The Sun.
London, England, 1833-12-11 00:00:00

KING'S BENCH.-(THIS DAY.)

Sittings at Guildhall, before the LORD CHIEF JUSTiC.
and a Common Jury.)
DOORMAN V. JENKINS.

This was an action to recover the cuts of 321. 10s.
The SOLICITOR-GENSRAL and MC. RICHARDS Can'
ducted the case for the plaintiff; and Sir JAMES SCAte
LETT and Mr. COMYN that for the defendant.
The circumstances of the case were briefly these :—The
plaintiff was in the practice of frequenting the Anetiot,
Mart Coffee-house, of which the defendant was the (anti'
lord, and transacting his business there. Having a bill for
321. 10s. becoming due on Mon lay, the 23d July, ISS2'
which would be presented at the Coffee-house for payment,
and intending to get out of town, be on the Saturday preeiousli
left the 321. 10s. in the defendant's hands, requestingbo;
to pay the bill when it was presented. The defendant
the money into his cash box, in which was 2071. of hill
own money. On the intervening Sunday, however, .031
cash box was stolen with the whole 23W. 10s., and 0°
the bill being presented on the Monday, the answer WO
" that Mr. Jenkins was not there, and there were 00
orders." The plaintiff then brought the present action
to recover the 321. 10s. on the ground of alleged careleo'
ness on the part of the defendant, by which the money vii'
lost. It was also stated that the tap room in which 05
the bar whence the money was stolen was not like as
ordinary tap room, but was frequented by very respectable
persons. As a circumstance on the part of the plaintill'e
case it was stated that at the period of the alleged robber,'
the defendant kept no banking account, but that shoal,'
afterwards, viz., on the 4,th of August, he opened a"
account with Jones, Lloyd, and Co., and paid in 100/.
Sir JAMES SCARLETT, for the defendant, submitted that
there was no case to go to the jury. There was no proof
of negligence; on the contrary, it appeared that the de-
fendant bad taken the same care of the money as he did of
his own, and that he was robbed of the whole at the same
time.

The SOLICITOR-GENERAL contended that there was
prima facie case, which called on the defendant fur as

answer.

11i3 LORDSHIP thought it was a question for the jury.
Sfr JAMES SCARLETT then addressed the jury, contend..
ing that the defendant, in being asked to take charge of
money, without remuneration, to pry a particular bill,
was nut required to take more care of it than of his own i
money ; and, therefore, if reasonable care were taken, as t
appeared in this case, the defendant was not liable to make
good the loss.

- His LORDSHIP, in his address to the jury, said it was
not enough for a man to say that he had taken the semi
care of his friend's money as of his own, and that that was
an answer to an action ; because a man might lose till
own and his friend's money when he was drunk, and that
would make him !fable. It was for the jury to say whether,
under all the circumstances, the defendant had taken ordi-
nary ca,e of the money.

The Jury, after a few minutes' consultation, returned a
verdict for the plaintiff for 321. 10s.

THE KING V. BOWMAN.

This was an indictment at the instance of Mr. William
Elton, a Blackwell-hall factor, charging the defendant,
Mr. Thomas Bowman, a merchant and underwriter in
Botolph- lane, with fraudulently obtaining 576 boxes of
or,inges and lemons, which had been consigned in 1829
by Abraham Bensoni, of St. Michael's, per the schooner
'William, Bartholomew Carlisle msster, to the pro•
ecutor.

Sir J. SCARLETT having stated the case to the Jury,
called the following witnesses
Mr. Bartholomew Carlisle said he was master of the
schooner William. In 1829 he sailed for St. Michael's,
under the orders of the defendant. He there received a
cargo from Mr. Bensoni (the bill of lading was put ;
that was signed by witness, and he lftit at St. Michael's,He signed three. One he had, and a third was in the
parcels of letters for Mr. Elton, as he believed. He left
St. Michael's in March.

The bill of lading was read. It was for a cargo of 576
boxes of oranges and lemons, and consigned to the prose-
cutor.

Witness continued—ln April he arrived in the port of
Loudon and brought his vessel to Cox's Quay. lie had
scarcely arrived there when the defendant cane on board
andcame into the cabin. Witness said the cargo was
consigned to Mr. W. Elton, and that he ha I got out of
St. Michael's th fore the other ves.el, the Speedy, which
had a cargo on board for the defendant. The defendant
s.tid he would take witness's citrgo for Mr. Elton, and
that tie was authoriz ty Mr. Elton to take the cargo.
Witness gave the packet of letters to Mr. Wood. who was
Mr. Bosvusan's partner. Mr. Wood went with witness
to enter the cargo as Mr. Bowman's broker and partner
as witness supposed.—(The entry produced.)—That was.
the entry witness signed at the Custom-house in Mr.
Wood's presence. The defendant was not there then.
Mr. Wood drew out the entry. The package of letters
was delivered to Mr. Wood to take to Mr. Elton. The