The Sun.
London, England, 1862-04-18 00:00:00

Justice Williams and a Comknon jury.)

SUTTON V. PAIN AND ANOTHER-CODIMISSIOIL
The plaintiff in this case, a lady, was deocribed as
an agent, and she sued the defendants, who are so-
licitors, to recover £5O commission, for introducing
to them Mr. Healey, who became a partner in the
firm.
Mr. Best and Mr. Griflths appeared for the
plaintiff; and Mr. Day for the defendants.
The plaintiff's case was that she saw Mr. Harri-
son, one of the defendants, who said that Mr. Pain
being about to retire, he (Harrison) wanted a suit-
able partner, And afterwards it was arranged that if
the plaintiff should procure him a partner, she
should receive £5 pc cent. upon the amount paid
by the incoming partner. She thereupon went to
Mr. Pullen, where slie heafd of Mr. Healey, who
through her communication to Mr. Pullen was in-
troduced to the defendants, and became a partner,
paying £l,OOO.
The defendants ease was that there was no truth
in the statement that it was arranged that the
plaintiff was to have commismion, and some letters
were put in with the view of showing that the
plaintiff had expected to share Pullen's commission
instead of making a charge herself. Mr. Pullen
had been paid his commission, £5O, by Mr. Healy.
The jury, after considering the matter for a short
tame, found a verdict for the plaintiff for £5O.

COURT OF EXCHEQUER.
Sittings in Banco in Easter Term.—(Before the
Lord Chief Baron and Barons Bramwell, Martin,
find Wilde.)
STIJIKELEY V. BAILEY.

This was an-action for a breach of contract with
respect to a yacht called the Czarina, which the
plaintiff, Sir George Stukeley, a gentleman living
in Devonshire, purchased from the defendant, Mr.
Bailey, who resides near Tunbridge, for the sum of
£3,375. It was tried before Mr. Justice Byles at
the last Hants Assizes, when a verdict was given
for the plaintiff on one count, and for the defendant
on the other,
Mr. Karslake, on behalf of the defendant, moved
to enter a verdict for the defendant on the first
count, on the ground of misdirection. The plain-
tiff had warranted the yacht sound and taut, and
the alleged breach was that the masts were rotten.
The Court granted a rule.
FLEMING V. FLEMING- CONSTRUCTION OF A WILL.
This was an action of ejectment tried at Exeter
before Mr. Justice Byles, in which the facts were
found for the defendant, but the verdict entered by
the learned judge for the plaintiff.
Mr. Collier now moved, by leave of the learned
judge, for a rule to enter a verdict for defendant.
It was an action of ejectment, and depended entirely
upon the construction of a will, the question being
whether parole evidence could be given to explain
the purpose of the testator. Robert Fleming, of
Barnstaple, bequeathed to his son, Edward Flem-
ing, a dwelling-house, in the occupation of John
Fleming, during his life, and at his death it was to
descend to his grandson, Henry Fleming, and his
heirs for ever. The learned counsel said he proved
there were two grandsons of the testator named
Henry Fleming, one being the plaintiff and the
other the defendant in this action. The learned
judge decided that evidence as to the state of the
circumstances of the family and the expressions of
the testator were inadmissible, but he admitted it
de bone ease, and the jury found that the testator
intended to leave the property to the defendant.
The Lord Chief Baron—Why did Mr, Justice
Byles decide in favour of one grandson rather than
the other ?
Mr. Collier said he did not know, except that he
might have done so partly on the word " descend,"
and partly on the fact that the plaintiff was the son
of Edward Fleming, the tenant for life.
The Court granted a rule.

EXTENSIVE _FORGERY ON COUTTS'S

BANK.

Mary Aylmer, alias Gibson, a well-dressed woman
of about 30, was placed at the bar of Bow-street
Police-court, chatged with being concerned with
others in forging and uttering a cheque for £445 on
the bank of Messrs. Coutts and Co., Strand.
Mr. Mullens, solicitor to the Bankers' Association,
prosecuted ; and Mr. Lewis, jun., appeared for the
prisoner.
Mr. E. W. Stanley examined—l am one of the
cashiers at the bank of Messrs. Coutts and Co.,
Strand. Mr. E. R. Butler, of Furnival's-inn. Hol-
born, keeps an account with us. On Dec. 4 last a
cheque for £445, purporting to be signed by Mr.
Butler, was presented at the bank by a female.
Not suspecting her, or the cheque, I paid the amount
across the counter—the sum of £335 in bank-notes
and the remainder in gold. The notes included one
of £5O, dated August 9, 1861 ; one of £2O, dated
April 8, 1861; ten of £lO each, dated August,
1861 ; and a£s note, dated August 3, 1861. The
£5 note now produced is the same as the latter.
From circumstances which have since come to my
knowledge, I have reason to believe that the cheque
was a forgery. The prisoner at the bar is not the
woman who presented the cheque.
Maurice Sewell, assistant to Messrs. Knight and
Co., of 217, Regent-street, drapers, deposed that in
December last the prisoner came to the shop and
selected several articles of drapery, amounting to
£1 3s. 10d., in payment of which she presented the
.E 5 note now produced. Witness looked at the note
and hesitated to change it, in consequence of inti-
mation which had been received from the police
authorities that a large number of notes had been
obtained from Coutts 's on a forged name. He in-
quired if she had not cash for the amount, and she
said " No." He then asked her to give her name
and address, and she did so, witness writing it
down on the back of the note as " Mary Aylmer,
'l5, Danely-road, Gravesend." In the meantime
witness caused a police-officer to be sent for, after
ascertaining that the note was one of those in question.
Police-constable Tyler, 164 C, stated that he was
called into the shop of Mr. Knight, and found the
prisoner there. She gave him the same name and
address as those given to the last NN ituess.
Matthew Haydon, the City officer, deposed that he
had been engaged since December last in the endea-
vour to trace cut the persons connected with this for-
gery. On being sent for to see the prisoner he asked
her if she had given her right name and address.
After some hesitation, she replied that she had not.
Witness then asked her if she would object to give
her right name and address. She replied, " I refuse
to give any addresses."
Mr. E. R. Butler, solicitor, of Furnival's-inn, said
—I have kept an account with Coutts and Co. for
many years. On looking at the cheque produced,
and also at the order for a blank cheque-book, both
purporting to have been written by me, I am en-
abled to say that both the documents are forgeries.
I never signed either, and never authorised any one
else to sign them. I knew a man named Gibson, a
client of mine about a year ago, and I have paid him
cheques several times, and once or twice sent him
cheques by post. The cheque produced for £lO,
written on plain paper, and not upon the usual
form, was made out for Gibson, I being out of
blank cheques at that time. I remember, on the
same day, writing an order for a cheque book, while
Gibson was in the office, and he may have seen that
order. _

Cross-examined—l cannot be certain that Gibson
saw the order, of course. I have sent cheques to
many other persons besides Gibson, but I cannotsay
that any other clients were in the office when I wrsootne
the order for the cheque-bcok. I remenlr9ib
hi forms
being there, because I discovered I was out of I
when I was about to write the cheque for m.
know nothing of the prisoner.
~-
William Allen, a clerk in Coutts's bank, produced
the order for a cheque-book, which the last wt,.
ness pronounced to be a forgery, and said it was
presented on the 4th
of December last. A
book containing 45 blank cheques was handed to
the bearer of the order, and it was proved
that the forged cheque in question was Written
upon one of these forms.
Mrs. Mary Fergusson, of Euston-road, the wife
of a pianoforte manufacturer, proved that the pri-
soner had been lodging in her house since Septem-
ber last, with a man named Gibson, who passed as
her husband. They lived there until the 9th inst.,
when the prisoner did not return home (having been
apprehended on the present charge), and the next
morning, the 10th, Mr. Gibson packed up all his
things and left the house, and she had never seen
him since. He left only a small trunk behind.
were always very upright
and
my house,iand owed nothing
By
y honourable M r
Lewis—They
while inn
but the current rent, which was not yet due.
11, Tabernacle-road, Finsbury-
square, deposedtensphethat, in the beginning of January
last, she was in the service of Mr. Pitts, linen-
of 4, Queen's-buildings, Knightsbridge.
the first week in the month the note pro-
duceddArhaopuetr ,
w,r
15) was tendered by a young woman
whom she believed to he the prisoner, in payment
io
ogmooda purchased. Witness asked her to give_
her name, and witness wrote it on the back as it
now appeared. (This note, es well as the last, was