The Sun.
London, England, 1847-11-10 00:00:00

1 841.

hand, that it never intended to let them off altogether.
The parties derived benefit from the expenses in-
curred, and he thought that, under all the circum-
stances of the case, the defendant was liable to be
rated.

Judgment for the plaintiffs.
Before ➢Zr. BARON PLATT and Common Juries.)

HARRIS V. POWELL.

This was an action brought to recover the sum of
251. upon a bill of exchange accepted by the defendant.
The defendant put in a number of pleas averring
that he had never received any consideration for the
same, and that the plaintiff himself had never received
any consideration for the same.
Mr. Crowder, with whom was Mr. Wilimore,
appeared for the plaintiff; Mr. Humfrey was retained
for the defendant, but he was engaged in a case in
the Common Pleas, and Mr. Ball was, therefore, sud-
denly called upon to conduct the defence.
On the part of the plaintiff witnesses were called to
prove the handwriting of the plaintiff.
Mr. BALL, on the part of the defe::dant, stated that
no consideration had passed to the plaintiff for the
bill, neither had any consideration been given to the
defendant, the acceptor of the bill, and proceeded
to call

William Coyle, residing at Kennington-oval, who
described himself as a general agent for raising money
for gentlemen. The bill produced was drawn by
him upon the defendant. It was given to
him for the purpose of getting it discounted. Not a
shilling had been paid by him to the acceptor as
consideration for the bill. He took the bill to the
office of his brother at Craven. street, requesting him
to discount it. He gave it to his brother in the
presence of Mr. Gadderer. His brother declined to
discount the bill, who thereupon handed it over to
Gadderer, telling him that the bill would no doubt
suit him, The bill was endorsed by him at the time
he handed it over to his brother. Gadderer said that
he would make inquiries upon the subject, and if sa-
tisfied he would discount the bill. Witness after-
wards applied upon several occasions to Gadderer for
the money for the bill, and was put off by him upon
the excuse of money being scarce. He never received
any money from Gadderer, and could never get the
bill out of his hands. Witness succeeded in finding
the present plaintiff at 33, Weston-street. Be had
never seen him before.

Cross-examined by Mr. CROWDER—The defendant
formerly carried on business as a wholesale hatter ;
he sold his business, however, previously to his be-
coming acquainted with him, and a considerable
portion of the proceeds had been lost in speculation.
Witness was to have received the usual commission,
5 per cent., upon obtaining the discount for the bill.
He had not acted in violation of any trust reposed in
him by the defendant, who gave him the bill to get
discounted. He had not succeeded in the object for
which he was employed, in consequence of his not
being able to obtain the money or the bill, either
from his brother or Gadderer.

Mr. H. Coyle, brother to the last witness, was next
called, who stated that he handed the bill over to
Gadderer; his brother was not present at the time,
to the best of his recollection. The last witness, his
brother, requested to have the bill back again. He
applied to Gadderer and obtained the bill back again
from him, and returned it to his brother, who brought
it back again to him the next day. He did not re-
collect that Gadderer was present upon that occa-
sion. He handed the bill a second time to Gad-
derer, for the purpose of having it discounted.
He then borrowed 151. from Mr. Gadderer upon
the security of this bill, the principal portion of
which, viz. 101., he handed over to his brother, the
remaining 51. he kept for himself. He kept the Si.
because there was money due to him upon a previous
account between him and his brother. His brother

told him that he wanted the money for the purpose
of getting a house furnished.
William Coyle recalled, and examined by the
COURT—The bill was accepted by the defendant for
the purpose of obtaining the sum of 251. upon it.
Mr. IL Coyle cross-examined by Mr. CROWDER—
After receiving the sum of 151. from Gadderer he
afterwards received 71. 10s. upon the bill.
Re-examined by Mr. BALL—He had advanced 241.
upon the present bill, and upon another one of 551.
He advanced a sum of 141. 10s. upon another bill.
The remaining sums which he had received from
Gadderer he had put into his own pocket. .

William Coyle 'was again recalled, and examined
by Mr. BALL—He called upon Mr. Harris at his resi-
dence, in Weston-street, Somers Town. He asked
him if his name was Harris, and was answered in the
affirmative. He asked him if he knew either Gad-
derer's or his address ? Harris said that he did not.
He then asked him if he knew Mr. Arthur Henry
Powell, to which question he made a similar answer.
He said, you must surely know the person whom
you are now suing upon a bill of exchange for
251. He said, he knew nothing of any bill
of exchange, or any law suit in which he
was engaged with Mr. Powell. He then
said to a friend who was present, " I wish you would
notice this conversation which has taken place ;" he
replied that he would. They then left the house ;
this took place upon the Ist of November.
Mr. CROWDER wished to know whether the Court
would receive this as evidence.
Mr. Baron PLATT said that he thought it was evi-
dence to prove that the plaintiff in the action was a
mere puppet.
Mr. Dowley was next called, who corroborated
the account of the circumstance deposed to by the
last witness.

Mr. Lewis was then called, and cross-examined by
Mr. CROWDER—Mr. Gadelerer brought the bill to

him requesting him to discount it. The plaintiff had
upon several occasions advanced money upon bills
which he had taken to him. Plaintiff gave witness
_ ___ . _ .

231. 10s. for the bill, which sum he handed over to
Mr. Gadderer. It was about three weeks after the
date of the bill that he got the money for it. At
the request of Mr. W. Coyle, he consented to wait
for three or four days after the bill was due before
he took any proceedings upon the bill, upon the re-
presentation of W. Coyle that the bill was given to
him by the defendant as an accommodation bill, he
having previously assisted him with money, in con-
sequence of his being in some way or other mixed up
with the frauds in the Custom-house. _ _

Mr. Baron PLATT thought that this last evidence
if received by the jury was decisive of the case, as it
clearly proved that consideration had passed for the
bill from the plaintiff. With respect to what had
taken place previously to the bill coming into his
possession, he had of course nothing to do, and there
was no proof that he had any notice of the parties
having become improperly possessed of it. The
simple question for the jury to decide therefore was,
whether they considered the evidence of Mr. Lewis,
the attorney, correct or not. With respect to the de-
fendant not having received any consideration for his
acceptance, he must look to the parties by whom he
had been defrauded for restitution.
The jury, after consulting together for a short time,
gave it as their opinion that the whole of the evi-
dence was of such a conflicting character, that they
could not believe any of it, with the exception of that
of Mr. Lewis.
A verdict was accordingly returned for the plaintiff
for the amount claimed.

MORTALITY in the METROPOLIS

NUMBER OF DEATHS FROM ALL CAUSES REGISTERED IN
THE WEEK ENDING SATURDAY, NOV. 6, 1547.
Epidemic, Endemic, and Contagious Diseases ... 125
Diseases of Uncertain Seat ... ... •••
Diseases of the Brain, Nerves, and Senses... ... 120
Diseases of the Lungs, and other Organs of
Respiration ... ... ...
... ... ... 281
Diseases of the Heart and Blood-vessels ... ... 40
Diseases of the Stomach, Liver, and other Organs

... 85
... 17
... 13

of Digestion... ...
Diseases of the Kidneys, &c.
Childbirth, Diseases of the Uterus, &c.
Diseases of the Joints, Bones, and Muscles
Diseases of the Skin, &c.
Old Age, or Natural Decay ...
Deaths by Violence, Privation, or Intemperance ... 8
Causes not specified 1