The Sun.
London, England, 1848-11-21 00:00:00

COURT. OF COMMON PLEAS, Nov. 20.

ALA, (Sittings in Banc.,.)
D.
--. -11. e. AI'KEN-ZIE (PUBLIC OFFICER)—ENDORSE-
IiENT " PER PROCURATION."
were sou
deTfehnieda.net,essa-aumilloil•
ia on a bill of exchange against the
Neweastle-upon public officers of the
The company at Stock .Banking Company.
endorsement by a forrt4e":nt,° be made liable unlit r an
Joint Stock Banking
tion, for the company. Tice gel' made, per
endorsement
reprrsocemuerea-t
, appeared that the
was, " P.P. Newcastle-upon-T(11u: 41i
....out the plaintiff
Company, H. Bechley, managli:,
bill was an accommodation bill
after the bank had stopped payment 7 •atid. endorsed
was a bond fide holder for value.
company, and he.de form
.
Before the kank
stopped payment the same person (Mr. Bechley) -
been in the habit of endorsing bills in the acme bed
under an authority from the
nued to do so to some extent after the bank stoppteld-
payment, in reference to the bills of former creditors of
the bank. There was no doubt that with respect to the
bill in question no express authority to endorse had
been given by the company, and the question raised
upon a rule nisi fora new trial, upon the ground of
misdirection (a verdict having been found for the de-
fendant), was whether or not the company must not be
considered as having given an implied authority to
Bechley to endorse the bill in question, so as to make
them liable to the plaintiff, a bong fide holder, without
any notice other than that giveu by the words "per
procuration," ace., which it was contended did not alter
the plaintiff's right. •
Mr. Sergeant Byles and Mr. T. Jones argued on be-
half of the plaintiff; and Mr. Bovil for the defendant.
The COURT said the case might be considered as if
there had been no stoppage, as that in the opinion of the
Court made no difference. to doubt a ha:loess part.
nership, if they thought proper, might allow a clerk to
tndorse bill* in the, name of. the firm, and pass them into
circulation, without any limitation of authority; and

here, if the joint-stock company had allowed the ma-
nager to sign the trading name of the company, and cir-
culate bills so signed, without any notice to the public
otherwise, the public would not be bound to inquire into
any special circumstances which prevented an act of such
a nature from being considered a proper one on the part
of the manager, so as to bind the company. But, in the
present case, the company bad not allowed any delusion
to be practised upon the public. There was a special
intimation to the plaintiff, by the words per procuration,
that the endorsement was not the act of the bank, but of
a person who professed to have the authority of the bank,
and a party must be considered as taking the bill upon
the faith of that representation. That was the doctrine
laid down in " Attwood v. Manning," 7 Barn. and Cres.,
78, and since acted upon. If a person took a bill en-
dorsed, as that now in question, he must satisfy himself
that the person endorsing had the authority that he pro-
fessed to have, or take the risk of its turning out that
no such authority existed. The plaintiff, therefore,
was not entitled to recover in this case.
Rule discharged.

COURT OF EXCHEQUER, Nov. 20.
(Sittings in Banco.)
GILES V. HUTT AND OTHERS.

This was a proceeding, in the nature of an audita
querela, which was argued at great length upon a former
day in this term.
The CHIEF BARON now delivered the judgment of the
Court. The plaintiff in the present proceeding was a
proprietor of five 500/. shares in the Western Australian
Colonization Company, of which the defendants were di-
rectors. The plaintiff, in his character of shareholder,
executed a deed of settlement, upon the construction of
which the present question arose. Under this deed the
directors were empowered to make calls upon the share-
holders, and, upon default, to sue them at law for the
amount of the calls. The deed also empowered the di-
rectors, where the shareholders neglected to pay their
calls, to declare the shams held by such defaulters for-
feited ; and, upon such declaration, the shares were to be
held as absolutely forfeited, and might be sold or dis-
posed of for the benefit of the company. The plaintiff's
complaint was that the defendants had sued him for calls,
and recovered judgment in such actions, under which a
levy was made upon his goods for a part of the judgment
debt; that they had also declared his shares forfeited, and
now threatened to issue execution and compel the
payment of the amount of the judgment not already
satisfied. The Court went'along with so much of the
aeguments'of plaintiff's counsel as showed that it was
not competent for the directors to adopt both the reme-
dies.pointed out by the deed; they could not enforce the
calls by a judgment of a court of law, and also forfeit
and sell the shares. Then there was a judgment for
calls followed by declaration of forfeiture of the shares,
and the question was as to its effect? The Court was
of opinion that the declaration of forfeiture was a nullity,
and that it had no effect on the judgment previously re-
covered. The two powers of suing fur calls and forfeit-
ing shares were given alternatively, and the directors
were bound to confine themselves to the one or the
other. They might either resort to the one or the other;
they could not have both remedies. Without deciding
at what particular step the election to adopt one course
or the other must be considered complete on the part of
the directors, the Court thought it must be considered
that the directors had elected to proceed by action, when
they not only brought an action, but proceeded to judg-
ment and sued out execution. The forfeiture of the
share subsequently was a nullity; and did not defeat or
affect a valid judgment previously obtained. That judg-
ment the directors were still entitled to enfetie. It fol-
lowed that the plaintiff, in audita querela, had no ground
for coming to the court, and upon the insufficiency of his
declaration judgment must be for the defendants.

PREROGATIVE COURT, Nov. 20.
(Before Sir H. J. FusT.)
SMITH V. SMITH.

The arguments in this case were resumed this morn-
ing ; a report of the previous arguments appeared on the
16th instant. The question in dispute was the validity
of a codicil made by Mr. Smith, late of Scotland-yard,
a farrier.

Dr. R. Phillimore was heard on the part of Miss
Mary Ann Smith, in opposition to the codicil.
Drs. Adams and Bayford were heard in reply. They
contended that if the will was to be held valid, the co-
dicil was equally so, a few months only having elapsed
between the execution:of the two instruments, and there
had been no evidence before the court to prove that the
testator was of unsound mind during the making of
either of these testamentary deeds.
The Learned JUDGE, in giving his decision, said he
must decide against the validity of the instrument. It
had been argued that that there was no proof of his
being in a imore unsound state of mind when he made
the codicil than when he made his will. He (the
Learned Judge) thought he was not of sane mind on
executing the latter instrument. Now came the question
of costs. Mary Ann Smith was entitled to the costs, as
were also the other parties, and he therefore declared
that the costs of all the parties should be paid out of the
estate.

WESTMINSTER COUNTY COURT, Nov. 18.
THE JUDGE OF ONE COUNTY COURT HAS NO POWER TO
SET ASIDE A JUDGMENT OBTAINED IN ANOTHER COURT.

-CAPPER V. LEAKY.

This was a proceeding on a judgment obtained last
December in the Marylebone County Court, which the
defendant neglected to satisfy.

A BARRISTER, who appeared for the defendant (who
is a solicitor, residing in Church-street, Soho), applied
to the Court to set aside the judgment, on the ground
that his client did not receive notice of the original sum-
mons, that he had a good answer to the action, and that
as the judgment was obtained in the Marylebone County
Court, that was the proper pine to proceed against him
upon that judgment.
The JUDGE (D. C. Moylan, Esq.), said, with respect
to the first point he had no power to set aside a judg-
ment objected in another court; his only duty was to
enforce that judgment. As to the Marylebone County
Court being the proper place to sue upon that judgment,
it would be seen by the 98th section of the Act that the
plaintiff could take out a summons upon the judgment
within the district of any County Court where the de-
fendant resided at the time. It was clear that when the
judgment was obtained defendant resided in Marylebone,
but now being a resident of Westminster, the proper
place to sue him in was that court. He should order the
defendant to pay the costs incurred by the plaintiff,
amounting to 21. 155., on the 27th of the present month,
and the balance four weeks after, which would give ample
time for.the application to set aside the judgment to be
made to the Marylebone County Court.
1

POLICE INTELLIGENCE.
MANSION-HOUSE.
A female of steady, respectable appearance, who has
been passing through life under various names and in
different characters, was- brought before the Lord Mayor,
charged with having performed the part of a common
impostor. She appeared at the bar under the name of
Elizabeth Johnson.
It will be recollected that in January last a man
named William Edwards, who had, with the assistance
of some women, succeeded in obtaining money from
several of the nobility by the' instrumentality of peti-
tions, " in heartrending terms," purporting to be signed
by benevolent persons, and whose signatures were skil-
fully imitated, was brought before the chief magistrate
and sentenced to imprisonment for three months. The
Duke of Cambridge was one of the actual contributors
upon the list found at that time in the possession of Ed-
wards, and the present prisoner was known by the offi-
cers of the Mendicity Society to be one of the principal
agents of that notorious impostor. She had, however,
contrived to sscaps.
Mr. Edward Itiompssu, of. Sslters' Hall, suited tLat
the priscner called at his counting-houss in January
and pre:ented a bagging petition, stating that a Mrs.,
Hall, who carried on busin' ss in a village near town,
bad been plundered of 300/. while at church with her
family,. and that inevitable ruin must be the consequence
if the benevolent were not very active in her behalf.
The witness knew the locality to which the potition re-
ferred, but suspecting upon examination of the signa-
tures that forgery was one of the peculiarities of the
case, caused inquiry to be made. His brother soon
heard that the petition was one of the ingenious labours
of a large gang of impostors. The prisoner called next
day, with a letter signed " John Hall," requesting an
answer to the application; and as the witness had good
reason for wishing to get hold of the writer be gave the
bearer 21., and promised that if Mr. Hall would call
next day, 31. would be added to_ the :contribution, pro-
vided the facts stated proved to be correct. Mr. Hall
did call next day, and the party turned out to be no
other thin Edwards: He was apprehended, taken before
the Lord Mayor, and. diaxtos. attempt to deny that the
case was one.of a series of impositions in which he had
been engaged. His partner, however, who had been
about the neighbourhood, contrived to give the slip to
the officer, and to continue the practice, until she ex-
posed herself on Saturday last in Marylebone, with too
great confidence.
In answer to a question from the LORD MAYOR,
Mr. Thompson said he hail employed an officer to
watch for au opportunity of apprehending the prisoner.
Samuel Daniels, an officer of the Mendicity Society,
slid he believed it was on the 26th January he saw Mr.
Thompson give the prisoner 2/., and heard him promise
31. more upon receiving a visit trom Mr. Hall. Witness
had watched her on the day of the apprehension of Ed-
wards, but she suddenly cut on Fish-street-hill. "I
know this woman to have been convicted several times.
She was once convicted of having succeeded in imposing
in a case of pretended
du ipsotrnesths ;e ale)dukseheofisCaammbosritd.
gaeciive member of the vilest
gang of impostors. Her real name is Jane Johnson."
The prisoner said the officer was perfectly correct in
his statement.
Colley, another Mendicity officer, said, I was at
Marylebone office on Saturday, and I was told that the
prisoner, whom it was known I wanted, was on the spot.
I went to her, and told her I wanted her for 21., of which
she had defrauded Mr. Thompson. She said, " Well,
Colley, there is no use in denying it. I have had the 2/.
of Mr. Thompson, and no mistake; and I suppose I must
have my whack for it.—(Laughter.) I hope you will
not make any delay about it, but let me serve my time at
once, and by and by Iwill
o:hers I
the 2/. to be
"brought to justice. I certainly received
The LORD MAYOR (to the
prisoner)—Do you wish to
say anything? The Prisoner—My
right; I have had the money
Lord, the man is
The LORD Mavoa—PrisoYn.e
the most base and mischievous.r' your calling is one of
up the sources of charity, and,to It is calculated to stop
ex
real claims upon the beney.)ieettepose those who have
the extremity of
starvatien. I have good reason to
suppose that you are
one of the most indefatigable
members of an extensive
gang.
The Prisoner—As for the Duke of.
Cambridge,
I I
served three months in the House of Correction for his
Royal Highness, and I admit that I was in that business,
but I do usiuro you there arc worse persons about town

than me. The officers would do well to look after some
others.

The LORD MAYOR—If I can catch them I shall cer-
tainly punish them as well as you.
Tne Prisonor-A-Thank you, my Lord. I hope you'll
tell the officers to be on tho look out. There's new
dodges every day. I had the money, I confess.
Committed to Bridewell for three months.

The LoLD MAYOR was engaged for some hours in
hearing cases of vagrancy (mostly Irish), brought by
the City policemen before him. His Lordship committed
nearly 40 beggars to prison, and observed that if the
Government did not interfere to prevent the inundation
of vagrants into London, all the prisons must soon be
filled to excess.

Hodgion—l never got a yard of the lace, and thought
when I gave Webb a character that he was an honest
men. I did not guarantee to pay any portion of the
amount of the lace, but merely told the firm what I knew
of the person they trusted with ti eir goods. Ido not
want to be a rogue to any of the persons to whom I am
indeb.ed; and as soon as I gist my money I shall pay all
I owe.—(Laughter.)
Mr. COTTINGRAM said, there was an abundance of
cases against Johnson, and he should commit all the
prisoners for trial. However, as the depositions would
necessarily occupy some time in transcribing, he should
order the prisoners to be brought up again on Monday
next to have them read to them.