The Sun.
London, England, 1823-08-25 00:00:00

ASSIZE INTELLIGENCE.

LANCASTER, AUUUST 22:
EGAN.AND ANQTHEIL V. THRELFALL.

Mr. TINnAL,
_ in' opening the pleadings, ;aid that this was
an action brought by the plaintiffs against the defendant for the
recovery of the amount of" a 1,000/. Bank of England note,
which was their property. •
Mr.ScaaLET T, in statingthe case to the Jury, remarked that
they were about.to be called to the consideration of a case, not
alone involving theparticular interests of the parties whose names
had just been read to them, but embracing also the broader inter-
ests of society at large in this commercial country. The plain-
tiffs were Messrs. Egan and Waterman, Who were most respecta-
ble solicitors in the city,of London, and the defendant was a per-
son who united in his/Scale of bustness a variety of occupations.
He was a banker, as he said, but one very peculiar in his mode
of banking and keeping-accounts, and of very different practice
from that which was scrupulously observed in the commercial
transactions of such a line of trade, whose general dealings in
.the respectable way in which bankers conducted them, were
not only profitable to themselves, but beneficial to society at
large, and furnished both the means of preventing and detect-
ing a variety of frauds in the pecuniary transactions of the
country. The particular case which he had to state was
this—The clerk of the plaintiffs had either. lost, or had
stolen' from him, a bank note for the value of 1,000/.,
which note was at a subsequent time traced into the pos-
session of the defendant; that very, circumstance entitled
the plaintiff to demand of the defendant how he had become
possessessed of the lost or stolen note. It was a matter of public
notoriety, both by the Parliamentary returns of the Bank issues,
and the general knowledge of men of business, that very few
notes of that large sum. went into general cirenletion—they
were more issued for the temporary- convenience of those who
bad large payments to remit, and were by no means calculated
to remain long in circulation, from the circumstance tf the
greater value of such a sum to a commercial man in any other
form, were he retaining it, than in that of a bank-note. The
Jury would see that in the case of the note in question, it re-
mained out of circulation from time it was lest or stolen, until
15 months afterwards, when it was traced to the defendant—
The plaintiffs, when the note was missed, gave every pilblicity
to the occurrence. They had advertised far and near, and no
banker in .England could have been ignorant of its loss.. The
note was at length traced to the Ilank.of England, in the month
of June last, where it'was received from Messrs Williams. and
Co., bankers, who had received it from the defendant; he was
upon this discovery naturally asked now he came by the note,
and his story was, that he had discounted it for a person of the
name of Henry, in Liverpool, to whom he had given for it
several hills of exchangecun a deduction of an-lith or a 4th per
cent. The bills he gave for it he could enumerate, but nut the
balance in cash besides those bills; for of that, he, a banker,
declared he had kept no specific memorandum. Thus, the
defendant wished the Jury to, believe, that he, an experienced
trader, a banker, brewer, grocer, and general 'dealer, had dis-
counted a 1,0001. bank-note, made an entry of the bills he gai4
in payment for it; but no entry whatever of the 300/. balance
in cash, which was given with these bills. He knew, indeed,
for whom he had discounted the bank-note; he knew he had
taken It from the notorious Mr. Isou Henry, a :slopseller end
sailors' tavern-keeper—a Jew clothesman. But the defendant
must have known more than this dills customer ; for, in the pre-
ceding month of October, this very Henry had'heen discharged
under the Insolvent Debtors' Act; and in his schedule the
defendant's name would be found inserted as a creditor. He
(Mr. Scarletti would put it to the Jury fairly to consider bow
such a man as this Henry, so circumstanced, could come,
with a one thousand pound bank-note, to' the defendant,
or to any other banker in the kingdom who had knownhisprevkita
condit ithout being; asked to account in some satisfactiny-
waY t+:` manner of his becoming possessed of it. Wits an
insolvent' ew, keeping a lo* public-house, likely to receive
such a note in the way of his business, or was he likely to be
honestly made the methunt of Procuring its change for another?
or if a banker, knowing 4tich a man, had Cbahged-tbe note. for
him, was it likely that 'dint banker would hare neglected to par-
ticularize in his books the bank-notes, as well as bills; which he
had given in the discount le The Learned tlentleman here mi.
irately detailed the, evidence which lie bail to offer in support
of the plaintiff's legal right to recover the amount from the
person to whose possession he had traced the note; unless that
person could satisfy them that lie had honestly and fairly be.
come possessed of the property. -
Charles nubbins examined by Mr. Van non a sr. ..;111,as a
clerk and cashier to Messrs. Snow and Pawl's bank, London,
where the plaintiffs kept an account in the name of their firm.
'File plaintiffs' clerk came to the bank on the 3dorApril, 1821,
with a check for 7,ti43/. Is. 3d., and received Cash fur it, in the
following: manner :-..seven Bank of England notes of 1,000/.
each, one note for 500/., one for 1100/., and one for 401., theret‘t
was paid in pound notes and silver. "Witnesi, as was his prac.
tice, entered each note (except one pound note) separately in
his book. Among the 1,000/. notes was one dated 12th October,
1020, No. 1661.

George Wilkes was it clerk and cashier in the office of the
"plaintiffs who were solicitors in London, and had been with
them upwards of ten years. lie remembered receiving from
the plaintiffs the check alluded to, and being paid it in the
manner which was described by the lastwitness. lie counted them
over with the banker's clerk, and found the amount correct ;
he then put them into his inside pocket, and proceeded to the
cashier's office of the Bank of England, where the notes were
to be cancelled, that being the case when money was to be paid
into the Accountant General's office of the Court of Chancery,
which was the case with the amount of this check. He arrived
at the Bank of England a little before 12 o'clock, and went
to the cashier's office, where there might have been others at
the time doing business as well as himself. The clerks of the
office were busy at the Urn's. He then turned the note down-
wards for the purpose of writing upon one' of the pound not:s
the name and address of the plaintiff's. Four or five minutes
possibly elapsed between taking the money out of his pocket,
and delivering it- to one of the Bank cashiers. The cashier
.asked him, atter counting them, what he made the amount.
Ile replied 7,843/. The cashier said it was a mistake, lie did
not find so much. Witness declared that he bad just re-
ceived that amount at Messrs. Snow and Paul's, end not
knowing the number of the missing note, he went back there
immediately. lie there again counted over the notes with Mr.
Gubbins, and found that the 1,0001., No. 1,601, was missing.
Witness imint,diately gave notice at the proper office of the
Bank; and stopped the payment. •
Mr. SCARLETT here produced four newspapers, offering a
reward for the recovery of this lost note— he Traveller, of
April the 6th, The Conrier, of the seine date, oaring 801. re-
ward ; this amount was .subsequently increased, for in The
Times of the 12th the reward was 2001. and esti in The Morn.
big Chronicle of the 14th, these being the papers of the greatest
circulation in the kingdom, and, as he would prove, in Liver-
pool.
Wm. Williams was one of the out-tellers of the Bank of
England, and received the Bank-note for 1,00012N0. 1,061, on
the 3d of July, 1822, from the pay clerk of. Messrs. Jones,
Lloyd, and Co., bankers. It was id to_ him in part of a sum
of 40,000/. On his return to the Bank he took it to the exa-
miner's office, because it was above a twelve Month old from its
date, and because notes of that amount (1,0000 were rarely
out so long, he never knew an instance of it. The examiner
found it to- be a stopped note, and as such it was returned to
2ilessrs. Jones, Lloyd, and Co., and a charge was made upon
them for the amount, 1,0001 ; they refused to acknoWledge it,
unless the note was returned, and notice was then given them
from the Bank that it was a stopped note.
Mr. Cooper was clerk in the banking-house of Messrs. Wil.
hams and Co., where the defendant kept an account. He re-
membered receiving a remittance from him on the 211th of June,
1822. (Here the letter which enclosed the remittance was put
in and read in evidence, as well as the fact of its containing the
1,000/. note In question.)
Cross-examined by Mr. Sergeant .Cnoss—The defendant
kept an account at Mewl's. Williams's, and his account of re-
Mittrinces averaged 200,000/. annually.
James Low examined by Mr. linounitaet.—Was a solid._
for aeLiverpool, 'and knew the defendant, who was in that
town a banker, brewer, grocer, spirit-merchant, and general
dealer. He believedhim to be a bill-broker, but did not know
it of his own knowledge. On the It3th of July he received a
letter which induced him to call upon the defendant, at his
counting-house, and inquire from him under what circum-
stances he got the note in question,. and -what consideration he
bad given for it. lie !Oiled that he had discounted it for Mr.
Isom Henry, who was a slop-seller -seller in Pool-lane. Witness in-
iuired whether it was the Item Henry who lived in Water,
etreet, as he knew that the man of the Same name in Pool-line
bad removed from Water-street, where lie kept an American
tavern. The defendant replied that it was the same man, and •
that he had received the note from him on the 24th of June,

113:32. Witness immediately repaired to Henry, and in con.
sequence of what he had heard :from him. he eenunord,
cited with the plaintiffs. Mr. Egan (one of the Plaintiff's)
in consequence came down to Liverpool, and in corkjunt.
don with witness inquired Imre fully into the subject.'
The defendant admitted to .them that he had discounted this
note for Henry, and giVen him cash and bills in exchange, le;
ducting one-eighth per cent. They questioned the defendtit
about his discounting a bank note oft that value for Henry un:
der such circumstances, without inquiring as to the mode of
his being possessed of it t but he said he made no inquiry--,lte
knew the note to be a good one, and :that was enough for hint.
In answer to Mr. Egan's inquiry for particulars of the discount,
defendant gave a memorandum, which he copied from his own
book. Upon examining this account there appeared between
the bills given and the amount of the note to be a deficiency of
upwards of three hundred pounds, which defendant, upon in-
quiry, said was made up with bank notes and cash ; but the
particulars of such balance he informed Mr. Egan he could not
make up. Upon a request to refer to his books, he said they
would afford no intimation of such details. The defendant said
that the discount took place between himself and Henry in his
own counting-house, when nobody-vise was present. Witness
knew that he was suing Henry, being employed by the firm of
which the defendant was a partner in a ,brewing concern', fot a
sum of 12%., and Henry offered: Cogwavit to set de the business.
Ile also knew that Henry had taken the benefit of the-Insolvent..
Act 6or 8 months before. The advertisement respecting the loss
of the IMO/. appeared in the Traveller, The 7'ime3, Courier,
and liforninif Chronicle, newspaperi, which were, except the
first, at the time of -the notification, in very general circulation
at Liverpool. The defendant did not say that Henry had got
the note from a stranger living at Ids house, which was half
a mile from . the defendant's. There were three bankers of
eminence in Liverpool, between the house of Henry and the de:
fendants..

Cress-aatnined by Mr. Sergeant Cuoss.—The reason why
.witness knew the defendant to hate been a partner in the
brewery, was because he had brow ht actions in his name.
The memorandum containing ~the items -of the bills (7000
said to have been given to Henry for the LOOM note, was here
read in evidence, and Mr. the keeper. of Lancaster
Castle, produced henry's discharge under the Insolvent Act,
on 21Ith of October, 1021.
• Mr. Wilkes produced an attested copy of henry's schedule,
which contained an-item of an acknowledged debt front nenry
to the deli:adapt, for spirits.
Cross-examined.--41enry was subpumaed on the part of the
plaintiffs, but'was told not to came unless he was desired ; 'he
was also told to attend at the Liverpool Wien-office; he ap-
peared there neither as a witness nor a criminal, but something
between both.

E.W. Jefreries. cxamined.—Was a clerk •in 11r. Lowe's
office in. Liverpool, and went with Mr. Egan to check the list
of has which the defendant said he had given for the 1,0001,
note. Mr. Egan inquired for the particular book in which the
particulars. riere entered. The defendant said he had no book,
but his bill book l'or that purpose. Mr. Egan remarked that it
was the custom fur bankers to have other books for such pur-
poses. Defendant anmitted such to be the regular course. of
business, and that he had for it time adopted it, but afterwards
abandoned it, upon not finding it answer. In answer to a
question from Mr. Egan, the defendant said he had 'charged -an
eighth, or a quartet per cent.; Or discounting with these bills
the 1,0001. note.

litre the plaintiffs' case v. as
Mr. Serjeant ()Ross then.addressed the Jury for the defend.
ant. Ile reminded them. that in the very ingenious opening
of his. Learned Friend's (Mr. Sennett's) statement, a great
parade lutd..been made of thenights of the plaintiff, but not one
word bad Keen said of those appertaining to the defendant. - It
was on that account his duty to be the more particular, in im.
Mow, ing upon the minds of the Jury that part of the MSC
which , 114 Learned Friend hull, no doubt for good reasons,
(united, and to apprise them that the law respecting the retain.
ing-postessiuri of the currency of the country was materially
distinct from .. that which applied toeany other description of
property. Were it a horse or a trunk that any man had lost,
'llO matter how many transmutations either the one or the other
bad gone through, the original owner was invested with a
sutranary.right of reporieeasion, unless, the property could be
proved to have been purchased in what the law called it
4 markd mvd." Bat it was different with respect to the legal
e Petty was entitled to reten-
tcrirn nenoyn°lafttthe:lltaenwd'thfaertinnotnhellyt htitlted become diverted from the
original owner, if he could prove he had dilly received it in the
regular couric of his business. In his support of his opinion upon
this Point, he begged to refer to the case of " Sir .1. Lawson v.
IVeston,"ie which Lord Kenyon lied held, theta bill of exchange,
although the party presenting it was unknown, was binding upon
the acceptor, if, with a knowledge 'of the hand-writing, he had
I advanced money upon it. fiord Kenyon on that occasion referred
i to the case of " Miller v. Hate," in which Lord Mansfield had
held, that an innkeeper on nagshot.heath, who had changed a
note for a highwayman who had taken refreshment at his inn,
tt: t
othantehde their house oern"
s e"
was entitled to recover the amount, although that note had been
previously taken by the highwayman from a traveller. It was
true that .Lori Mansfield had accompanied his opinion with an
obaervation, that if there were the slightest idea of fraud or
collusion between bdeifftwereecnnt.thiciehisigiloiwuran or the innkeeper, the case
his client had received and itiven value for the note in the fair
course of business. His' Learenteaedr4Fesrietftnit'll i*hittitiinteallikdeedneoeftthl:
practice of London bankers. Why, Lord Kenyon, in the very
case alluded to, had said, that the practice of certain banker!,
whatever it might be, constituted no general rule; anti with
respect to the present case,
any specific rule of business, but to subvert a wholesome prac-
tice, and recover a IMO/. bank note from a man who bud fairly
this wai'an action not to support
and openly become possessed of it. ..The Learned Sergeant
then dwelt upon the dangerous consequences of establishing.
such n precedent in the -pecuniary transactions of the country,
and complained of the cloud of reproach whtilic4nildLitiiiveienrilt)ati.llloealrdtfiioerlt..l
Counsel (.Ir. Sennett) had endeavoured to cast over the de-
fendant. Not content with his generel trade, be had widen-
voured to depreciate the honest details of the defendant's occu.,.
tuitions ; he wax described as being a brewer, a grocer, anti this,
and that, and • the other thing. Item new among Engliah-
men to hear the extension of' a turn's . commercial transac-
tions converted into so many moral Wilts. upon his charac-
ter-. A brewer, forsooth, was to -.he a term of deprecia.
tion ! Did his Learned: Friend never hear of a brewer, who was
not only the first in his line of trade, but also the great manager
of what were called the Opposition in the ifouse of Commons ?
nay, further, the manager of Drury-lane theatre? (Mr. 'Whit-
bread). Whoever heard of that distinguished man, the great
!never of the impeachment of Lard :Melville, having been up.
' braided for his private pursuits ? . Why did his learned friend
set the impolitic example of making those distinctions invi.
tiioU9, which, so far from being matters of reproach, were sub-
jects of honourable notoriety? Was there any thing more re.
markahle in the same person being both a banker and a brewer,
than in the same person being both a lawyer and a senator ?
indeed, he believed that he had learned friends near him, who
looked forward not only to great pre-eminence at the bar, but
to a similar leadership in the senate, however distinct might ap-
pear the two avocations. Why, then, mention them in nits
invidious manner, were it not to endeavour to excite a preju.
dice in the minds of the jury, by mutating anti overcharging
the various occupations of an intelligent and industrimpirse
jnuidaince.
Why excite such a prejudice, and
efxocrhawnhgaet
floirutplaorttageek?eoonknes`loyr.
nothing really connected with this ceaudsee ,fenhdtatnt.
of it, and nothing else ; and merely as an experiment, to try
discounting with
how far the plum imagination of his learned friend could work
upon the credulity of the human understanding to promote his
client'sjoim
PSutrrritfosem-rd was a clerk of th
b:rnear ejv
June
r nne., Mr.
lips:lfleen;
quarterr
lie
ewbringingaspi
itlpercent.
ale:
lfrequentt bankwnso notete habit o
cfh
ni charge
them, and in the instance of this bill, Henry said it was for a
person who lodged in his house, which was called the American
giving small tunes of' any kind in
Henry said he should wisps the defendant to divide the commie.
sion, as he (Henry) meant to have sonic profit by it. it was
in consequence of that that the
adliesfeantitistrie(ti ai)
receiveec
one-eighth per cent, it' Henry
count, part bills and part cash. This was agreed to, and eight
bills were given, the interest of which for the time they had to
nm, was allowed to Henry at the rate of five per cent. The
commission on the discount was *2sg. On the tome day, they
remitted in course o ost, the 10 04 not, to Messrs. NVillierns
and Co., London. Witness made a regular entry of the remit,
tance in their book. Two of the bins which were given in pay_
They had, of course, ledgers and
prnboaefkitb.ithoyetlifenieentrydrlfewwnaseredanietutaudren.ed dishonoured, and were afterwards
Cross.examined by Mr. SCARLETT...-It WWI in their day-
other bookS. It was not their practice to enter the details of
money paid out, unless it was to a customer. Had been with.

the defendant for 0 years. Mr. Henry was a customer, and
they. used to discount bills for him. Henry kept a tavern;
witness thought he had been in it, and was not ashamed of it.
Ile believed he went there to desire Henry to attend this trial,
and he did not know that the tavern was one frequented by the
commonest sailors and Jews ; he had heard nothing disreput-
able of the house, nor diet he know that Henry had ty‘en in-
solvent. Witnesa could not say what quantity of gold coin
was paid in the discount. He believed Henry was, besides the
business of his tavern, a riOp-seller, but could not say whether
slops were publicly exposed for sale, or notified its being on
sale from the window. Witness had been in the habit of seeing
banknotes fur 1,0001.
Re-examined.—Pive notes of 1,0001 have passes] through his
hands in one dm. The defendant had never had any other
dealings with Henry as a banker, except in the way of dis-
counting bills.
Isou Henry examined by Mr. Sergeant Citosa, 'after being
sworn on the Old Testament.—lt w his hand-writing that ite
now saw on the back of the note shown to him (the 1,0001.-
note.) He received it from a Mr. Hughes, a merchant, who
had lodged in his house. In the month of November before
this transaction, he (Hughes) was at his house, before he took
his passage for America. He asked witness to' procure a yes-
sel for him, as he was acquainted with a number of the Ameri-
can captains. Hughes remained at his house for three weeks
at that time, and gave him the 1,0001. bank-noto, to get ex-.
changed as he said he wanted to purchase some goods to take
to America. Witness told him that the note being for so large
as amount, he should have to pay a cmumisidon for it, and in
answer to his question respecting the rate of commission, wit-
ness said he thought it Would be one-quarter per cent., unless,
perhaps, that being a note of the Bank of England, they Might
exchange it for one-eighth. Witness went first to Mr. James
Aspinan's, to get the exchange, but he had not so much cash
at the instant, and that was the reason he went to the defend.
ants. The latter at first said he had not bank-notes to spare
fin exchanging so large a sum ; but at witness's suggestion, he
said he hail promissory notes, and he would give them in the
payment, allowing the interest for the time they had to run,
and that they would answer equally as well for Mr. llugues in
purchasing his goods for the American market. The defendant,
after examining the 10001. bank note, and saying it was a good
one, took out his pocket-hook and desired witness to make a
selection from the bills which it contained. Ile did so, and the
bills amounted to 7401., and he received the remainder in cash
and bank notes.
Cross-examined by Mr. BliOUGlTA.il.—Witness was positive
that the remainder was paid to him in cash and Bank notes.
There might be about 2201., and about thirty guineas ih gold.
Perhaps there were one or two notes of 201. in the sum, and he
would not swear that there was not a 1101. or aaa Witness
afterwards obtained Spanish kohl for some of the notes. Mr.
Hughes went on board the ship to America, carrying his port-
manteau. • Witness admitted that he was a slop-seller, that is,
he sold clothes, the words " cheap clothes" were in his sign,
but not " old clothes."

[Mr. Bnouol M here imitated the Jew clothestnan's cry,
" Old clogh," " old clogh,'' was not that it?. (A laugh.) ]
Witness--" I perceive you know the cry, Sir." Mr. As-
pinall, to whom-the witness first applied to change the note,
was the banker who failed a few years ago, and was now a bill
broker. There were two bankers nearer to the witness than the
defendants. Mr. Aspirin'', to whom the witness took the note
at first, was now a bill-broker; ,his place of business was about
a quarter of a mile from that of thedefendant.
Mr. Stratford, clerk to the defendant, was here recalled by.
desire of Mr. Sergeant Cross. In his answers he said he never
struck cash balances. lie was himself cashier—receiied all,.
and paid all. He believed that the defendant kept no cash.
account.

Mr. SCAIMETT, in rising to teply, that • his Learned
Friend had thought proper to charge lam with a studied silence
upon part of this singular case, and with passing loosely over
the rules of law as applicable to the questions of currency be.,
tween man and man. Now this charge was misapplied, and
the Court would do him the justice to believe, that he was not
a man to waste the public time by dwelling upon distinctions,
with Which every man in trade must be supposed to be perfectly
eonVersant. Indeed, his Learned, -Friend had been rather
guilty of suppression ; for in the very case which he had.quotcd,
" anti Race," would be found additional expressioes
of Lord 31ansfield, beyond those which his Learned Friend had
Maintained ; for Lord Mansfield had there said, that although
an innkeeper might, in the way of business, exchange a note
for a robber who bad just stolen It on the highway., yet If from
the circumstances there was reason to suppose Stint to be feed
front any collusion or suspicion in the transacdon, or know,
ledge of the theft, he would be entitled to retain the money, .
for-he was necessarily exposed to receive in payment what-
ever money strangers of respectable appearance thought pro-
per to tender him in the way of his business; and Lord Mans-
field's words were, " Had it been a 1,0001. note, tOr instance,
instead of the notes ordinarily in circulation,- then indeed the
complexion of the case would be altered.", Here then was that
very exception, here was the. 1,0004 note, and covered with
every degree of suspicion. Ilad that note been tendered
by a respectable person, Who might have telien' it in the due
course of business, then it would be ditibrent. But here
was a note which had throughout the country been adver.
tised aa lost or stolen, and here was a man appearing with
it at a banker's, covered with every suspicion respecting his
property in it. Did the defendant know Henry, or did he
not? if he did, how came he to lull his suspicions? If he
did not, how tame he to take such a note from a stranger, and
keep so singular au account of the details of the transaction ?
Upon the latter point there was much to be said. What conside-
ration had the defendant given fbr this Bank of England note
of 1,0001., according to his own account ? Ile, a banker, had
avowed that nobody was present at the time but Henry
and himself—he kept ice cash account of his dealis, to show
the precise nature of the monies he paid and receive: the way,
forsooth., that he regulated his cash account, was not by the in.
convenient written registry in books of account, but as it
were by putting into one pocket what he received, and taking
out of another what he paid, and perhaps on the Saturday in
each week striking a balance between the two pockets, and they
were to be told this on the part of a man who averaged an
amount of 200,0001. annually in his banking account in Lon.
don. The jury would, if the statement before them were true,
seen motive for so much studied obscutity; it was convenient
for the suppression of unpleasant dealings which were not fit
to be disclosed. The clerk had said that at the 'defendant's
the practice was to enter all notes down to 20/. Henry admitted
that he believed he was paid one or two of 201. ; where, then,
was the entry of them ? If that were forthcoming, then might
be traced the endorsements of Hughes the notable American
merchant, and his man of business, Mr. Henry. But would
any man in lii senses believe, that Mr. Hughes, if there existed
such a man, would pay one quarter or one.eighth per cent. to
get a Bank, of England note exchangett—and for what ? fbr
promissory-notes of private hands ; and this, too, to enable
him to purchase goods for the American market with greater ,
convenience. If a man really wanted the change, would he
have passed the respectable banking houses, of Roscoe and Co.
Leyland and Co., and others which were in his way, before he
could arrive 'at the defendant's ? Was it that he, according
to the old adage, " that birds of a feather flock together,"
went to deal with a man after his own heart ? In conclu.
akin, lie should only remind 'the Jury, that here they had not
to consider, whether the defendant knew the note to have
been stolen or not : all they had to bear in mind was, that be
did not prove he had given an adequate valuable consideration
for it; that he had participated in the profits with the wrong
possessor of the note, and thereby rendered himself liable in the
eye c f the law.
Mr. Justice Ilmatoyn then summed up the evidence to
the "Jury., who, without leaving the box, found a erdiet for
the plaintiff's for 1,0001. and 40s, costs.--( ?Imes. j

There is at present in confinement in the
Devizes House of correction, a female who up.
pears ,to have been well educated, and to have
moved in a respectable state of society, hut who
refuses to tell her name, or give any information
respecting her connections. She was appro.
headed in the neighbourhood of Swindon, in a
state of vagrancy, and it has been ascertained
that she has hews wandering about Wilts and
Berks for the last seven or eight years. She ad.
mite that she has been married, and kept her
carriage. Sire is about forty-five years of age,
of a delicate person, rather deformed in her chest
and backs, and walks with crutcho.s.