
at a shorter date than six months, under any circum-
stances, on any occasion, or for any consideration ; no re-
gard being had to the nature of the transaction out of
which the bill might arise. That would be a very serious in-
terference with the Bank and its customers ; for it would not
be disputed that it had, as a Bank of deposit, the accounts of a
vast number of substantial and wealthy individuals, and that it
acted as agent for a great number of Country Banks, whose
operations would be most materially disturbed if the injunc-
tion were to be granted. No suggestion had been made of any
injury likely to arise to the Bank of England from this course
of dealing being permitted to continue ; neither had it been
said that any branch of the business of the Bank of England
had been interfered with, or that the circulating medium of the
country had been vitiated or perverted by reason of bills being
accepted by the London and Westminster Bank for paying
deposits which been left in their hands. The plaintiffs rested
entirely on the certificate of the Court of Common Pleas, and
that that certificate was to be treated with the greatest re-
spect be readily allowed. The Learned Judges had, at his
request, given the reason for their judgment. This was more
satisfactory to the Equity Judge, who sent the case for their
opinion, and to the public, and he hoped this would become a
precedent; for parties would then know how to meet it, and
the Learned Judge by whom the case was sent would know
what weight was to be ascribed to the certificate. Ac-
cording to the happy Constitution of this country, justice
was publicly administered, and the reasons that Judges gave
for their judgments were pronounced in public, so that those
whose interests were affected by their decisions had an oppor-
tunity of calling in question the soundness of the reasons for
the conclusions to which Judges arrived. The judgment of
the Court of Common Pleas was unsatisfactory, and the rea-
sons given by no means supported the conclusion to which the
Learned Judges had arrived. The fundamental objection
which he took to the judgment was this—that the Learned
Judges had assumed the transaction in question was the trans-
action of a bank of issue, whereas it was clearly the transaction
of a bank of deposit. If it were the transaction of a bank of
issue, he allowed the judgment was correct; and he would allow
in the most unqualified terms, that the meaning of the Acts of
Parliament which had been passed on the subject was, that until
the 7th of Geo. IV. there could be no bank of issue in this
kingdom of more than six persons; and that since the 7th of
Geo. IV., there could be no bank of issue within London, or
65 miles of London, of more than six persons. But with
equal confidence he contended it was the express will of the
Legislature that there might be a bank of deposit, without
any limitation whatever to the number of persons, and that the
Legislature having legalised a bank of deposit with-
out reference to the number of persona, it had lega_
lised every thing that was incidental to a bank
of deposit. The Leglslature had legalised joint stock banks
of deposit. The Learned Judges had said the object of the
Legislature was to prevent banks of issue coming in compe-
tition with the Bank of England. Did not that bring it to
the question whether the Westminster Bank was a bank
of issue or of deposit ? The Westminster Bank had
money in its hands deposited by Mr. Nlurchett, a gen-
tleman living at St. Alban's. Mr. Murehett wished that
23/. of that money should be paid out,,and gave an order for
paying it 21 days after the time when the order was dated.
The Bank agreed to obey that order—they did obey it, and
paid out the 251. Was that the operation of a bank of issue ?
A bank of issue issued its own paper for the money it borrowed ;
it used paper which might become the circulating medium of
the country, which was a succcdaneum for a metallic currency,
which remained out for an indefinite period of time, which
might be kept by the holder as long as occasion required, and
which was, for all purposes, a substitute for the King's coin.
If a bank of deposit were allowed to receive money, it must be
allowed to pay away. They could not put on their door, " No
money to be returned."—( Laughter.) Their deposits were to
be paid away according to the will of the persons from they were
received. The common way was to write a cheque, and it
could not be disputed that a cheque might be drawn on a
bank of desposit, however numerous the partners might be.
The injunction in the present case was not sought for
as to all cheques that might be drawn on the West-
minster Bank. But what was a cheque ? It was, as
described in the books, a bill of exchange payable
instanter, and without the three days of grace allowed by the
custom of merchants. Those cheques might be lawfully
drawn and lawfully paid ; and these were the transactions of
a bank of deposit. There was a specified distance beyond
which you could not draw an unstamped cheque upon your
banker ; therefore a party living in the country beyond that
specified distance, having money in a bank of deposit in London,
could only make his money available by drawing a bill of ex-
change; and could it be said that it could not be accepted,
when the acceptance of bills by persons on whom they were
drawn was according to the usual course of trade and
commerce ? The Bank of England did not accept bills
of exchange, and like the dog in the manger, they
wished to enjoin the Westminster Bank from doing
that which they had no wish to do themselves. There was
not a bank in Lombard-street, or within the Bills of
Mortality, that was a bank of issue—they were banks of de-
posit. If that was so, the whole foundation of the judgment
of the Court of Common Pleas was crumbled to dust, be-
cause the Learned Judges had taken it to be the transaction
of a bank of issue, whereas it was a bank of deposit ;
and engaged in the transaction of that business which the Le-
gislature had considered to be lawful. There was another ob-
jection to the judgment, namely, that in combating with their
argument that bills in the statute of 3d and 4th William IV.,
had the same meaning as in the 6th Anne, and that in the 6th
Anne it did not mean bills of exchange, the Judges had said
that unless it were to include bills of exchange, there was no
benefit conferred on the Bank, that not only corporations, but
partnerships, were forbid to issue bills, that " bills" could
not mean seal bills, because partnerships could •not be parties
to seal bills. But the Learned Judges had entirely over-
looked that notes were introduced into the Act of Parliament
as well as bills, and that the prohibition was against corpora-
tions in partnership issuing bills or notes. Another thing of
which he complained was this, that the Learned Judges had
' refused him permission to bring this fact before them. The
meaning of the 3d and 4th of William IV. was the
,au.ne as the meaning of the words in the 6th of Anne,
and tn,:refore a conclusion ought to be come to exactly as if
this transae,,lion had taken place in the year 1706. It was most
material t -
LAT I vhat was the evil sought to be remedied by

-
the 6th Anne. Several Banks had set up in opposition to
the Bank of England, the Land Bank, the' Mining Company
i),(1 the Million gank, who had issued scaled bills andpro-
missory notes, doLti the aeceptance of hills of exchange at that Mae
of day was the crealion of a circulating medium never before
of. Having madr these observations on the judgment:
of the -124. q.-kt of Common Pic?.', he was bound to say it djd not
warrant their eeilitleete ' • and he therefore trusted his Lord-
ship would either now dtl,vmine in favour of the defendants, or
commdt some other Court, by sending another case for its consi-
deration. The Learned Counsel than went on to argue on the
merits of the case, which were principally a recapitulation of
the arguments urged before the Judges of the Common Pleas.
They had been so long accustomed to hear of the privileges
of the Bank of England, that he almost supposed they had
arose with the law of nations, or that they were part
and parcel of the moral law of the land. He KNIt
great respect for the Bank of England, and the individuals
composing the Corporation, but he considered the Bank of •
England a private company, established as a joint stock com-
pany, for mercantile and profitable purposes. Notwithstand-
ing its high dignity and great power, he apprehended its pri-
vileges were to be weighed and scanned by a, Court of
Law or Equity in the same way that the privileges
of any company, however insignificant, when a certain mono-
poly had been granted, contrary to the common law of the
land.
Mr. KINPERSIST and Mr. CaowTnEa appeared for the St.
Aiban's Bank.—Judgment deferred.