The Sun.
London, England, 1841-02-15 00:00:00

stating that he should prove that there had been no
consideration given either by Chippenford to the defen-
dant, or by Rees to Chippenford, for the check ; and
having done that, he should have sustained the pleas the
defendant had put upon the record, and thereby entitled
himself to the verdict. The plain fact was that the
plaintiffs had mistaken their remedy. However, he
would call Edward Chippenford.

Mr. PLATT objected io this witness being examined,
on the ground that he had a direct interest io the result
of the trial.

Mr. ERLE contended that he was a proper witness,
seeing that the verdict as between the present plaintiffs
and the defendant could in no way affect him,
Mr. PLATT replied that with regard to the question
of costs there would be a direct interest, even though
the verdict itself might not affect the witness.
Mr. Baron GURNEY said he would take a note of
the objection and evidence of the witness subject to a
motion.

The witness was then examined and went into a his-
tory of the proceeding as has been detailed by the
Learned Counsel. He had overdrawn his account, and
had borrowed this check from the defendant, and lodged
with various others, with Rees, it being agreed be-
tween them that they were to be returned to him after
the directors or trustees had made the quarterly exami-
nation of the accounts. The object of the proceeding
was to make his account look as though it was not so
much overdrawn as it in reality was.
Cross-examined by Mr. PLATT—He did not think
his account was overdrawn so much as 3,884/. odd in
December, 1839, although he thought it might have
been as much as about 2,000/. When he received
some of these checks from his friends, he had generally
given counter-checks to be handed back to him when
he returned the original cheeks. Those checks, how-
ever, were never presented, neither of course were they
ever paid.

Re-examined—He had not bean table to get his pass-
book from the hank, and therefore he could not tell
what the balance against him was.
Rees, the late manager of the kV hitechapel Branch
Bank, was next examined. He confirmed the state-
ment of the last witness as to there having been an
arrangement between them on the subject of the return
of this and other checks after the Director should have
completed his examination of the books. He had no
authority from the Directors to make such arrange-
ments. The practice had been to take credit in the
books for these checks, but there had been no entry
afterwards made on their being returned to Chippenford.
Mr. Baron GURNEY told the witness it was well
for him that he bad not been placed at the bar of the
Old Bailey.
Cross-examination continued—The amounts of these
checks were placed to the credit side of Chippenford's
account for the purpose of preventing the Directors
from discovering that it was in reality so much over-
drawn. The checks, however, were to be returned
to Chippenford. That party had applied for the checks
of the defendant, but it had so chanced that he had not
given them to him ; but he said they should not be
presented for payment.

. ..
Mr. PLATT was pursuing his cross examination of this
witness, when

Mr. Baron GURNEY asked him if he was not satis-
fied ; did he want any more than he had alr•ady elicited
from this witness?

Mr. PLATT would not put another question after such
an, intimation.

Mr. Baron GURNEY then, in leaving the case to the
Jury, drew their attention to the fact that Chippenford
had given in counter checks at the time he had received
these checks from his friends. That was a fact of consi-
derable importance when they looked at one of the pleas
which the defendant had put upon the record, vz. that the
checks had passed from the defendant to Chippenford
without any consideration. It was quite clear that R
the manager of this branch bank, had been in concert
with one of its customers to practise a deception, a
fraud, upon the Directors of the Company. It was one
of the must disgraceful and most infamous proceedings
he had ever heard of ; and he would repeat what he had
said before. that it was well for Rees he had not been
taken to the bar of the Old Bailey. Indeed, both of
the witnesses had laid themselves open to indictments
for their conduct. With regard to the plea of "no con-
sideration," he would direct the Jury that the fact of the
counter check having been given for the check in question,
was in point.of law a sufficient consideration.

_ .
The Jury, intimated that they had agreed to find
a verdict for the plaintiffs, damages 5001.—Verdict taken
accordingly.

COURT OF COMMON PLEAS, FEP. 13.
(Sittings at Nisi Prius, before the LORD CHIEF JUSTICE
and a Common Jury.)
MILLAR V. THOMPSON.
The plaintiff is a tradesman carrying on business at
Dorking, and brings this action against one of the direc-
tors of the " Joint Stock Trades Banking Company,"
to recover 1001., the amount of a promissory note
signed by the Manager on behalf of the Company. It
appeared that the note was put into the hands of one of
the Directors, named Francis, to be put into circul:.-
tion for the purposes of the Company, and be
applied it to his own use, paying it over to the present
plaintiff' in discharge of a book debt. The defence was
that the Company had been defrauded of the bill, and
that Millar knew it ; and secondly, that there had been
no consideration.

The LORD CHIEF JUSTICE wis of opinion that the
defendant failed to prove that there was no considera-
tion, or that the plaintiff knew of the fraud committed
on them.

Verdict for the plaintiff.

COURT OF BANKRUPTCY, FEN. 12.
(13Jore Mr. Commissioner Eva Na.)
IN TILE MATTER OF JAMES GOLDIE.
This was the day fixed for the choice of assignees in
the matter of the bankrupt, who was formerly the manager
in the large establishment of Messrs. Smith, the extensive
distillers at Thames-bank, but had latterly kept a distillery
on his own account in Whitechapel. His debts and lia-
bilities are said to be very heavy, and though his as;cts
could not be accurately estimated, they arc considered to
be rather billing. L was stated at the commencement of
the proceedings that the choice of assignees was to be
contested, but eventually it turned out that no opposition
list was handed in.
The Court was extremely crowded, and proofs were ad-
mitted for 21,000/.
The assignees appointed were Mr. Staving and Mr.
Smaal (the gentleman whose name has been so much be.
fore the public in the case of Small and Atwood), and
Mr. Smith, the distiller of Thames-bank.