The Sun.
London, England, 1849-12-08 00:00:00

TWO Iltition

EXCHEQUER.—(THIS DAY.)
(Sittings at Nisi Prius, at Westminster, before the
Cana. BARON and a Special Jury.)
TURNER V. UNION BANK.
Mr. Crowder and Mr. Henn ker appeared for the
plaintiff, and Mr. Gurney, Mr. Ryland, and Mr.
Ogle for the defendants.
Mr. CROWDER stated the case to the jury. The
plaintiff, Montague John Merewether Turner, was
a gentleman residing at Woodgate Lodge, in the
neighbourhood of •Croydon, and the defendants were
the trustees of the Union Bank of London, in Ar-

. .
gyil-street, Regent-street, and the action was brought
•..to recover compensation in damages for a breach, on
the part of the delendanta, of an engagement which is
• always implied between bankers and their customers,
viz., to ries wer a cheque of a customer, provided they
haver'sufficient funds in- hand to meet it atathe time
the cheque is drawn. This was a question of the
importance, because strictre bS and puac-
, taelity in deserving the payment of cheques
hankers materially . added to the facili-
ties which were required. for the transaction
of business. The plaintiff in this case had to com-
plain that a cheque which he had drawn for the pur-
;pose of paying his yearly subscription of 51. to Mr.
Simpson, the Secretary of the Reform Club, to which
he belonged, was refused ptyment, it being alleged
that he had no effects at the time in the hands of the
defendant,. This subjected the plaintiff to very con-
iderable, annoyance and inconvenience, as they might
easily understand, because a gentleman could not but
t-
el velar much aggrieved to have a cheque for so small
an ..mount returned upon him'es if he had drawn upon
as bank with which he had no account. It
-.ys perfectly obvious that at times the
hest of bankers might commit errors, but
then it would naturally be expected that when
the mistake was di:covered, the bank would inane-
diately express their sincere regret that .• it had
taken place. In the present instance he was sure the
cry would think that Mr. Turner was not only jus.
titled but bound te bring this action into court. The
erdinary bankers of the plaintiff were at Croydon,
but coining from time to time to London, and belong-
ing to several clubs, he kept for his convenience a
small account with the defendants, and at the time the
cheque was refused he had about 601. in their hands.
The cheque was drawn on the 12th of May, 1848,
and on hearing from Mr. Simpson that it was dis-
honoured, he wrote the following letter to Mr. Clack,
the manager, o:i the 16th of May, 184S:—
" Sir,—ln case you should not know the severe
injury which has been done to myself by the non•
pas ment of the cheque drawn on the 12th instant,
arid paid to the secretary of the Reform Club, I think
is right to apprise you of the circumstance, and I
trust your explanation will be such as to obviate
the necessity of any legal proceedings which I am
Advised I am justified in adopting for the severe
iejury which has been done to me.'
To this letter the following reply was returned :
" The only explanation I can offer in reply to your
letter just received is, that at the time the cheque was
presented here there were not sufficient funds at
your credit to pay it. The balance at your
credit since the 29th ultimo appears to be
only 1/ I ls. 5.1, and as the directors of the bank
have several times expressed their disapprobation at
my permitting your account to be overdrawn on pre-
vious occasions, I had no alternative but to act in the
manner complained of. Your pass-book was made
out and delivered on the 15th ultimo, at which time
• the balance in yeur favour was 741. 19s. 3d.
As you have not apprised me of any error therein, I
presume it to be correct, and as I have since paid a
draft of yours for 731. 7s. 10.1., the balance is now
• 'what I state. Taking into consideration the courtesy
and liberality which has been shown to you on our
account, which his scarcely remunerated the batik, I
beg to remark that the tone of your letter appears to
be hardly justified, even had your draft been erro-
neously refund payment. I can only say ifyou think
. it right to adapt legal proceedings, or to withdraw
your account, I am prepared to meet your wishes."
Mr. Turner thought it right to explain to Mr.
CIA .k how the error had occurred, and his reply was
in these terms:—
" Since reeding your letter I have thought it well,
though the first time I have ever thought it neces-
sary, to look over my return cheques, and it appears
that your house is ana thing but accurate. On the
14th of December, 18.16, there is a cheque for 101.,
which is signed William Lewin Turner,' but which
any one with half an eye would not take for my
signature. To show further the inaccuracy of the
account, I am debited with a bill of exchange for
51/. 10s. 2.1, which is not accepted by me."
Some faither correspondence passed between the
parties without the plaintiff obtaining any apology
or receiving any intimation that the balance which
he .Loeged was due to him should be paid, and the
,esnsequenee, was that an action was commenced in
July, 1848 The tVenciarits, in Augu,t, took out a
titniiions to stay proceedings on payment of debt
and costs, they having found ou-, in the meantime,
!het the entries intdo in the plaintiff's account were
inserted be mistake, but as no written apology was
effered the plaint:if ()Ejected to this course. The case
was thon entered for trial, and the defendants
tied 63/. into Court, which they found was the true
kit:ince due, and as to the damages sustained, had
psi i one shilling, whiah they contended was amply
• sutri.:ient to comr.:)sate him for the alleged breach of
ci;g•lg,‘.lLent. The only issue which the jury would,
therefore, have to deteimMe was, whether, under the
circumstances of the case, that rum was sufficient.
The plaintiff contended that it was not, an/ only
added insult to injury.
Mr. GOODY, in defence, said, the mistake in the
account had arisen from confusing the names of the
plaintiff's brother and another person with the plain-
tiff's name, but the bank endeavoured to rectify it by
paying the proper balance into court ; but they were
not altogether to blame, for it was the plaintiff's duty
to look over his pess-book and to communicate at
once with the bank if he discovered any mistake.
Instead, however, of doing this, he had allowed them
to remain ender the impression that the entries were
correct. The plaintiff kept a very poor account, and
had only been a customer of the bank for a short
time ; and as he had been frequently under great
obligations to it, he might have exercised a little more
leniency towards the defendants.
The L?arned JUDGE summed up, observing that
the plaintiff had not only omitted to allege any special
damage, bat he said not a single syllable about his
having suffired any loss by the non-payment of the
balance.
• The jury found a verdict for the defendants.