The Sun.
London, England, 1849-12-18 00:00:00

COURT OF QUEEIVS BENCH, Dcc. 17.

Sittings at Nisi Prius, at G Aildhall, before Mr
Justice ERLE, and Special Juries.)

TUCKER V. ROBARTS.

This was an issue from the Court of Chancery, to
ascertain by the decision of a jury, whether the de-
fendant, who was banker to the Pelican Life As-
surance Company, represented by their secretary,
plaintiff in this action, was liable for 5,0001., which
his firm had paid on a policy of insurance effected in
the Pelican Office, believing the documents on which
the payment was made to be genuine. The cause
had been tried in this Court on a former occasion,
and resulted in a verdict for the defendant. A rule
was subsequently obtained for a new trial, on the
ground that the verdict was against evidence, and the
case now came on for trial again.
Mr. Martin, Q C., with whom were other Learned
Gentlemen, appeared for the plaintiff; the Attorney-
General, Sir Frederick Thesiger, and Mr. Sergeant
Shee, were for the defendant.
The cause of action arose out of the following
circumstances :—A gentleman named Sherwood
effected an insurance for 5,0001. on his life, in
the office of the Pelican Insurance Company. He
resided at the time at Stockport, and the in-
surance was effected through the agency of a
house at Manchester, acting on behalf of the com-
pany. He died, and by his will appointed Mrs.
Sherwood and his three daughters his executors, be-
queathing to them the 5,000/. due on the policy of
insurance. They employed Mr. Winterbottom, who
was deceased's confidential attorney, to take the
necessary steps to obtain payment of the money for
them. It was the custom of the insurance company
not to pay on any policies unless they were duly en-
dorsed by the parties interested, and WTinterbottom
having gone through all the required forms presented
the papers to the company's agent in Manchester,
who, believing all to be correct, transmitted notice
of tine claim to the Pelican Company in London. The
agent subsequently sent the bill for payment through
a house in London, and it was in the usual course of
business presented to Messrs. Roberts, who seeing
that the acceptance was right paid it. It was soon
after wards discovered that Winterbottom had forged
the endorsements, and the Pelican Insurance
Company was obliged to pay four thousand
pounds on the policy to Mrs. Sherwood and
daughters, being a compromise of the 5,000/. The ques-
tion then arose who was to be the loser of the money,
the Pelican Insurance Company, or Messrs. Robarts.
For the company it was urged that Messrs. Roberts
were bound, as bankers of the company, to see that
the endorsements were genuine; and on the side of the
defendants it was contended that it was their duty
only, as bankers, to see that the acceptance was right ;
and that they were especially excused from investi-
gating the matter at five o'clock in the day, an hour
when business was pressing, and when it was, under
the circumstances, impossible for them to ascertain
whether the transaction was all right.
The Learned JUDGE having summed up,
The jury returned a verdict for 5,0001., on account
of the money, and ls. damages for a breach of duty.

E.AEXTR V. WHITWORTII.

Mr. Martin, Q C., and Mr. Wiles, were for the
plaintiff; Mr. Crowder, Q.C., and Mr. Montague
Smith, for the defendant.

This was an action brought by Mr. Barker, ad
vertising agent, to recover a sum of 212/ , balance of
a sum of 4121., for advertising the Southampton and
South Midland Junction Railway, of which com-
pany the defendant was a provisional committee-
man, and also member of the managing committee.
The case was of the ordinary description of railway
actions for the recovery of claims. Plaintiff put in
evidence in support of his claim, and relied partly on
a letter of the defendant, in which that person had

expressed his willingness to become a provisional
committeeman, and partly on an admission made in
conversation by defendant to a third party that he
knew he was liable for the expenses of the company.
For the defence it was submitted that the defendant

was V not liable, notwithstanding the alleged ad•
mission, and the circumstances of his having been a
member of the provisional and managing committees,
if he did not actually give the orders.
The Learned JUDGe summed up. The Jury re-
tired, and after an absence of some time from the
court, returned a verdict for the defendant.

CENTRAL CRIMINAL COURT
OLD COURT.

Thomas BarnardMCarthy, 44, George lit Car-
thy, a young lad, his son, James Grady, 61, and
George Grout, 33, surrendered to take their trial
upon an indictment, charging them with unlawfully
conspiring together to defraud Henry Barry of certain
goods and chattels.
Mr. Parry prosecuted ; Mr. Ballantine defended
Grout ; Mr. Robinson, Thomas and George M'Car-
thy, and Mr. Horry de ended Grady.
This was one of those cases which come before the
Court upon the finding of a bill by the grand jury
without the intervention of a magistrate. It appeared
that the prosecutor, Mr. Barr, was the secretary, and
also one of the principal shareholders in a loan society,
and in August, 184'7, the defendant, Thomas
M'Carthy, who at that time held the lease of, and
occupied the Hand and Flower public-house, at
Fulham, applied to him for a loan, and a sum of
1001. was advanced to him upon a joint promissory
note of himself and the defendant Grout, who was his
brother-in-law. In the commencement of 1848 some
negotiation took place for a further loan, and
eventually another sum of 701. was advanced to the
defer dant, Thomas M‘Carthy, and he gave as security
a bill of sale of the whole of the furniture and effects
in his public-house for the repayment of the amount
that had been advanced. It seemed that the money
was not repaid according to the arrangement between
the parties, and the prosecutor put the bill of sale into
force, and removed a considerable portion of the fur-
niture preparatory to its being disposed of by auction.
Some further negotiations then took place between the
prosecutor and the defendant Thomas M Carthy,
which resulted in the latter assigning his lease and
giving up all his licences to the prosecutor, who, as
an equivalent for his doing so, agreed to restore the
furniture that had been removed from the premises,
and also covenanted, by a written agreement, not to
put thst bill of sale into force until the Ist of Septem-
ber folloNA ing, the understanding being that the money
was to he repaid before that day. This we 1 not done,
and the foundation in the present indictment appeased
to be that about the period covenanted for by the
prosecutor, as that up to which he would not put the
bill of sale in force, the property upon the precoises,