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

EVENING EDITION.

31Jore.:, c:orn the Midelesex Sessions '-ita the aLave
C.Jurt and the resi:lt is is above

COURT OF EXCHEQUER, FEB. 13.
(Sitti7g.i i, London before Mr. Baron GURNEY and
Common Jeies.)

THE LONDON AND WESTMINSTER BANK,--EOSANUET
AND OTHERS V. CAUSER.
Mr. Platt, with whom was Mr. Butt, appeared for
the plr'efffs, the ti cstsees of the London red West-
rrisster Back; rid Mr. Erie end Mr. Hurrfrey for
the defendret.
Mr. BUTT, '1 Of•?.nis, the pleadings, seid that the
action wss brought by the ply.'-it:fr, on a check for 500/.
c!-awn by t'ee defendant, end bee 'le data the 31st cf
Mrsch, 1810, trade r dyable at Alessrs. Bsiea-d,
DiTedale, end Co.'- Tnat check the defendant has
I's— to a prison, a customer of the Leaden and
Westreirster of tee Celle of Lt ippsecord, who
had ix_ ssed it Ca the snamger of the Coml. breech
brie!" at Whiesehapsh
The deLndent pleaded that the check had be en
made for the accommodation of Chippenford, and that
no coesideration had pessed between them for it. He
fe- her pi- ?IA fit it the check had Lein paid over to
the end 'merger, tLc representative of the pleierffs,
ithout any er'ideration.
Mr. BALE then 1.-7;d that, by the nature of the plead-
ings which the Joey had jest Mord frem his Leal acd
Fiend, it devolved on him, as the Counsel for the de-
fend set, to ceablish the effirmative of the ['less he had
put upon the record. The action, rs they had already
les•acd, was brought by the pleintiffs in the character
of the estees of the London and Westminster Bank-
ing Company, to recover from the defendant, who was
a pe-occr, the ornotret of 5001. upon his check. It ape
Feared that a ieri of the name of Chippcnford and Fos-
ter had cried on business as grocers in Leadenhall.
street, and had kept an account at the Whitechapel
breech establishment of this Banking Company. Of
that breech a person of the name of Rees was mana-
ger, who turned out to be a private friend of Chipper's,
ford. This partnership wee dissolved, and by the
terms of the dissolution it was agreed that Chip.
per Ford should rceeive-all the accounts due to, and pay
the debts ow ing by, the partnership. Subsequently to thin
separation Chippenford went into partnership with in
individual of the name of Silverloek. Now, it seemed
to be the rule of the Banking Company, that one or
more of the Directors should, at the expiration of tech
quarter, visit the various branch establishments, for the
purpose of examining the accounts. The account of
Chippenford, in the course of time, became considerably
overdrawo, whereupon the manager called upon him to
place in his hands securities, in order that his account
might present a different appearance than it really bore
when the Director should come down to twice his exa-
mination ; and that, in the event of that party asking fur
in explanation, he should be in a position to exhibit the
checks or bills which were lodged with him as papers
which had been deposited as securities. At this period
the account had been overdrawn to the tune of some
thousands. Chippenford thereupon went to his friends end
procured checks for different sums from them, the
whole of which he handed to the manager, upon the
promise of that party that they should be returned to
him after the examination of the accounts had been
completed. The check which formed the subject of
the present action was one of those checks. Oe these
occasions there was a prorniEe given by the manager
that the checks should not be presented, and should be re-
turned; but it so happened that this particular check had
not be returned. Ia the month of March last Chippen-
ford called upaa the defendant with a request that he
would give him two checks for five hundred pounds
each. This request was complied with, upon the usual
understanding that they should not be presented at his
bankers, but returned to him. His application,
for their return, however, were in this instance
of no avail, Chippenford telling him that the manager
had there, but would not present them. On
the 15th of June, however, the Directors of the Bank-
ing Company having had their suspicions eroused as to
the way in which Rees, the manager, was conducting
their business, dismissed him, and took possession of all
the papers which were upon the premises. Amongst
those papers were the defendant's two checks for 500/.
each, which had been lodged with Rees by Chippen-
ford. One of those checks- was subsequently presented
at the banker's of the defendant and paid ; hut, on the
presentation of the second, the attention of the house
was attracted by the staleness of the date it bore—
namely, March—whilst its presentation was not until
after the middle ofJune. The bankers, therefore, sent
to the defendant upon the subject, who gave instruc-
tions that it should not be paid, and this action for the
recovery of the amount was the consequence. The
Learned Counsel concluded a lengthened address, by
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 to this witness being examined,
on the ground that he had a direct interest ie the result
of the trial.

Mr. ERLIS contended that he was a proper witness,
secicg 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 1212 a direct interest, even though
the verdict itself might not affect the witness.
Mr. 13 tron 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 Leen detail:2d by the
Learned Counsel. He had overdrawn his account, and
had borrowed this check from the defendant, and lodged
it, with various others, with Rees, it being agreed be-
tween them that they were to be returned to hint r.ftcr
the directors or trustees had made the quarterly exami-
nation of the accounts. The objet of the prweeding
was to mike his account look n s though it was not Lo

much overdrawn as it in reality was.
Cross-examined by Mr. PLATT—He did riot thick
his account was overdrawn so much as 3,884/. odd in
Deumber, 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 checks. Those checks, hoy:-

ever, were never presented, neither of course were they
ever paid.

Re-:Aamined—He had not been able to get his pass-
book from the bank, and therefore he could not tell
what the balance against him was.
Rees, the late manager of the \V hitcchapel Branch
Bank, was next examined. He confirmed the state-

went 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 Ctiippenford.
Mr. Baron GURNEY told the witness it was well
for him that he had 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 be 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 already elicited

from this witnee3 ?
Mr. PLATT would not put another question after such
an intimation. _ . .

Mr.the case to the
Jury, ..
thefactthat Chippenford
had given in counter checks at the time be had received
Baronw
.. ..... attention ...
. then,
.to the
in leaving
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, viz. that the
checks had passed from the defendant to Chippenford
without any consideration. It was quite clear that Rees,
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 most 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, Fin. 13.
MILLAR V. THOMPSON.
The plaintiff is a tradesman carrying on business at
Dorking, and brings this action alainst 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 circullt-
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 feeondly, tl-,at there bad been
no consideration.

The Lotto CHIEF JUSTICE if as of opinion that the
defendant faikql to prove that there was no considera-
tion, or that the plaintiff kntw of the fraud committed
on them.

Verdict for the plgintiff.