The Sun.
London, England, 1849-12-10 00:00:00

ONDON MONDAY

EVENING, DECEMBER 10 1849,

LA W IN TEL LIGENCE.
COURT OF EXCHEQUER, Dec. 9.
(Sittings at Nisi Prius, at Westminster, before the
CHIEF BARON and a Special Jury.)
TURNER V. UNION BANK.

Mr. Crowder and sir. Henniker appeared for the
nd Mr. Gurney, Mr. Ryland, and Mr.
Ogle for the defendants.

-Mr. CROWDEIt 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-
gyll-street, Regent-street, and the action was brought
to recover compensation in damages for a breach, on
the part of the defendants, of an engagement which is
always implied between bankers and their customers,
viz., to answer a cheque of a customer, provided they
have suffieient funds in hand to meet it at the time
the cheque is drawn. Tnis was a question of the
unnos: importance, because strictre-ss and punc-
tuality in observing the payment of cheques
by bankers materially added to the facili-
ties which were required for the transaction
of business. Tne 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 payment, it being alleged
that he had no effects at the time in the hands of the
defendants. This subjected the plaintiff to very con-
siderable annoyance and inconvenience, as they might
easily understand, because a gentleman could not but
feel very much aggrieved to have a cheque for so small
an amount returned upon him as if he had drawn upon
a bank with which he had no account. It
was perfectly obvious that at times the
best of bankers might commit errors, but
then it would naturally be expected that when
the mistake was discovered, the bank would imme-
diately express their sincere regret that it had
taken place. In the present instance he was sure the
jury would think that Mr. Turner was not only jus.
tified but bound to bring this action into court. The
ordinary bankers of the plaintiff were at Croydon,
but coming 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 Msy, 1848,
and on hearing from Mr. Sin:pion that it was dis-
honoured, he wrote the following letter to Mr. Clack,
the manager, on the 16th of May, 1848:
" Sir,—ln case you should not know the severe
injury which has been done to myself by the non-
payment of the cheque drawn on the 12th instant,
and paid to the secretary of the Reform Club, I think
it 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
injury 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 wag
presented here there were not sufficient funds et
your credit to pay it. The balance at your
credit since the 29th ultimo appears to be
only 1/ 115. 5d., 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 deliverel on the 15th ultimo, at which time
the balance in your 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. 101., the balance is now
what I state. Taking into consideration the courtesy
and liberality which has been shown to you on our
account, which has scarcely remunerated the bank, I
beg to remark that the tone of your letter appears to
be hardly justified, even had your draft been erro
neously refused payment. I can only say if you think
it right to adopt legal proceedings, or to withdraw
your account, I am prepared to meet your wishes."
Mr. Turner thought it right to exp!ain to Mr.
Clack how the error had occurred, and his reply was
in these terms :

" Since reading 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 anything but accurate. On the
14th of December, 1846, 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, lam debited with a bill of exchange for
51/. 10e. 2.1, which is not accepted by me."
Some further correspondence passed between the
parties without the plaintiff obtaining any apology
or receiving any intimation that the balance which
he alleged was due to him should be paid, and the
consequence was that an action was commenced in
July, 1848. The defendants, in August, took out a
summons to stay proceedings on payment of debt
and costs, they having found out, in the meantime,
that the entries made in the plaintiff's account were
inserted by uniAake, but as no written apology was
offered the plaintiff objected to this course. The case
was then entered for trial, and the defendants
pail 631 into Court, which they found was the true
balance due, and as to the damages sustained, had
paid one shilling, which they contended was amply
sufficient to compensate him for the alleged breach of
engagement. The only issue which the jury would,
therefore, hove to determine was, whether, under the
circumstances of the case, that sum was sufficient.
The plaintiff contended that it was not, and only
added insult to injury.
Mr. GURNEY, 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 reoiry 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 pass-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 under 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 Learned JUDGE summed up, obser►ing that
the plaintiff had not only omitted to allege any special
damage, but he said not a single syllable about his
having suffered any loss by the non-payment of the
balance.

The jury found a verdict for the defendants.

POLICE INTELLIGENCE.
GUILDHALL.

Mr. Edward Nairne, late of No. 3, Warnford-
court, stockbroker, was brought before Sir James
Duke for final examination, charged with not surren-
dering to be examined as a bankrupt in the Court of
Bankruptcy at the time notified in the London
Gazette.
Mr. Lucas appeared on behalf of the creditors ; and
Mr. Humphreys, solicitor, defended the prisoner.
Thera were two charges against Mr. Nairne—that
of not surrendering; and also his having, as an agent,
unlawfully disposed of certain Exchequer-bills which
had been intrusted to him for safe custody, and with•
out authority to sell or negotiate them.
The facts, as proved at the different examinations,
are shortly these :—The prisoner carried on the busi-
ness of a stockbroker in Warnford-court, and while
so doing
,a Mr. Spurgin, from the neighbourhood of
Hounslow, was recommended to him by a friend,
as a person who could lay out some money fur
him to advantage. Mr. Spurgin came to London,
and was recommended to invest 1,0001, which he
had brought with him, in Exchrquer•bills, at 48i.
That advice was followed, and the Exchequer bill
deposited with Nairne for safe keeping, who said he
would place it in his iron safe at the Exchange, where
he had property to the amount of thousands of pounds.
A few days after Mr. Spurgin placed 7001 more in
the prisoner's hands, who purchased two Exchequer-
bills, one for 500/., the other for 2001. These were
likewise left with Nairne to be deposited with the
1,0001. bill, all to he kept safely, and not to be nego
tiated or transferred in any way. However, it ap-
peared that the prisoner suddenly disappeared, and it
was then found out that be had. resold theExchequer-
bills shortly after they were left in his care, to Messrs.
Brown and Co., dealers in Exchequer•bills, on the
Stock Exchange. A warrant was issued under the
Act which lately came into force against absconding
bankrupts, and was placed in the hands of Daniel
Forrester, who apprehended the prisoner at Boulogne-
sur-Mer, and brought him to London.
The two charges were clearly established against
the prisoner (who reserved his defence), and he was
fully committed for trial. •
Mr. II Hoary, solicit sr, observ.3d to Sir James
Duke, that as his client, the Rev. Mr. Muntz, was
obliged to return to his duties in the country he
could not call any evidence respecting the 1,800/.
%%Lich that gentleman hid sent to the prisoner to be
invested in Russian bonds, and which he had made
use of, but should, at the next sitting of the Central
Criminal Court, prefer a bill of indictment before the
grand jury.
Mr. Humphreys was surprised that a re3pectAle
solicitor should be so indecent as to advise his client
to pursue such an objectionable course when he
could so easily come before a m igistrate and let the
prisoner hear all that was said against him, instead of
taking him completely by surprise as to the neture of
the charge.

Sir JA-MES DUKE thought the prisoner wou!d get
a copy of the depositions.
Mr. Humphreys said that was not the case. A
person, or a set of persons, might go before a grand
jury and prefer a bill of indictment ; notes of the evi-
dence were not taken, or, if taken, were not sent to
the court below, but destroyed, so that any one
might be sent for trial for murder without knowing
one word of the evidence he Was to be prepared to

meet on the day of his trial. Not only was a pH-
' saner entitled to hear the whole that the witnesses
had to say against him, but he was entitled to cross-
examine those witnesses—advantages he was deprived
of when the case went at once to the grand jury.
Mr. Ili!leery, so far as reg;r,led himself, would, if'
the matter was so serious as Mr. Humphreys seemed
to think, have brought it before the magistrate ; but
this was a charge of the prisoner getting money and
transferring it to his own benefit, which was only a
misdemeanour, and quite a different case to that which
Mr. Humphreys had alluded to. The prisoner's legal
adviser could expect no commiseration when it was
considered that his client had made away with upwards
of 30,0001.
Mr. Humphreys did not want commiseration. He
onl v wanted Justice.
Mr. Hilleary should most certainly do what the law
ernr)owered him.
Mr. Humphreys thought the proceeding a very in-
decorous one, and he protested aguinz.4 it as it was
rarely resorted to in these times.
The prisoner, having heard the depositions read over
to him, was conveyed to Newgive.
An Irishman, namel George Hetherington, who
gave his address as 3, Mitre-court, Temple, barrister-
at law, was brought up for final examination, charged
with.obtaining goods under false pretences, and 1-.lso
with getting money on pretenled cheques.
The prisoner has been remanded five or six times,
and during those examin.stions it appeared that he had
represented himself as a barrister, solicitor, agent to
the Duke of Richmond, and, in fact, any characrer
that suited his convenience. He had taken lodgings
and houses in different parts of London, rurini,g
away before the quarter was due, and duping all the
tradesmen in the neighbourho.)ds where he located
himself. his versatile genius knew no bounds, and
the latest of his achievements, which was the principal
cause of his being at present in trouble, was his trying
to become the lessee of the Theatre Royal, S,alth-
ampton, but the landlord, not liking his customer, and
ascertaining that he was not worth a farthing, refined
to accept him as a tenant. It was to go down to
Southampton to effect this object that he borrowed
the money and gave a cheque on the firm of Messrs.
Harris and Capper, of Cornhill, who said there was
no account there, nor did they give the prisoner any
authority to write orders upon them. When taken
into custody he had three sets of chambers.
There were a number of persons in the court who
had been dupsd, but their cases all resolved themselves
into debts.
Sir J. Duals committed him for trial, and the de-
positions being made out, were about to be read when
it was found that Mr. Harris and his brother had left
the court, upon which
Sir J. DUKE remanded the prisoner urtil Thursday
next, and told the officer to be sure to have all the
witnesses in attendance.
BO W-S Mr!:

A woman named Mary Davis, of 19, Frances-
place, Blackfriars road, and a man named John Pike,
of no settled address, were brought before Mr. Henry,
by Perry, a policeman, charged as follows :
It appeared that Perry was on duty in plain clothes,
on Waterloo bridge, at seven o'clock on Fridty even •
ing, when he saw the female prisoner, who was well
dressed, coming from the Surrey side of the water,
followed by two men, one of whom was the male
prisoner. The woman walked into different streets,
followed by the men, occasionally speaking to them,
during which time she accosted several gentlemen who
declined going with her. The policeman then took the
two prisoners into custody, but the other man escaped.
The woman was well known to the police as having
lived with thieves for some time past, and both parties
had been seen together and followed by the police on
a previous occasion, and were suspected of having
committed robberies upon gentlemen.
The two prisoners were fined 403. each, or three
weeks to the House of Correction.
A young woman named Mary Ann Phelps, who
stated that she was formerly a servant, but now
obtained her living in the streets, was charged on sus-
picion of being concerned with others in manufact.:r-
ing base coin.

The prisoner occupied a room opposite the Mode]
Lodging•house of St. Giles', in the house 48, Charles.
street.

Sergeant Thompson, of the detective force, having
occasion to suspect her, ascended the roof of the Model
LodAing-house, from which he could see into her
room, and thence saw the prisoner, with two men
and another woman, actively engaged in melting
down Britannia metal spoons, &c., and pouring the
mater into moulds, apparently of halfcrow ns,
shillings, and sixpences. Before he could reach
her room (which he entered at the window
by means of a ladder), her associates had let the
apartment, doubtless with the base coin in their pos-
session, some of which he had seen them filling and
rubbing up after taking them out of the moulds. Ile,
however, succeeded in capturing the woman and all
the melting apparatus, moulds, ladles, &c., which had
been used for the purpose.
The prisoner declared that she had no hand in
bringing the things to her room, which was visited by
the men, who knew her, and said it had been done
by a well known 0 smasher," who had quarrelled
with her in order to " fix a plant upon her."
She was committed for trial.
111AltYLE Li ON R.

John Frewin (alias 12ainy) and Edward Crewe
(alias Mitchell) were charged before Mr. Lang with
having burgiariously entered the lions° of Co!miel
Robert Anstruther, 7, Monmouth-road, Bayswater,
and stolen property to a large amount.
It appeared from the Colonel's evidence that,
on the preceding morning, about a quarter to six
o'clock, he was awoke by one of his servants, and
from what he said he hastened down stairs, an I
found, upon entering the drawing-room, that six
drawers had been taken from a wardrobe and placed
on the carpet. Upon making examination of the room,
he ascertained that from various parts thereof there
had been stolen a silver snuffbox, made in the reign
of James 1., another richly carved Indian one,
which belonged to his uncle, General Anstruther,
and a third, enamelled and gold mounted, having on
the lid a miniature portrait of tie Duchess of
Hamilton, all of which he set a great value on; and,
in addition, he missed a Scotch mull, silver mounted,
a powder horn, a dirk, some silver spoons, candlesticks,
wearing apparel, &c. He afterwards discovered that
an entry had been made by the back kitchen window,
the bar of which had been forced, and the sash thrown
up. He immediately gave information of the
robbery to the police, who, suspecting the
prisoners, succeeded in apprehending them in
William-street, Lisson grove. A third party was
with them, but be instantly made off as fast as he
could. As the prisoners were being taken to the
station house, and when near to it Frewin was beard
to say "Ding it," and Crewe threw something
away. On Frewin there were found a box, a knife,
and some duplicates. The box proved to be the one
which had belonged to the colonel's uncle.
The prisoners were remanded to Thursday next.

WORSHIP-STREET.
Peter Young and Henry Dickenson, two deter-
mined-looking fellows, both recognised by the police
as convicted thieves, were placed at the bar before
Mr. Arnold, charged with burglariously breaking
into the premises of Mr. Frederick Biglin, proprietor
of extensive wine stores in Old Swan Brewery-yard,
\Vhitechapei.

The evidence given in the cilse proved that the pro-
secutor's premises had been forcibly entered upon a
second occasion, only about a fortnight previously to
the present, when property to a considerable amount
was carried off by the thieves, and, information of the
burglary hiving been communicated to the police,
they made inquiries after the perpetrators,
but unsuccessfully until the preceding night, wlaen
Sergeant Kelly and Gifford, two detective officers of

the— El division, received an intimation that the
burglars intended a second attack upon the same
premises, and 'they therefore went to the neighbour-
hood at 10 o'clock, and secreted themselves in an out-

house which commanded a full view of the yard
leading to Mr. Biglin'a stores. They remained so
concealed fur more than an hour without anything
occurring to arrest their attention ; but at length
they heard the sound of footsteps approaching, and
immediately afterwards saw the two prisoners and
another man stealthily creeping up to the side en-
trance of the wine stores, with a hamper, apparently
empty, on each of their heads. On reaching the
trap loor leading into the cellarage, the third man
threw down his hamper and returned to the. street, to
keep watch whilst his associates committed the bur-
glary, and almost at the same instant the officers heard
a loud report, resembling the discharge of a musket,
succeeded directly after by the sound of glass and
bottlei rattling in the cellar. They now thought it
high time to make their appearance, and on hastening
from the outhouse where they had lain concealed
to the cellar, it became evident that the report they
had heard had been caused by the violent forcing up
of the iron bar which secured the front of it, and on
descending into the cellar, the flip of which was wide
open, they detected the prisoner Dickeasun in the very
act of removing a hamper of claret from the hack of
the store to the front, in readiness to be carried off.
Before he had time to attempt an escape or give the
slightest intimation to his confederate, he was pounced
upon and flung to the ground by Sergeant Kelly,
who held hira down to preclude resistance, and the
second man (Young) was secured immediately after
by Gifford, who found him crouching down upon
his hands and knees behind a pile of hampers at the
back cf the cellar. Upon getting ti:e men up and
searching them a heavy life-preserver was discovered
upon the person of one of them, and on examining •
the cellars a box of lucifer matches, a crowbar, a •
hammer, and other housebreaking implements, were
found in different parts of them, which, together with
the prisoners and a claret bottle, nearly the whole
contents of which they had poured down their throats
in the short time they had been there, were se fely
transferred to the station.

Mr. ARNOLD directed the depositions to be taken,

and the pri7,oners, who il,clined offering any defence,
were fully committed for trial upon this charge, but
were ordered to be brought up again on that day
week, the officers expressing their conviction that
they should be able to substantiate other charges
against them if an opportunity were afforded them
for the Furpose.

LAMBETH.
Mr. James Wilkins Russell, a gentleman well
known in the musical world, appeared to answer to
a summons taken out by the overseers of the poor of
the parish of Lambeth, and caging upon him to show
cause why he refused and neglected to support his wife,
by which she had become chargeable to the parish.
The pirties had been before the same magistrate
about twelve months ago, when Mr. Norton made an
order upon the husband for the payment of 63. a-
week, and this sum had been paid for some time, but
was latterly discontinued, and its non pa) merit led to
the present proceedings. The defence now set up
against the wife's claim was that of her being guilty
of adultery, am.d therefore not entitled to any main-
tenance fr,an her husband.
To prove the adultery three witnesses were called
—two on a former day an 1 one on Saturday. A re-
spectable couple named Powell deposed that in the
month of August last Mrs. Russell took apartments
in their house, wht-n sne represented herself as a
widow, and said that had it not been for her son, a
youth of 17, she could soon, and most favourably,
change her condition. She soon got rid of her son,
and after this had been constantly visited by Mr.
Webb, a musician. a former friend and companion of
her husband's. This person, it appeared, had been in
the habit of calling on her three or four times a week,
and sitting with her in her bedroom for several
hours, and staying to one and two o'clock in tho
morning; and on one occasion he was supposed to
have remained all night. The witnesses spoke of a
circumstance which took place on a particular night,
when the parties had an oyster supper, which left no
doubt on their minds that Mrs. Russell and Mr.
Webb had been to bed together, and that the act of
adultery had been committed.
To disprove this Mr. Webb was called into the wit-
ness box and sworn, and though he admitted that he
had been in the frequent habit of calling in and
smoking his pipe in the room of Mrs. Russell, yet
he swore in the most solemn manr.er that no act of
adultery had been committed. In reply to Mr.
Norton, he said that the room in which he visited and
sat with Mrs. Russell for several hours at a time was
one in which there was a bed, and no third party
was present.
Mr. NORTON told him he should have found some
other room to smoke his pipe in than that of the
bedroom of a married woman.

A respectable witness named Rose was, on Satur-
day, called, who flatly contradicted a part of the
statement made by Mr. Webb on the former day;
that per.on having denied that he had ever visited
Mrs. Russell while living at Mr. Rose's house,
whereas he had been in the constant habit of calling
on her.

Mr. Salomons, on the part of the wife, contended,
that though acts of considerable indiscretion were
proved, yet that no proof of actual adultery had been
given.
Mr. Benett, for the defence, argued contra, and
Mr. NORTON, having no doubt that in an action
fur damages a jury on the testimony adduced would
infer criminality, and give a verdict for the plaintiff,
refused to make any order on the husband, and dis-
missed the summons.