The Sun.
London, England, 1836-11-18 00:00:00

that such was the case with regard to an indictment against
the husband? Was it necessary as a potection for the
wife? He thought not, and was therefore of opinion that
the rule must be made absolute:
The other Judges concurred.—Rule absolute.

COURT OF COMMON PLEAS, Nor. 17.
(Continued from The Sun of yesterday.)
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL.-By the 9th and 10th of
William 111., c. 44, section 89, it was provided that bills
under the seal of the Governor and Company of the Bank
of England, commonly called " bank bills " should be re-
ceived instead of certain taxes. There, therefore, was a
Parliamentary definition of a " bank bill," on which they
were in the habit of borrowing, taking up, and owing
money. It was clear, therefore, that it was Bank Bills of
this description that were; prohibited by the 6th of Anne.
In the 11th of George 1., which was one of the Bank
Acts, the last section, after reciting the frequent forgery
and alteration of Bank bills and notes, declared such for-
gery or alteration of "any Bank bills or Bank notes" to be
a felony. Now bills of exchange were clearly not within
that Act, which showed that at that time the Bank was
not anxious about securities of that description. The 2d
George 11. was the first Act which made the forging of
bills of exchange a felony ; and another Act was passed in
the same reign, extending the crime to the forgery of ac-
ceptances ; so that it was evident from them that a bill of
exchange was not considered a bill within the meaning of
the prior Acts. There was only one other Act to which it
was necessary to refer, but which was one on which his
Learned Friend Mr. Maule very much relied—namely, the
7th Geo. IV., c. 46, sections 3 and 19, by which it was
enacted that those companies who did not reside beyond 65
miles from London were not to make any bills of exchange
contrary to the provisions of the act of 89 and 40 Geo. 111.
But if that act contained no provisions interdicting the
making such instruments, these words could not have the
effect of imparting such a meaning to it ; they could not
impart an additional restrait to a preceding enactment,
when there was not one word in the act so referred to about
bills of exchange. But, to remove all doubt on this point,
it was only necessary to refer to the act 3 and 4 William
IV., which contained a legislative enactment that the mo-
nopoly of the Bank of England was confined to the bor-
rowing, taking up, or owing money on bills and notes at a
less date than six months from the borrowing thereof. If,
then, the 6th of Anne applied only to bills under seal
and promissory notes, then it would be impossible to
give the effect to the words of the 7th and Bth George
'IV., for which his learned friend contended. For these
reasons he submitted that the evil intended to be prohibited
was the issuing of paper in the shape of bank bills or pro-
missory notes ; and that bills of exchange were not within
the meaning of the acts in question. If so, there was an end
of this case, and the defendants were entitled to their Lord-
ships' judgment. But supposing the Court were to hold
that the word " bills," as used in those acts, was a term
comprehending every species of bill, as well bill of exchange
as others, still, as there was no borrowing on a bill in this
case, the defendants were equally entitled to judgment.
The object of the prohibitory clauses of these statutes, was
to restrain the evil of borrowing sums of money on securi-
ties of this description. According to the words of the act,
there must be a borrowing on a bill at less than six months
date from such borrowing. Where, then, in this case were
the months to run from ? What was the terminus a quo
they were to commence ? When did the borrowing take
place—for the borrowing was the very essence of the
transaction which was struck at by the Act ? After re-
ferring to the Irish Bank Act (21st and 22d George III.),
which imposed a forfeiture of treble the sum borrowed, in
order to show what was meant in an act passed pari ma-
teria by borrowing, the Learned Counsel contended that
a banker with whom a customer deposited. money did not
borrow that money, for he was liable to pay it to the cus-
tomer's order at any moment upon his check being pre-
sented. Such a deposit did not constitute a loan in the
mind of any commercial man. The Bank of England
themselves received deposits from private customers ; and
would it be said that they were borrowers from those cus-
tomers ? If so, they would be guilty of an infringement of
the act. But such deposits were not loans. By the 3d
and 4th of William IV. the Bank of England was bound
to make a return of the amount of their circulation and of
their deposits ; but if their deposits were loans, they should
return their amount as so much money borrowed. But
supposing that the deposit is the borrowing, then there is
nothing in the present case to show when the borrowing
took place, or that the bill in question was drawn at less
than six months from the time of such borrowing. And
in giving a construction to the words of this act, the
Court would bear in mind that it was a penal act, and
in restraint of trade, and therefore to be construed
strictly. If their Lordships were to put the construc-
tion contended for on the other side upon it, they
would prevent any joint-stock company from paying a debt
for goods sold and delivered by their acceptance at less
than six months. Supposing the Westminster Bank owed
a bill for stationery, would his friend say that it would be
illegal on their parts to accept a bill for its amount? Or
supposing they accepted it for the rent of their house,
would that be illegal ? The Statute of Usury had been
referred to, as showing what was meant by borrowing ; but
that act did not apply, because it contained words which
included any contract where more than 5 per cent. was
taken for the forbearance of a debt. Suppose no debt
existed at all at the time when the bill was drawn, what
would his learned friend say then ? That might be an
irregular transaction, but it was clear it could not come
within the words of the 6th of Anne, since no money was
borrowed. All this brought him back to the evil which was
intended to be met—namely, the borrowing of large sums
of money on Bank bills and promissory notes. But suppo-
sing that a bill of exchange was a bill within the meaning of
the 6th of Anne, and that a deposit was a borrowing, still,
according to the facts of this case, the defendants had not
borrowed money on their bill, within the words of the
section in question. He (the Attorney-General), con-
tended that the persons prohibited were those who
issued the paper themselves ; and there was no pretence
for saying that the defendants issued this bill- It
was the drawer who issued it, and not the acceptor,
In
common mercantile language, it was called his bill of ex-
change ; and it was in the language of the law ; for in de-
claring on such a bill the pleader stated that " he (the
drawer) made his certain bill of exchange in writing," &c. ;
and, indeed, such bill might be circulated without ever hav-
ing been accepted at all. And what would his Learned
Friend say to a parole acceptance of a bill of exchange, for
foreign bills of exchange might still be accepted by parole, as
might have been inland bills until the passing- of Sergeant
Onslow's Act ? Suppose, then, such parole promise to pay
the amount of a bill, which would amount to an acceptance,
could it be said that the acceptor was borrowing or taking
up money on " his bill," although he had never seen the
bill in question at all ? So also of the case of a conditional
acceptance. Suppose a partnership accepted a bill of ex-
change for honour ; they would owe upon it, and certainly
might be sued upon it ; but could it be said' that they had
borrowed or taken up money upon it ? The Learned
Counsel, after pressing this argument at some length,
then proceeded to examine the various decisions of the
Courts of Law bearing upon this subject, and insisted,
that although they were somewhat conflicting, and not sa-
tisfactory, yet as far as they went the weight of authority
was in the defendants' favour. He ridiculed the idea of
this proceeding having been instituted for the good of the
public ; private banks of not more than six partners al-
ready did what was here attempted to be prevented, and
the public made no complaint on the subject ; would they,
then, be more likely to complain when they had a larger
number of persons as security for their money ? No such
thing : on the contrary, lie (the Attorney-General) was
standing up for the public in resisting this attempted prohi-
bition, which, if successful, would have the effect of inflict-
ing a deep wound on commerce. After apologizing for
having occupied so much time, the Learned Counsel said
he should sit down confident that the judgment of the
Court would be in favour of his clients.
Mr. MAULS rose in reply, and maintained that if the
principle in this case were decided for defendants, it would
be destructive to public credit, and utterly destructive to
the chartered privileges of the Bank of England. His
Learned Friend had adduced, in the course of his argu-
ments, that the act committed by defendants could not be
considered an infringement of the privilege of the Bank of
England, inasmuch as that body never themselves accepted
such bills, and that they could not be injured by that sin-
glc'act. He did not mean to say that they had been yet
injured ; but the object of the present proceedings was to
put a stop to the system before it reached an injurious ex-
tent. If their Lordships decided in favour of defendants,
there would be nothing to prevent them from establishing
a Bank in St. James's, St. Giles's, or any other part of
London, with powers equal to the Bank of England. They
might issue paper money payable at the shortest dates,
which might have the power of to some extent displacing
bank-notes. There were very few banking companies con-
sisting of more than six partners.
Mr. Justice BOSANQUET.—There were some at Bristol.
Mr. MAULE—Yes, there were one or two at Bristol,
and probably that was the reason why the Bristol Banks
did not accept bills. The statute of Anne was undoubtedly
intended to give the Bank of England the exclusive privi-
lege of issuing bills under seal. It was a concession on
the part of his Learned Friend that the word " bills"ui that
act did not mean bills in Equity, or bills of Middlesex.—
( A laugh.) Some imputations had been levelled at the
directors of the bank for coming forward to protect their
privileges, whatever they might be ; but in so doing those
gentlemen had only done what they conceived to be their
public duty ; and were not lending themselves to any mo-
tives apart from that consideration. He (Mr. Maule)
might, if he chose, retort on the other side, and say that
this was a mere collusion between Mr. Alfred Musgrave, of
the great Bank of St. Alban's, and the Westminster Bank

But it was not on imputations like those on either :ode
that the Court would decide the question, and he would
therefore pass on from them. The Learned Gentleman
then went through the various Acts of Parliament on the
snbject, and maintained that defendants had decidedly in-
fringed their enactments. He then entered at length into
the cases and opinions cited by the Attorney-General when
the Lord Chief Justice suggested an adjournment of the
case.
The Learned Gentleman's further arguments were ac-
cordingly adjourned till to-morrow.

INSOLVENT DEBTORS' COURT, Nor. 1.1.
Mr. B. R. Haydon, the historical painter, brought up
from the King's Bench Prison, applied on his petition to be
discharged. The application was not opposed by his credi-
tors. He was supported by Mr. Cooke.
The schedule contained debts contracted from 1831,
making in all a gross amount of 1,691/. 16s. 6d. Insol-
vent had received, in consideration of the above, 1220/.
6s. 6d. The residue were debts which had been entered!
more than once on the schedule ; and the ocher debts for
which he had not received any consideration. The profits
of his professian in 1831, it appeared, amounted to 637/-
10s., and the profits of the present year amounted to 947/:, •
ncluding the amount of subscriptions at several times eol
'acted for his picture of Xenophon. Insolvent ascribed the
cause of his present misfortunes to the heavy law costs to
which he had been subjected, and to loss that he sug-'
tained by his exhibition of the picture painted in eel&
bration of the passing of the Reform Bill, and also to
the consequences that had followed an attack made 1113"
him in Fraser's Magazine. In the balance-sheet, the
loss on the exhibition of Earl Grey's picture, was set
down at 240/. 16s. Bd. The losses sustained upon the
exhibition of the pictures of Xenophon and Be"-
parte were set down at 31/. Insolvent had inserted i!
in
h
special balance-sheet different sums which he had re
eived
from delivering lectures on painting at various institutions'
and also a present which he had received from the pudic°
of Kent. In the period which the transactions of the
schedule included he had disbursed 300/. for law c°sts.
There were several solicitors appeared as creditors in the
schedule. He had been detained in custody since the 101
September last. the
Mr. Commissioner LAW haying carefully gone over
schedule, did not put a single question to the insolventAf
He declared him entitled to the benefit of the Act, °-
ordered him to be discharged forthwith.
Mr. Frederick Samson Thomas, historical painter end
modeller, was opposed in person by a creditor nare:,
Matthewson, and Mr. Cooke supported the petition o.c -11
insolvent.
Insolvent, it appeared, had painted two pictures,
were considered masterpieces—the subjects were CETI
raising the Widow's Son," and the " Woman taken in Aciu
tery." These be had exhibited. The former had been el:
deamed in execution for the rent of the room at 15/., 0° a
withstanding that the frame alone had cost nearly 40/.,
Ti e
the painting had been estimated at upwards of 2801-

other picture he had only been employed to paint. via
The COURT was of opinion that nothing had been she e
to prevent the insolvent being discharged. He was a--
cordingly discharged forthwith. • $(1,
James Charles Grant, a young man fashionably
described as a gentleman, was opposed by Mr. Chari,,,
Dods, solicitor, in person. Insolvent was supported
Mr. Woodroffe. Insolvent was now in his 23d year' $
Insolvent had been sued by the opposing creditor on
bill of exchange, drawn by a young man named Finl3st'he
companion of the insolvent. The action commenced,no
Palace Court, but was removed to the Court of l'-`7,4
Bench. The declaration was demurred to, and on its ben-e,
placed on the special list, a delay of nine months Was -rer
casioned, and an expense of 301. incurred. The damns
was ultimately dismissed, and judgment was obtained. he
Mr. DODS complained of the great expense to vibiel'l,ol
had been subjected in the action. He denied that he h". 10
known the bill to have been accepted by insolvent sl-jed
incarcerated in the Fleet Prison. He had been inforoloa
that insolvent was a young man of great expectations, a
attlr
,g 9
that his connections were very wealthy.
Insolvent admitted that he had accepted the bill tooblig;
a friend when he was in prison. He was at the time
detained at the suit of two bootmakers and one tw
ee,
After a few months' confinement he obtained his dischle
He was now in custody for a debt of 601., contracted
the
spirits and for money lent during his incarceration in It
Fleet. He had been in custody nearly twenty months. ,a,,
appeared that insolvent's debts amounted to 5,298/. I9s. 1'
and he had no credit account.
Mr. DODS had opposed insolvent, hoping that• if fro
mended, some settlement might be effected. Insolvent
nephew of the late Sir C. Grant, and son of Dr. Grant'
Insolvent was then ordered to be discharged.

POLICE INTELLIGENCE•

HATTON-DEN
Yesterday G. S. Mulch, the GAR
swindler; was finally e%r
mined, when the office was excessively crowded. a
Mr. Ford, the proprietor of the Cheshire Cheese ane
Amphion Concert-rooms, Fleur-de-lis-court, Fetter-14e%;
had been to the lady who kept a boarding school in ~it
country, and from whom the prisoner obtained ‘.20-, "
she was unable to attend to prosecute him.
Mr. LAING said, if shd thought thought proper she could ldie
e
him at the Old Bailey. bac'
Mr. Ford, since the last examination of the prisoner, id
ascertained that about two or three years ago he was trio/
and convicted at the Old Bailey. He had had an intervtbe
with Mr. Cope, the Governor of Newgate, and he Iv-aspic]]
same person. His offence was similar to that upon
vi
he was now committed for trial. OP

Mr. LAING ordered Waddington, the gaoler, to t
inquiries at Newgate when he took the prisoner, and tila
copy of the conviction should be procured.
It was stated that Looney, who was connected tae'
the prisoner in his swindling transactions, was still pious
tising his impositions on the public, and was a n°t°r
character. 05
The prisoner was eventually taken to Newgate•
fist
health seemed to be considerably affected since his
examination, and on leaving the bar much aroiletatea
evinced to obtain a view of his person, but he °—
everything that passed with the utmost sang fruit!.

QUEEN-SQUARE. tin`
During the last three weeks the greater part of t",er,poll
of the Magistrates of this office has beenoccupi
various examinations, and in adjudicating upon case:Tio:l
certain parties, calling themselves collectors of metB" „leo
been fined very heavily for having in their possession s:des,
property, consisting of lead, copper, brass, and King's
which they had collected at different marine store-deteo
in the metropolis. Nearly 3001. worth of metal 1135 htics
confiscated during the last week ; some of the Parti'c: the
been sent to prison, whilst others have paid fine" -°
King •
ing amounting to a considerable sum, and in all cos
carts
and other vehicles in which the metal has been 'vosse
have been ordered to be sold. Yesterday anotbe!rge4
occurred. Thomas Pope and James Rackley were eh oir
by Sergeant Thatcher, of the B division, with having 1° brass
possession 1561b5. of lead, 111bs. of pewter, 271bs• °L, gar
and copper, a publican's pint pot, and a quantity of ne"
piping, which had evidently never been made use of. .of $
Pope, in defence, had bought part of the articl Ater
man named Belfond, in the New-road, Chelsea, an
great deal of hesitation said that he did not know viwi
had bought the remainder. afer'ee‘
The prisoner Rackley would not say anythin'in-aeb,s_et
The prisoners were sentenced to a penalty 151- e ea"
an imprisonment of two months. The metal and the
were ordered to be sold.

Yesterday Johnl,Tr HORugSbeHslcsieSnTvoßodE,ET.
alias
jo„ ht,iglciiti;
awansi?:nn oi f respectable appearance and good add
eslo
months since
at the Central Criminal Court about ty'rbail'
for conspiracy, but absconded from rate' 1,1
was brought before Nr. GROVE, the sitting
Collier, a police-constable, No. 38, E. i‘lagisoth,
has been about ten years on the town, was in custooY 1 oti
time above-mentioned with two others, named nVe toot+
Anderson, charged with conspiring to rob gr• "`erid f'd
landlord of the Dial public-house in Goswell-strect, 40'.
merous other charges were afterwards brought agaiost .1. oo
Wednesday night, at a public-house in Oxford-stre:3frof°
company with some other gamblers. Since his ligtn.tte'
The prion,enst the,
this country, he had been at Boulogne, here his '"" lie
cused Bonnel had also been seen, and sinv'c'e liis re r
had given himself out as a cigar-merchant. f°
No
The Judge's warrant having been produced ill
org 3 Prc°te for
the indictment, the prisoner was committed to
trial. .1%

THAMES OFFICE
Yesterday John C'oxson, a grocer and the the
Mint, was brought before Mr. BaoDY-rair,
carrying on business in Rosern
ceiving, knowing to be stolen, FO pounds weight 0` son
ter, a portion of 15 firl,inthe j - t {• Mr V,
s, proper
Webb, a wholesail a (I' rYid butter-insre%a
n retail cheese a to_itt.
in Tottenham-court-road. The robbery was CO I`.
on Saturday charged with lot,
near the
~1,0 c'
Mr. BaonERIP remanded the prisoner for a week.

T. COX SAVORY,
,
London informs citrabln""v3 000
'ECO orms the Public, that he has a coons.. lie
yea•
S D- HAND GOLD WATCHES, any of. irefullY
—Go—lds—mith—,Sze., Cc'rriebty of
at EIGHT GUINEAS each. They have all been
amilled, and are warranted. —Watches purchased in nN'

DIED. , • 10.
On the 11th inst., at The Palace, Lincoln, aged 6 •
of B. Burton, Esq., of Burton Hall, in the county of
to

London: Printed and Published by INIURDO YOU,-
tae
112, Strand, at The Sun 011iee, No. lil2, Sm.l24i°
of Aliddlesex.—Friday, November 18, 836.