The Sun.
London, England, 1823-01-09 00:00:00

'SWINDLING.

UNlON.HALL.—Yestirdiy WilliiM Gibson and Richard
Brown were brought before L. B. ALLEN, Esq. charged with
having robbed William Norman, a countryman who came to
see London, from Sheffield.
The complainant, who is a cutler, and had business as well
as amusement to find in town, had, it appeared, been but a
few days regaling himself in several public-houses, to which
he went for the purpose of seeing life, when he met with
Brown, in St. George's fields. An acquaintanceship was
soon struck up between them_, although Brown claimed it by
calling the complainant Mr. Wifall. Brown proposed to the
countryman to buy hops, and said that his bill at six months
would do as well as money. The offer was put off', but the
countryman consented to accompany his new friend to have a
drop of summit at a public-house. Upon entering the house they
saw two men (Gibson was one of them) tossing and chalking en a
table, upon which was lyinga profusion of paper money. Gibson,
who seemed to be a novice at the game, treated his losses with
indifference, and often said that he was lately come to a
good fortune, and was resolved to make it " fly." Brown pre-
tended to be an utter stranger to the gamblers, appeared colts
elated at the success of one of the gentlemen, and commenced
play himself. By and by he appeared to lose an his money,
and begged his friend the poor countryman to lend his watch,
which Bro,wn ntr sooner received than he staked on a 61. bet,
which turned out in favour of Gibson who forthwith took it
into his pessession: Brown then protiosed to go out and get
money to redeem the watch, and the countryman accompanied
him ; but they had not gone many minutes when Brown ran
off. The unfortunate countryman wandered about in great
agitation, being totally ignorant of the neighbourhood in which
he was. Ile at .length met Hall, the chief Constable of the
office, and mistaking him for.Brovrn, ran up, seized him by the
arm, and said, " Ha ! here thou be'st again, friend : corn back
to the tavern, and settle my watch and the note business."—
Iltill, upon asking him for an explanation, was answered in these
words :—" What ! dost not know where thou bast been tossing
for pounds, and dost forget that I lent thee my watch ?" Hall
soon observed that the countryman had bees made the dupe of
some of the thieves called," :Naggers," and went with helmto several public-houses. At length they reaChed the Bird-
in-hand, Garden-row, neer the Philanthropic, where the
countryman inquired—" Is not this the house where I was
with the gentleman who lately came into a large fortune ?"
He was informed that all the company left the house the
moment after he and his countryman had departed Hall suc-
ceeded in apprehending the two prisoners yesterday morning.
The watch, &c., were found in a coat which Brown had on him
at the time be was taken into custody. It was proved that the
two prisoners • had exchanged coats with each other subsequent
to the robbery. There was also found on Brown a quantity of
sporting notes, and likewise a number of bad country notes.
One of the ash notes was on the " Bank of Elegance," and
promised to cut any lady's or gentleman'sbair superior to any
other in' England, or forfeit bill. The two prisoners were fully
committed.

Qn Thursday week, at Kirkbride, as the noted
JAMES ScoTT, who stiles himself Emperor of all
Conjurors, was amusing himself with a horse
pistol, and in the act of putting it in his

pocket, it went off, and unluckily for him it was
loaded with shot, and not a ball, or else he proba-
bly would have caught the ball in his teeth, as hi
was accustomed to; the shot has taken nearly
one side of his face away) but hopes arc iiikteri-
tained of his recovery.

LAW INTELLIGENCEi

COURT OF KING'S BENCH, JAx. 8.

LEE v. NEVISAM.

Mr. CAMPBELL stated, that this was an. action on a cheek, '4l
drawn by the defendant, for 71., on hishankers, Messrs. Fry
and Chapman, of which the plaintiff was the lawful bearer.
Mr. SCARLETT addressed the Jury ; who would, he said,
have no question to decide, but whether theplaintiff was the'
lawful proprietor of the check, which the defendant had made'
himself liable to pay. The plaintiff was a tea-dealer in Lud-
gate-hill, whose father .had for 46 years carried on the same
trade in the same situation, and who bore an unimpeachable
character. On Saturday, the 26th of October in last year, $
young woman of, respectable appearance came to his shop,.
asked for a 'pound of tea, and tendered the check in dispute,
requesting change. Mr, Lee's shopman carried it to his uiss-
ter, who asked the women where She came from ? She'sahl
from Mr. Scot; 23, Bouverie-street ; upon which Mr.' Lee pat
down the name in the order book, and gave the tea and six so-
vereigns and 125., the full change. On the next day, the
check was, presented at Messrs. Fry and Chapman's, whore-
fused to pay it, alleging that they had orders to that effect from
Mr. Newsam, who said it had been stolen. Notwithstandlni
that this explanation' was given' to Mr.'Neirsam, he thought
proper to summon Mr: Lee before the Lord .Mayor, and CO
charge him with receiving the check, knowing it to have beta
stolen. The parties appeared; Mr. Lee and his shopmsn
made their statements, and the charge was dismissed.
Lee now thought it right to try this action, in order to chal-
lenge investigation into his character, which he knew could not
be affected by the strictest inquiry.
The hand-writing of the defendant was admitted, and tLe
presentment and refusal to pay the check poived: -
Mr. Edward Ward, shopman to. Mr. Lee, deposed to ti
effect stated by Mr. Scarlett, respecting the manner in whigl
the bill came into the plaintiff's hands. On his cross-also;
nation, he said that the transaction took place between set and
seven o'clock in the evening. He did not know Mr. Notion',
who was npt a customer of his master's, nor his hand.writillg
neither did he know Mr. Scott. lie did not seed anY ere
with the woman to inquire into the truth of the sterf• lit
had been six months in the service of Mr. Lee, and has served
7 years' apprenticeship to the trade, but he could not say teat
_
he had ever known a check received where the party &v 4
/
it, and the party offering it, were both strangers.
For the defendant two grounds of defence were suggestedr first, that Ward must have been mistaken as to the value;
for the note, because the plaintiff himself had admitted that.
• $ did not give full value ; and, secondly, that suppnsine WOdor
statement to be correct, Mr. Lee had taken the check et,„
such circumstances of suspicion as ought to have induced er
to make inquiry., and as rendered him fairly responsible for ,le,',
loss. Checks, it was argued, were not like Bank notes, ir.1.111
were guaranteed by a great public Company, and which "Vie
narily were received as cash ; they were never in fact recet„.,
by any careful and prudent man, unless he either IMO;
party by whom they were signed, or the party by whom
were presented, and thus was able to rely on their authen
and their.value. The check in question was undoubtedly see
and it would give a fatal, facility to the comtniesion of for,fer',
and fraud, if tradesmen, for any fancied advantage, shoe'
ceive such an instrument from an unknown person whose kit
chase was scarcely a twentieth part of its amount. Hee
Lee had no knowledge of Newsam or Scott ; the check Wig
,f,
be & forgery, or Might be drawn by some one who had no
fects to answer it ; and, under these circumstances, even It ,
gave value for the check, lie ought to bear the consequences "
that neglect of which, at least, he had been guilty. es"
Mr. C. W. Payne, the clerk of the defendant, said;
the 25th of October he received the check from Mr. Ney.
ro
as part of his salary. As it was foreign post night, he had
opportunity of presenting it for payment that day, but oeell
it m his master's cash-box. That box was stolen before Fir,
the morning, when he returned to the office, and he, by oPoi
of Mr. Newsam, gave notice to Messrs. Fry and Chapinszeip
to pay the check. On Monday the plaintiff came to Dlr. tot
sam's to know the reason why the check was not paid. At
Mr. News= was not within, but he soon afterwards
when the plaintiff informed him that he had taken the e!lrd
from a woman at his shop on Saturday evening. Mr. Ne
asked him if he gave full value for the check, and he dollt Of
that he did not. He said that he neither knew Mr. SCAo
Mr. Newatun, or Mr. Newswires signature. The nextereu'
called again, but the conversation•did nut turn out te
terial.
leet
On cross-examination, the witness said that there Wes set
21. in the cash-box, besides the check and some papers'
p.
went that evening to his father's house at Hackney, and re-.
ed in the morning. Mr. Newsam's residence was et 'dig
Mr. Lee was examined before the Lord Mayor, who hear
parties, but not on oath, and finally dismissed the chargee4s
On re-examination, it was proposed to ask the wide:4
what ground the Lord Mayor dismissed the charge
,sedsle
observations he made on the conduct of Mr. 1.4,
SCARLETT (eected to the question, and the Lolo)Cttii
JUSTICE decided that it could not be asked. to
Mr. SCARLETT replied. On the first ground of air_
relied on the positive testimony of NVard, and on the
bility that a tradesman would purchase a check for less
hhe et;
value, and afterwards confess his misconduct. As to' toe
cwnst*nces of suspicion, he thought they were mere °„1,1%
taste and personal confidence ; some persons might teemeii
some refuse a check where they were ignorant of the Fr,
but their free circulation was necessary to the facility a'
coerce in this great city. '
The Lord CIIIEF.JuSTICE directed the Jury, that beek
believed either that full value was not given' for the cote
which he thought had clearly been stolen, or that it mat eek
under circumstances which ought to have excited I ee:lies:
that it was improperly obtained-, the defendant was eetitla
verdict. As to the first ground of defence, he tho.egotetlf:'
Payne must be mistaken, though probably he had inn O. •
misunderstood the plaintiff. As to the second, undo%f
osti;"
he the plaintiff had acted with 'a degeee of incaution as 010,1 tbk,
security, but the Jury could say whether they thoughtit slll'
circumstances ought to have induced a suspicion that t .
apOyin for the change was improperly possessed of the ae
The Jury consulted for a few minutes, and returneu
dict for the plaintiff—Damages, 71.

, -
iir
WARD V. LEVI. ,lig
This was an action by the Captain of an East ro—eir
called the Lady Carrington, against a person of we'
persuasion, to recover 931. had and received to his ose'oo
case for the plaintiff was, that he agreed with the defrnu 004
take out a cargo of goods to India, charging no freight t'flt,, ;.‘"
mission, but receiving half the profits. The goods "':,10
cordinicly placed on board, and the defendant obtain
the plaintiff's father his acceptance for 4001. on secnrilY tottift
the value of the goods, which was accordingly paid. too 1
the goods, partly consisting of gilt watch-chains, m'it't
coral necklace, which proved to be lumps of sealing-1
other trifles, sold for lest than this sum, by 931., vrni`;
axe the plaintiff now sought to recover. srt
is'
For the defendant, an attempt was made to prove t 11)
Got. 1 ship in the goods, but 0'
The Jury found a verdict for the plaintig—DarnZed 0;
expressing their belief that Mr. Ward had been

Printed and Published for the PROPRIETOIIB,
Office, No. 112, Strand, by J. B. CAlisTAI'