The Sun.
London, England, 1838-07-10 00:00:00

LAW fNTELLIGENCE.

COURT OF QUEENS BENCH, JULY 9.
ROTHSCHILD V. CURRIE.
This was an action to recover the amount of a bill of ex-
change of which the defendant was the payee, the acceptin
being a merchant residing and carrying on business at Paris.
The plaintiff purchased the bill in the ordinary course of busi-
ness, and was holder for a valuable consideration. The hill
became due on a Saturday, and was presenttd at Paris on that
day. It was dishonoured. The Monday was the fete of
Louis Philippe, and business was only transactel up to twelve
o'clock in the morning. By the law of France a bill must
be protested and registered in order to secure the rights
of the holder over all the parties whose names are upon
the instrument. The protestation for non-payment and
the registration are in th.it respect equivalent to the notice
which by the law of England must be given by a holder to
all the parties of whose liability lie intends to avail himself.
The Bill in this case was not protested and registered till
Tuesday, and notice did not reach this country till Friday.
The defence was, that there had beel negligence in giviaig
notice, and that in eonsequence of such negligence ail the
parties to the bill but the acceptor were discharged.
A verdict was taken for the plaintiff, subject to a motion in
the Court above to set aside the verdict, if the Court should
be of opinion that the English law ought to prevail, or that
the custom as to the notice on foreign bills had not been
made out.

( Before a Common Jury.)
COOKE V. ELIZABTTH WALKER.
This was an action to recover the amount of three promis-
sory notes .given by the defendant. The first dated on the
7th of December, 1835, for 2901., payable on demand ; the
second on the 17th of December, 1835, for 1001, payable on
demand ; and a third on the same day for 501 , payable three
mind's after date. The defendant p!eaded that she had rive❑
the two first notes for the use and accommodation of the plain-
tiff, and she paid the amount of the third note into Court.
The Jury returned a verdict for the defendant.

POLICE INTELLIGENCE.

BOMST.REET.

Henry Brothers was yesterday brought before Sir FREDE-
hICK ROE charged on suspicion of stealing from the Port-
office at Chatham, in which he was employed as clerk, tw o
letters, one of which contained a bill of exchange for 131. Is.,
a check fur 601., and a Si. Bank note ; and the other letter
contained five 51. Bank of England notes. The prisoner ab-
sconded on the 18th of April last, and a reward of 1001. was
immediately otfei ed for his apprehension by the Post-office au-
thorities. He was ordered to be brought up again on Tues-
day next.

HAT7'ON-GARDEN.
Yesterday William Blaxland Rogers was place 1 at the bar
before Mr. BENETT, charged by John Davidson, of the Lou-
don-road, Kingston-on-Thames, with having fraudulently ob-
tained from him 71., under the false representation that ho was
a solicitor.

The prosecutor, October, 1837, in consequence of an adver-
tisement in the newspaper, was induced to call upon the pri-
soner, who was represented as a solicitor, residing at No. 10,
Jewin-court, Jewin-street, City. He had an interview with
him, when he (the prisoner) agreed to have a bill filed in the
Court of Chancery, forma pauperis, to recover some property
upon which he had a claim at Dorking, in Surrey, also five
snares, at f 25/. each, in the Grand Stand at Epsom. On
hearing the particulars, the prisoner said that he had suffi-
cient and just grounds to file a bill in a Court of Equity, and
he would undertake the matter for 101., on which he (witness)
advanced him 7/. on account, for which he wrote a receipt
(now produced), but he had neglected to perform the con-
tract, and witness had discovered that he was not an at.orney,
and that he had been defrauded.

William Roharts, Esq., Deputy Record keeper to the Court
of Chancery, had searched from 1837 for the cause of John
Davidson, for a suit against Flatman and others, and he had
found that no such bill had been filed.

Edward Chitty, Esq., barrister, of 44, Sergeant's Inn,
stated that at the beginning of 1837 the prisoner called at his
chambers in the usual way of business with instructions to
prepare ,pleadings in equity for Mr. Pepper, a solicitor. He
( Mr. Chitty) received the instructions personally from the
prisoner, and the name of " Pepper at the suit of Dayidron,"
was at the bottom.

Mr. Pi pper, solicitor, of No. 2, Brewer-street, Islington,
stated that the prisoner in the spring of 1836 was his clerk,
and he remained with him until last May twelvemonth.
Mr. BENETT is: he ever been an attorney Mr.
Pepper—l never knew him to be so, and I believe he never

ais been.
Mr. BENETT—Did you ever authorize him to give instruc-

tions to Mr. Chitty, or to perform for you?
Never. I know nothing about the transaction.

M. Pepper—

Mr. BENEFT inquired whether any evidence could be pro-
duced to show that he was not an attorney ?
Mr. ROBINSON replied that the onus rested with the prisoner
himself to prove that fact.
Mr. lIENETT, after a lengthened disen.ssitn on the point,
said it required some consideration, and he would require time
to look into the book, and he remanded the prisoner for that
purpoSe, with directions that Mr. Chitty and Mr. Roberts,
and other witnesses, should be in attendance at the next ex-
amination.

The prisoner already stands fully committed for trial on a
charge of having forged two bills of acceptance for .50/. each,
and another charge of fraud.

MARLBOROUGH-STREET.

A well-looking woman, whose real name is Atce Tr gg,
but aho assumes the name of Saunders, Anderson, Somers,
and many others, was brought before Mr. Conant, charged
by the Mendieity Society with obtaining money under fraudu-
lent preteneei
The MAGISTRATE remanded the prisoner till this day
(Tuesday).