The Sun.
London, England, 1814-12-16 00:00:00

BEAUMONT V. GARDENER AND OTHERS.

This. curious case respecting' the Benevolent
Union Society, formed in the year 1797, and dis-
solved in the year 1811, came before the Court, on
motion of Mr. HAR-r, supported by Mr. PARKIIR,
for an order on. the Trustees, the defendants, to.
Pay into Court the aliquot shares of the plaintiffs,
being seven in number, admitted' by defendants
to be in their hands, the plaintiffs pot having con-
sented. to the dissolution ; and there being a Rule
that no dissolution should take place while seven
of the Members should continue.

Mr. PHILLIMORE opposed .the :11otion; and the
LORD CHANCELLOR desired to read the Articles and
Papers before he gave Judgment on the important
case.—Judginent postponed.

COLTRX OF KING'S BENCH, Dec. 15, 1814.
(Special Juries.)
STEINMAN V. PAINE.
The plaintiff declared as indorsee against the
drawer and indorser of a bill of exchange, dated
3d Of Augnst, 1813, drawn upon Messrs. Hallett
and Hardie, at two mouths, for 811/. 3s. 7d. and
accepted by them. It appeared- that Messrs.
Hallett and Hardie bad put the bill -(with whets)
into the hands of the late Mr. May, the bill-
broker, who was executed for forgery, to he dis 7
eounted, for the _express purpose of -enahliag
tbein with the proceeds w retire- other running
r bills becoming due at that time of exactly the seine
amount , and—that Mr. May had obtained a loan
Irom Mr. Cuthbert ROuth, of 10001. as a security,
for the re-payment 'of which he placed the bill
(with others) in that gentleman's hands,lia
July, 1813, Mr. Thelkeld advanced to May'l 000/.
being the aniount of a debt clue from the latter to
him at the tune of May's apprehenSion; and-being
afterwards ildurnied of the transaction, both May
and Mr. G. Routh laid an attachment on the-bills
i'. his. hand 22d of. Sept. Mr. C. Routh had
Pined the bills pledged with him in the hands of
his brother, Mr. John Routh, as security for a
larger stun which he owed his brother ; and Mr.
C. R. was prevailed upon to give up the bills to
Thelkeld, on condition that May would give an
order to that effect, which he did. It was dated
6th of October, and required hiui on. payment of
the balance due to him to deliver the several bills
of exchange deposited by May in his hands." On
15th of Oct. he received payment of 519/.'l6s. 5(1.
balauce'of the 10001. lent, and delivel'ed up the
bill in question along with the rest. The bill was
not paid when due, and was noted and •protested
when in possession of John Routh, and afterwards
forwarded to lie received" of the defendant at Curls-
bacilli. On the 15th of Oct. (the bill being due 6th)
Thelkeld paid tile bill to the plaintiff in part of a
debt. The bill was drawn by the defendant
through the agency of Mr. Fardely, who deposed,
that upon an interview with Ma"y three or four
(lays after the bill had been put into his hands,
for the purpose .of being discounted as alozesaid,
he said to May, die was itiepti ied-at hearing that
the bill "in question had beea destroyed by him,
and not thinking it credible, urged him very ve-
hemently to return the : May 'declared- it
was true that he had destroy-A them. This was
false; and the ATT3IINEY-G,NERAL, Air. Tor-
. irsto-, and Mr. CAkrsEtrj, for the plaintiff, ob-
jected that what May-Said was not evidence ; but
Lord ELLENBOROUGH ruled, that he sh(L1(1 re-
ceive it as a part of the conduct of the party. Mr.
PARK and Mr. GASELER, for the defendant, con-
tended, that the plailitiff could not recover, as
the bill was not delivered to kiln -till after
it was due, and that he most be considered
the indorsee of May. • Lord ELLENEOROUGH was
clear, that as the-bill was deposited with him for
a special pdrpose, he could not sue upon it ; and
the bill getting back into his hands, and the:plain-
tiff deriving from him, and not from Cathbert-
Routh (who being iguorant of all May's fraud,
might have indorsed the bill to a rightful suitor
upon it), it was exactly as if May was.'bringing.
the action. There was not a particle of proof
that-Thelkeld had paid any value for the bill.=
May's order ran, deliver to the bearer; and Thel-
keld might have been a common porter fur alfthat
appears. The plaintiff. .should have &hewn, that
-Thelkeld. (ignorant of all the circumstances of the
bill) had advanced 5001. on it.
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL chose to be nonsuited.