The Sun.
London, England, 1846-01-15 00:00:00

REGISTRATION APPEALS.

This was the first day of the present sittings set apart for
the consideration of registration appeals. Several unimpor-
tant cases were argued, but of those submitted the following
was the most important.

COLVILLE V. THE OVERSEERS OP THE BOROUGH OF

CIIATHAM.

Mr. Sergeant KnvoLAKu appeared in support of an appeal
against the decision of the Revising Barrister in a case sub-
mitted to his decision at the last Court held for the revision
of the list of voters for the .borough of Chatham. Mr. Col-
ville was the appellant in the case, and the overseers the
respondents, and the point raised was the following :—Whe-
ther in regard to the borough 101. franchise the registration
of the voter was to be allowed in consideration of
being rated to the poor on a net annual rent of the value of
10/. ; or whether the rating must be on the clear annual
value, after deducting repairs, insurance, and other expenses
necessary to keep the premises in repair. The Learned
Gentleman maintained the latter interpretation of the Reform
Act. The whole matter was to settle what was meant in the
Act by the words " clear annual value." He contended that
the fair criterion of clear annual value was, the value of the
premises to the landlord after all expenses were met, and not
the net rent paid by the tenant. The Learned Gentleman
quoted several cases in support of the view of the question he
submitted, and said in addition that this was the legitimate
construction of valuation, according to the Parochial Amess-
ment Act. Considerable discussion had arisen, not only at
Chatham, but other places throughout the country, as to the
real meaning of the words net or clear annual value, and the
case was chosen, out of many others of the same character,
for the decision of their Lordships.
No Counsel appeared on the other side, and their Lordships
reserved their decision.

BAIL COURT.-(THIS DAY.)
( Sittings at Nisi Prius, before Mr. Justice WILLIAMS.)
CLARKE V. O'GRADY.

Mr. Sergeant Byles and Mr. Fry appeared for the plaintiff,
and Mr. Crowder and Mr. Ball for the defendant.
This was an action brought by a Mr. Clarke, who is a
wine merchant, residing in Bond-street, against the Hon.
Thomas O'Grady; a captain in the 74th regiment of infantry,
for the recovery of the sum of 501. upon a cheque drawn by
the defendant, upon 11,i army agent Sir John Kirkland.
The defendant pleaded that he did not promise—that he
did not draw the cheque—that no notice of dishonour had
been served upon him. He also pleaded that it was
given to the defendant for money to play at hazard in a
common gambling-house, and that when the plaintiff
gave the money, the defendant was about to play at hazard
in a common gambling-house, and he (plaintiff) knew that
he might lose it. Another plea entered by the defendant was
that the document was not stamped.
Mr. Sergeant BYLES made a few observations to the jury
with regard to the nature of the pleas of the defendant, and
then called
The Hon. Francis Payne, who stated that he is a Lieu-
tenant in her Majesty's 74th regiment ; knows the Hon.
Thomas O'Grady, but does not know his hand-writing.
Witness never saw him write, and never received any letter
from him.

Mr. John Brook Irwin stated that he resides in Albany-
street ; does not know the Hon. Thomas O'Grady. Has seen
the paper produced before. Knows Sir J. Kirkland's bank-
ing-house in Pall-mall. Presented the cheque produced for
payment; does not know the exact date on which he pre-
sented it. It is in the same state as when it was presented.
The cheque was dishonoured. Witness does not know the
exact answer given, but only knows that no money was given.
Witness wrote a note to Captain O'Grady at the St. James's
Hotel, stating that the cheque had been dishonoured. (A
discussion ensued, as to whether notice had been served for
the production of that rote • which ended in the note being
put in, but it was not read.;
Sir John Kirkland was then called—He stated that he is
an army agent, residing at No. 80, Pall Mall. He acts as a
banker in one sense of the word. Agents of regiments are
the persons through whom allowances or moneys intended
for the use of military officers are remitted. It is no part of
a banker's duty to transact the business of the officers of a
regiment, yet it is a courtesy invariably extended by army
agents, so as to enable officers to draw on them. Several
officers keep accounts with him. Does not know Captain
O'Grady, of the 74th regiment, but has paid cheques drawn
by the Hon. Thomas O'Grady.
Mr. CROWDER. said that the witness could not say anything
about the payment of cheques unless he paid them himself.
Mr. Justice Wirm3is said that the general fact of Cap-
tain O'Grady keeping an account there was admissible.
Witness continued—Has received many letters from Cap-
tain O'Grady, but does not know him as the writer. Has
paid money according to the directions they contained.
There are several officers in the 74th regiment.
Mr. Payne recalled—There is no officer named O'Grady
in the 74th regiment but the defendant.
Sir J. Kirkland was here asked if he believed the hand-
writing of the letter to be the writing of the defendant?
Mr. CROWDER objected to the question. He said that
the writer of the letters must be directly identified as Cap-
tain O'Grady, as any person might have gone on with an
account in his name. Nothing had as yet been said to fix
Mr. O'Grady as the writer of these letters.
Mr. Justice WILLIAnis took a note of the objection. 414,
In answer, Sir John Kirkland said that he believed the
documents to have been written by Captain O'Grady of the
referring
ef4nteuhr
ger Neverto
of
th
cheques.
e cheque,ei ved aTblheuat
but has
ehlreafit oermre
received
esMi Mr.
dino
a' O'Grady, rhaed letterys,
ai specificallyne referringpet person
that wrote the former letter.
The letter was as follows :
" Sir,—Will you oblige me by not cashing any cheque
purporting tote from me until krther notice.
" Yours most truly, " THOS. O'GRADY,
Captain in the 74th Regt."
Witness cannot say whether this letter was received before
the presentation of the cheque or draft. The clerk who
attends to the instructions of his customers is here.
By Mr. CnowDEß—All the affairs of a regiment, as be-
.tween the Government and the colonel, are transacted by
the army-agent. All the money sent by the Government
for the use of a regiment is sent to the army-agent, and
books of that money are kept by him for the Government.
Has never made any return of his house, as a banking-house,
since the Acts of 7 and 8 Victoria. Is a banker, but his
house in Pall-mall is not a banking-house. All the transac-
tions referring to Capt.aia O'Grady took place in Pall-mall.
No charge is made trethe officers of regiments by the army
agent, as they are paid by the public.
By Mr. Sergeant Bvixs—Witness keeps accounts for offi-
cers' widows, officers on half-pay, icc. Witness also keeps
accounts for about half a dozen private persons, and charges
them nothing.
Mr. Sergeant BYLES again proposed to read the cheque,
end Mr. CRowDER again objected on his former ground.
Mr. BALL said that Lord Denman had lately held that
where a party receives letters from another, he must after-
wards be introduced to the writer, so as to see him in order
to identify him with the letter he was supposed to have
written.
Mr. Justice Wimisais took a note of the objection, and
allowed the case to go OIL
Mr. CRoWDER then objected to the document as being un-
stamped. The Stamp Act :let forth that any order or orders,
addressed to bankers or persons acting as bankers within ten
miles of the metropolis, should be stamped ; and he (Mr.
Crowder) contended that Sir J. Kirkland was a banker
within the meaning of the Act. The place where the cheque
boyr dthraeftwwoarsdsdrsatw. njawmasess Hotel,n,otspecfied as the Act required, except
which might be fifteen miles
out of London, and so come within the meaning of the Act.
Thirdly, it was not proved that the deed bore date as re-
quired, " on or before the day en which it was presented."
All these objections were reserved for future consideration.
Mr. William Paget, one of the clerks in the establishment
of Sir J. Kirkland—The pencil memoranda on the letter
produced were his. They were made at the dates mentioned,
and from them he can see that he received the letter on the
18th of August, 1841. Witness knows Captain O'Grady, of
the 74th regiment ; he has cashed cheques for him. The
signature to the letter forbidding the payment of any bills
or cheques is very unlike his handwriting. Witness has
often seen him write.
By Mr. CRowDEß__Cannot swear positively that it is not
his writing—it might be.
By the Count—Could not say on oath that it was not
Captain O'Grady's handwriting, but should think it was not,
as it was very unlike it.
By Mr. Sergeant BYLES—CouId tell within 100 how many
cheques he had cashed for Captain O'Grady.
By the Count—Had a cheque signed with
sented the same
witness sort of
signature that is: to the letter been pre,
would not have paid it, at any rate he would not pay it
without making a strict comparison with former signatures.
By Mr. CRowDER—At the time the cheque was
presented
witness had in his possession the letter forbidding payment,
and it was in consequence of that letter that he did not pay it.
By Mr. Sergeant 13=8—The handwriting on the cheque
is more like the writing of the defendant than the writing in
the letter.
Mr. Irwin was then recalled, and from the additional evi-
dence he gave it appeared that he was a friend of Mr. Clark's,
who had asked him to get the cheque cashed. He received
the cheque in a gambling-house in St. James's-street. Mr.
Clark was a friend of the proprietor of that house.
This was the plaintiff's case.