The Sun.
London, England, 1840-08-13 00:00:00

HOME CIRCUIT—GUILDFORD, TUESDA r, Aua. 11.
(Before Lord ABINGER and a Common Jury.)
MORLEY V. CULVERWELL.
This was an action to recover the value of a bill of
exchange for 100/. indorsed by the defendant and ac-
cepted by a Captain G. Riley, and the circumstances
under which the action arose were of a very curious
character.
Mr. Platt and Mr. Petersdorff were for the plaintiff,
and Mr. Thesiger and another for the defendant.
The defendant pleaded a variety of pleas, alleging
that the endorsement was not his writing, that the bill
had not been accepted by Captain Riley, that no con-
sideration had been given for the bill, &c. ; and he also
pleaded that the bill had been discharged and paid, and
that it had been afterwards re-accepted and put in cir-
culation by Captain Riley without his knowledge or
consent, and without any fresh stamp being affixed to
it, contrary to the Statute in that behalf. Upon all
these pleas issue was joined.
Mr. PLATT briefly addressed the jury, and said that
with respect to a great many of the pleas that had been
put upon the record by the defendant he should be able
to negative them. The action, as the jury were aware,
was brought against the defendant as the endorser of the
bill, but the acceptor having dishonoured it, the plaintiff
was entitled to sue all parties whose names appeared
upon it, as they were all equally
Witnesses were then called who proved the dishonour-
ing of the bill, and also that the acceptance was in the
handwriting of Captain Riley, and the endorsement in
that of the defendant. Captain Riley, it appeared, was
not to be found.
Mr. PLATT then said that as no doubt from the
form of the defendant's pleas he should have to call a
witness in reply, he might as well call that witness then
to complete his case.
Mr. Robert Short was then called—He deposed that
he was a tavern-keeper, and carried on business in the
Strand. He was acquainted with Captain Riley, and
the defendant, and he had had money transactions to a
considerable amount with Captain Riley. On the 22d
April in the present year, the Captain came into his
coffee-room and produced the bill in question, for a hun-
dred pounds, and asked him to discount it, and he con-
sented to do so, and he gave the Captain 96/. for the
bill. He afterwards paid the bill over to the present
plaintiff.
Cross-examined—The defenant is a very respectable
man, and carries on business in Marvlebone-street. He
called upon witness accompanied by his solicitor, and he
showed him the bill in question, and something was said
about the endorsement not having been written by the
defendant. They also said that Captain Riley had no
authority to negotiate the bill.
This was the case for the plaintiff.
Mr. THESIGER then addressed the jury, and said,
that admitting all that had been proved by the plain-
tiff, he was quite sure that he would be able to show
them that the plaintiff could not, and ought not, to re-
cover in this action. He would, first of all, submit to
the jury that Mr. Short, in discounting the bill in the
first instance, had not acted with due caution, because
the very fact of the acceptor of a bill presenting it for
discount was of itself a remarkable circumstance, and
requiring explanation and inquiry as to the circum-
stances under which it had passed from the hands of
the drawer, and who would, under ordinary circum-
stances, be the party who should possess it, into those
of the acceptor. The circumstances of the case were
these. Captain Riley had had very extensive money
transactions with Mr. Culverwell, and in the month of
February he was indebted to that gentleman upon bills
of exchange and other matters, to the amount of 703/.
About that time Captain Riley was anxious to obtain a
further advance of money from Mr. Culverwell, but the
latter declined to lend it, unless some security
was given for the payment of the amount, and then
Captain Riley proposed to mortgage a house belonging
to him in Oxford•street, and at length it was agreed that
Mr.Culverwell should hand over all the bills of exchange
to Captain Riley, and that he should advance a further
sum of 150/., making in the whole 850/., and that the
house should be mortgaged to that amount, at five per
cent. interest. Accordingly, on the 20th of April the
parties met ; the deeds were executed, and the bills,
among which was the one now in question, and the re-
mainder of the money, were handed over to Captain
Riley. That Captain Riley had acted very improperly
in making the use he had of this bill there could be no
doubt, but he was the party who was responsible and
not the present defendant.
Mr. Stafford Paul Cooper, the solicitor to Mr. Cul-
verwell, was then called, and he proved the facts as
stated by the Learned Counsel. He also said that when
it was ascertained that the bill had been put in circu-
lation again he and Mr. Culverwell called upon Mr.
Short and explained all the transaction to him, and told
him distinctly that Captain Riley bad no authority to
re-issue the hill, and they said they should take Capt.
Riley into custody.
Cross-examined—They thought Captain Riley could
have been charged with either forgery or fraud, as be
had an impression that Mr. Culverwell's name was not
upon the bill when it was handed over to Capt. Riley.
Edward Cornwall, clerk to Mr. Cooper, confirmed
his testimony as to the bill in question, with others, and
money being handed over to Captain Riley on the 20th
of April.
The mortgage deed was also put in.
Mr. THESIGER said this was the case for the defen-
dant, and he submitted that it was a complete answer
to the action.
Mr. PLATT contended that upon the first issues the
plaintiff was entitled to a verdict.
Lord ABINGER said that upon the issues as to the
hand-writing, the plaintiff was entitled to a verdict ;
but he thought that the plea, alleging the bill to have
been discharged, and re-negotiated without a fresh
stamp, and without the authority of the defendant, had
been made out, and that he was entitled to a verdict
upon that plea.
Mr. PLATT contended that, as the bill had not ar-
rived at maturity, when it was presented for discount
by Captain Riley, it did not require any fresh stamp,
but was a legally negotiable instrument ; and Mr. Short
having no means of knowing how he obtained possession
of it, was justified in discounting it.
Lord ABINGER then directed the Jury to find for
the plaintiff upon the first six issues, and for the de-
fendant upon the others, subject to the point of law.
HAWKER V. MARSHALL.
This was an action brought by the plaintiff, who is
a tailor and draper in the Blackfriars-road. against the
defendant, a woollen-draper in the same neighbourhood,
for having trespassed and broken into his house and
searched it, and thereby injured his credit, and special
damages were claimed.
The defendant pleaded that he entered the house
under the authority of a writ from the Palace Court.
The plaintiff admitted that a writ had been issued,
but said that the defendant was aware that he was not
in the house at the time he made the search, and that
it was done maliciously.
Mr. Platt and Mr. Peacock were for the plaintiff, and
Mr. Thesiger for the defendant.
Mr. PLATT stated the case, and said that the
plaintiff was a respectable tradesman carrying
on business in the Blackfriars-road, and the de-
fendant was also a tradesman, and resided
in the same neighbourhood. The plaintiff sought
redress at their hands for a most grievous injury
inflicted upon his credit by the defendant under these
circumstances. The defendant was a woollen draper,
and the plaintiff, who is a tailor, in the month of Fe-
bruary, purchased goods of him in his business to the
amount of 401., for which he paid him will a bill for
231., and the rest in money. That bill, which was ac-
cepted by another person, was dishonoured, and the
defendant made application to the plaintiff respecting
it, and it was arranged that he should receive 15/. in
money, and another bill. Notwithstanding this ar-
rangement, however, the defendant immediately sued
out a writ in the Palace Court, and under pretence of
executing it, he went to the plaintiff's house with an
officer, and proceeded to search it, although he was told
the plaintiff was not there ; created a very great distur-
bance and confusion, and seriously damaged the plain-
tiff's credit and reputation, and so much so that a per-
son who was going to advance him three hundred
pounds refused to do so, and another who was about to
enter into a building specul ttion with bim, declined to
do so, and the plaintiff therefore sought special dama-
ges at their hands.
Peter Hawker deposed that he was brother to the
plaintiff, who carries] on the business of a tailor in the
Blackfriars,road. Before the transaction in question
his brother had dealings with the defendant, and he
knew of a bill coming due that was dishonoured, and
he had some communication with the defendant re-
specting it, and he arranged that a sum of 151. should
be paid down, and a bill given for the remainder of the
amount of the bill that had been dishonoured. On the
morning of theday on which this arrangement was to have
been made good, the defendant came to his brother's
shop, and asked to see him, and witness told him that
he was out, but he did not expect it would be
long before he returned. The defendant —then
went out and returned in a few minutes accompanied
by another man, amid again inquired whether his brother
was at home, and upon his telling him he was not, he
replied that it was a lie, or words to that effect.
The other man then said it was no use mincing the
matter—that he had got a warrant against him, and the
defendant added, " Be —if we won't have him too."
The defendant and the other man then went into the
back parlour, and searched, but they dil not go over
the whole of the house, because witness prevented them.
They p,:shed past a female nair.cd Morland, who was
staying in the house, and went into her bedroom.
Witness prevented them from going upstairs, and de-
manded their authority, and as they did not produce
any he threatened to go for a policeman, and give them
into custody. Marshall then conferred with the other
man, and they left the house. While they were in the
shop, he heard the defendant say that he would make
that side of the water too hot to hold his Another,
and that he knew where he dealt in the Borough—that
he would spoil him ; and he also said that he would go to
Mr. Withers, his landlord, and let him know what a
plundering thief he had got in his house as a tenant.,