The Sun.
London, England, 1856-11-25 00:00:00

THE ROYAL BRITISH BANK -AITCHISON V. LEE.

Mr. Glasse (with Mr. D. Lewis) applied, soon after
their Lordships had returned from the Lord Chancellor's
Court, for leave to give short notice of motion of appeal
from a decision of Vice-Chancellor Kindersley, pro-
nounced about ten minutes before, in order that their
lordships might, if kind enough to accede to the applica-
tion, hear the case which, in consequence of its great
importance, all parties were most desirous should be
heard and ear), disposed of.
Mr. Dolt sa d that the parties whom he represented
were equally anxious that the matter should be soon die
posed of, 'lie was, ho•vever, himself engaged at the
Judicial Committee of the Privy Council on Wednesday
net t.
Lord Justice Knight Bruce—Of course, the case can-
not be heard with anything like such celerity, for to
morrow is the last day of Term. Tne best plan will be
to take leave to give shov. notice of motion for to-mor-
row morning (this day), and, although we cannot hear
it at once, some period for the hearing can then be
arranged.

CO U. RT OF COMMON PLE XS.
;Sittings in Banco.—Michaelmas Term.—Before Lord
Chief Justice Cockburn, and Justices Cresswell, Crow-

der, and Williams.)
MATHER V. LORD MAIDSTONE.
This was an action on a bill of exchange for 1,0001.,
to which the defendant pleaded that it was drawn for
the accommodation of the Hop. F. Villiers, and ac
cepted by the defendant, of which the plaintiff had no-
tice ; that it was given to renew another similar bill for
1,0001. for three months which was due and payable,
and the defendant, believing that the bill so renewed
was one of two bills for a similar amount accepted by
hire, paid interest for the renewal and received no other
consideration ; and that the bill of exchange so renewed
was not either of the two bills before mentioned, but
was a forged bill, and was not accepted by the defend-
ant. The Chief Baron told the jury that the action was
brought on a genuine acceptance of Lord Maidstone,
and the defence was that it had been given to take up a
forged bill, and, although that would have been a good
defence on the forged bill, it was no defence on the bill
for which the action was brought if the plaintiff were a
bona fide holder for va lu e, and to make that out he must
make out that he was a bona fide holder of the forged
bill for value.
Mr. Edwin James, Q.O , Mr. Serjeant Ballantine, and
Mr. Holt were heard•on Saturday to show cause against
a rule for a new trial, obtained on the ground of misdi-
rection, and that, the verdict was against evidence ; and
Mr. M. Chambers, Q.C., and Mr. Lush were partly
heard in support of the rule.
To-day Mr. Lush finished his argument.
Chief Justice sail Le was of opinion that this
rule should he discharged. In the first place, he was
of opinion thet there was no misdirection on the
part of the learned judge. The plaintiff brought
his action on a bill of exchange which the defend-
ant admitted was accepted by him, but said there
was no consideration for it, but that it was given
to renew a bill which was a forgery. The plain-
tiff, admitting that this state of facts would
entitle the defendant to the judgment of the Court if
he could not answer them, said that he was a bona file
holder of the forged bill, and that the defendant, instead
of declining to pay it on the ground of it being forged,
gave a fresh acceptance in lieu of it, whereby the plain-
tiff was deprived of his remedy by the de!ay caused
thereby, against the indorser of the forged bill to him,
and he looked upon this as consideration given for the
second bill, The plaintiff had raised the question whe-
ther he was a bona fide holder of the first bill, and that
question had been ;eft to the jury. But it was said
that the onus of proving that the plaintiff was a bona
fide holder of the first bill ought to have been thrown on
the plaintiff, and not on the defendant. If it; seas shown
that En acceptance was tainted by illegality or fraud a
presumption that consideraticu was given for it no longer
arose ; and the learned judge was therefore light in
holding that the onus of proving consideration was
thrown from the defendant on to the plaintiff, and that
it was incumbent on him to prove that he was a bona,
fide holder. He could not say also that the jury were
not perfectly warranted in the verdict they had found.
A man who is told that the acceptance on which he
sues is a false one ought to come forward to give the
most complete explanation cif the circumstances under
which he became possessed of it ; and if he left his ex-
planation incomplete or unsatisfactory, it was strong
presumpt on against him that he was not a bona fide
bolder of the bill. Then, it was said that the plaintiff
was surprised in the evidence. There was no affidavit
of that. The application for a new trial was simply on
the ground that the verdict was against the evidence.
The application was not brought before tho Court in
such a form that it could grant a new trial on the ground
of surprise, or on the ground of fresh evidence having
been found.
Mr. Justice Cresewell and Mr. Justice Crowder en-
tirely concurred in this opinion.
Rule discharged.
11l THE 11.1.TPER OF THE MIDLAND AND GREAT NORTHERN
RAILWAY COMPANIES• •
On the application of Sir F. Kelly, it being found im-
possible to hear cause shown against this rule to-day,
as the question was one of great importance, involving
the construction of the railway and Canal Traffic Act,
the rule was enlarged till the second day of next term.
Rule discharged.

ROLLS COURT.
IN BE THE DEPOSIT AND GENERAL LIFE ASSURANCE
COMPANY.

In this case au order had been applied for to wind Lp
the company, but the case ,was allowed to stand over to
give the directors an opportunity of winding up, as far
as they could, without an order. This the directors had
done, and in a manner very creditable to themselves. A
consent order was now applied for to carry out what re-
tnained to be done.
Mr. W. W. Cooper for the petition.
Mr. Louis objected to the jurisdiction to seal the care
to chambers. It ought to go to the Master.
The Master of the Rolls did not think so, and nude
the order.

COURT OF BANKRUPTCY.
THE ROYAL BRITISH BANK.
The effect of the Vice-Chancellor's decision yesterday
was to produce an unusual excitement amongst the dn•
cers of this court. They were prepared to retake pos-
session of the property of the bank ; but it has been
determined that no further steps shall be taken until the
hearing of the appeal before the Lords Justices, which,
may take place next week. In the meantime
it is thought,
there is nothing to prevent the assignees from proceeding
to realise the assets, and to declare a dividend, which
they will do at the earliest possible period. A. petition
by a shareholder to annul the bankruptcy is appointed
for hearing before Mr. Commissioner Holroyd on Thurs-
day next, but this is merely, to lay the ground for an
appeal.