The Sun.
London, England, 1833-11-25 00:00:00

it, he should mot have advised as he had done: Mr•
Sergeant ANDREWS proceeded to state, that he could show
that the mortgage had been stated in the instructions to
Counsel, and he also relied upon the impression made on
'he minds of the Jury by the frequent allusion, by Mr.
Sergeant Jones, to the circumstance of the plaintiff being
an attorney. He further relied upon the attempt made on
the trial by the defendant to prove a tender to the plaintiff
of M., on the foot of the now disputed bill of costs, as a
recognition of an existing claim. He also had an affidavit
of some observations by the Jury which were overheard.
One of the Jury remirked, immediately on the case
elos4lg, that they must find for the defendant,
while another Juryman, after the verdict was recorded,
said, " That verdict is wrong, and the plaintiff must
apply for a new trial."
The CHIEF JUSTICE-Take a rule to show cause.

This being the last day of Michaelmas Term, the
Court wis subsequently occupied, till our reporter left, in
disposing of motions possessing nothing of public interest.

COURT OF EXCHEQUER.-(THIS DAY.)

J UDGINIENT.IIA YNES V. FOSTER.

This is one of the cases arising out of the bankruptcy
of Wood and Poole, late bill brokers in the City. There
has been a great many from the same cause, in all of
which there has been two trials, and altogether they have
for the last eighteen months occupied much of the time
and attention of this Court. To the merchants, indeed
the whole commercial community of London, the follow.
ing decision is of much importance, as it shows that a
practice acted upon every day is illegal.
The Loan CNIEF BARON said Wood and Poole had
carried on business as bill brokers in the City. The
plaintiffs put into their bands a number of bills for the
purpose of discount. Wood and Poole had been in the
constant practice of taking a quantity of bills to the de-
fendants, and receiving advances—not for regular discount,
but merely, as it were, pledging the bills for a certain
amount. Upon a Friday, they having upwards of sixty
bills i❑ their possession, and being pressed for money,
I went in the afternoon to the defendant's with the bill-,
amounting to over 6,0001., at the same time receiving
upon them an advance of 3,0001., which they paid into
their bankers, and used for the purposes of their business,
not paying it to the owners of the bills in their respective
shares, but using it indiscriminately. On the Saturday
Wood applied for, and obtained the bills back, for the
purpose of taking a correct account of them, which he
had not been able to do on the previous day,
on account of the pressure of business. In the
afternoon they were seen in the possession of
Wood and Poole, by various customers, on the Saturday.
According to the evidence, the bills were returned in the
afternoon of Saturday, with the exception of one or two,
which were replaced by others. It was also proved that,
at the time of the pledging of the bills, Wood and Poole
were a considerable sum in arrear with the defendants.
The Court were now of opinion that a bill-broker had no
authority to mix the bills he received from one customer,
with those he received from another, fur the purpose of
pledging them, in the manner in which they had been
done in this case. The effect of such a thing being
clearly that the good bills of one customer would be put in,
in order to insure an advance upon others that were con-
sidered not so safe—making the owners of them answerable
for the risks of another, which it was perfectly clear they
never intended should be the case when they left the bills
with the broker. That being the case, the question then
was, how that rule affected the defendants in the present
case. It was shown at the trial that the defendants were
perfectly aware of the character in which Wood and Poole
stood—in fact it was the defendants who had set them up
in the business of bill brokering, therefore they were well
aware that the bills they took of W. and P. on the Friday
were not their property, but had been confided to them
by trusting parties for the purpose of discount. In such
circumstances it was their duty to have made strict
enquiries as to the nature of the transaction before they
parted with their money. The Court were of opinion
that the defendants had not used due c iution, and that,
therefore, the verdict (which was for the plaintiffs) should
not be disturbed.

The rule for anew trial was therefore discharged.

TO THE EDITOR OF THE SUN.
44, Chancery-lane, London, Nov. 23, 1833.
have read in the public papers the letters ad.
dressed to me in Ireland, the proceedings at a public
meeting in Dublin, and the comments on my speech to the
Electors of Hull. If any Member of Parliament addresses
to me a private letter on the subject, I consider him en-
titled to an immedi rte reply, nod he will receive fr• to
an explicit answer whether he is or not the individual
I releired to on that occasion.
I am, Sir, your obedient servant,
M. D. HILL.