The Sun.
London, England, 1851-06-30 00:00:00

• t

of the proceedings, which it has taken many months
and the expenditure of several hundredi, perhaps we
should not be far wrong in stating, at least, one
thousand pounds sterling to arrive at, might have
been reached in a tithe of the time and less than a
tithe of the outlay. The facts themselves lay in a nut-
shell ; there was no dispute or difficulty with respect
thereto. The plaintiffs, who were trustees under a
marriage settlement, had been ordered to pay
a sum of money into court. They accordingly drew
a cheque in favour of Mr. E. B. GARY, a soli-
citor representing the parties entitled to the money.
Jo order to make assurance doubly sure, the gentle-
man who signed the cheque crossed it in the follow-
ing form :—" Bank of England, for the account of the
Accountant-General." The cheque thus crossed was
then handed to Mr. GARY, who erased the indorse-
went,
and substituting the name of his own bankers,
the highly-respectable firm of GOSLINGS and Co., paid
it in to his general account. It was subsequently pre-
sented in due course, and honoured by Messrs.
COUTTS and Co, Mr. GARY, in order to carry out
his fraud, subsequently forged the receipt of the
Accountant- General, en offence for which he was
tried and convicted. The account of the plaintiffs
was some time afterwards closed at the defendants,
but it was not until last week, six years after the
cheque had been drawn and cashed, that the case came
on fur trial.

The point at issue depended upon the recognised
custom of bankers, and on this the evidence was of
the most conflicting and contradictory character.
The representatives of many eminent establishments
were brought forward, and scarcely any two agreed
as to the manner in which they would have acted in
such a case. Some would reject a cheque
doubly crossed under tsuy circutustanCes mo matter
how satisfactory might be the reason assigned for the
change, they would not recognise or honour the order
of their customer. Others interpreted the principle
more liberally. Looking to the objects for which
the cheque system was originally instituted, the vast
advantages thereby conferred on the commercial com-
munity, and the legislative recognition thereof to a
certain extent only, it being essential that it should be
payable to bearer, that it should bear date on the day
of issue, and be drawn within a certain distance
—fifteen miles—of the place where it was
drawn,—they felt that all the efficacy which they
would give to the system of crossing—a practice that
has recently sprung up—was to require that the order
should be paid through some respectable banking
firm, which would afford a powerful guarantee against
any fraud, or the instrument being paid to any person
—whether a casual finder, a robber, or a pickpocket
—other than the original payee. The great ma-
jority, however, advocated an intermediate course,
viz., that the cheque would not be liquidated without
an explanation as to the causes that led to the erasure
of the firm, or account to which the cheque was first
crossed; and if that was satisfactory, as was almost inva
riably the case, the cheque would then be paid. Ic also
came out in evidence that the cheque as crossed could
not have been paid in to the credit of the Accountant-
General, it being the rule of the Blank of England to
take for that account nothing but cash, or its equi
valent, which is interpreted to be a cheque on the
Bank of England itself, and not on any other
establishment. if Messrs. COUTTS and Cu. then
adopted the rule of requiring explanation, it could
not be asserted that it was not a fair and adequate one
to say that it was paid by the original payee, Mr.
GARY, into the hands of his own bankers, in order that
he might obtain cash to pay into the Bank of England,
where that cheque would not be received. The first
crossing being invalid, sufficiently accounted for the
second, and if that were in favour of a respectable
firm, we cannot conceive what more could be
required by the most stringent rules. There
should therefore, we submit, have been a verdict in
favour of the defeudamts even on this narrow ground,
that they had exercised due and sufficient caution,
and were fully justified in paying the cheque,
even if such a ,eustom as that alleged
in the declaratr had been clearly estab-
lished. And, secondly, because there was no suffi-
cient evidence of such custom, the testimony as to
the contradictory practices of the Most eminent firms,
showing that there was no general custom of mer-
chants on the point.

But, thirdly, and on a broader principle, the de-
cision should have been for the defendants, because if
the custom was admitted, it would be contrary to the
statute law of the land, and would occasion innumerable
!rands on the revenue. As we have already
stated, a cheque cannot be made payable to a particu-
lar person on his order. Such a limitation requires
a stamp proportioned to the amount of the instru
ment, whici then would be not a cheque, but a bill
of exchange. The cheque must be payable to
bearer, and if the additional security or insur-
ance be required, it must be paid for by the bill-
stamp. That was not done, and practically the
attempt to limit the payment to a particular account
was neither more nor less than a fraud upon
the stamp-laws—an attempt to evade the payment
of certain duties imposed by the Imperial Par-
liament for the support of the national estab-
lishment. On these three distinct grounds, then, we
contend that the defendants should have succeeded.
We say nothing of the hardship of endeavouring to
make them responsible for a sum that they had paid
more than six years since, but merely rest on legal
points that at once present themselves for consi-
deration.

THE FRENCH REPUBLIC.

We have received the Paris journals of Saturday
and of yesterday.
The motion of M. ST. BEUVE for the substitution
of a system of free trade for the present protective
commercial system of France was rejected by a ma-
jority of 428 to 199. M. THIERS opposed the mea-
sure in a speech in which be contended not merely
for protection, but for prohibition, and fur protection
tor one portion of the industry of a country against
another. The principles and arguments of M. TuiEns,
if logically carried to their legitimate conclusion,
wou d lead to Socialism—that is to say, to direct
Governmental interference in commercial affairs.
The Organization du Travail of M. Louis BLANC
is merely the corollary of the propositions laid down
by M. nitwits.
The Presse has the following excellent comment on
the speech of M. TIIIERS:--
" M. Thiera admitted that the work of Sir R. Peel
was cympe,ed of two parts: one aplied in Franco by
the revolution of 1789, the other, the revision of the
customs system, which will, he said, be fatal to England,
and which would be detestable fur France, if war was to
burst out. You did not then. Sir, understand what glory
Sir It. Peel obtained without disturbance for his coue-
try—a reform, which yours purchased by a sanguinary
revolution. That has not caused you to tear that the
sec Ind of Sir R. Peel's reforms might, if refused amongst
us, be obtained again by a canvul.iun. You spoke of
our superiority in all kinds of manufacture; you spike
of the relative cost, ot articles in the two countries, but
you never asked yourselt what is .he reason ot the differ-
ence of the pr ice of fabrication in a cauntry where
labour is so cheap. The reason is to be found in the
system of protection, in the absence of foreign
compe.ition. You declared that almost always toe
English had applied before us the discoveries made
in our country, but you did not point out the c. use.
That was caused by protection, which renders use-
less to the manufacturers all the efforts made by science,
encourages idleness, and arrests their progress. You
,aid that the duty on cattle protected the French breeders.
You may ask Alsace, ask the south of France which are
without cattle and manure what they think of the mono-
poly accorded to the breeders of Normandy. You stated
that our merchant shipping would notlgain anything
troll] free trade. Ask our seaports, which call for it so
loudly. You declared that our means of transport aug-
ment so greatly the price of our raw material, that tree
trade is impossible. Ask centralization, of which you
are one of the defenders; oak the directing Government, so
toll of annoying acts, of which you are oee of the cham-
pions; ask armed peace, of which you are one of the adepts,
what the resources of our rich country become. Ask, mud
you will learn why France has neither railways nor
canals. Ah ! sophist, you aim at eloquent lanausge,
YOU affirm that Providence has given silk to China,
b rain, the hard working central
ming given
cotton to India, sugar to the Antilles, iron to Swedt-n,
coal to England, and that these things were so given
ai
at central Europe might disinherit them, Providence
muscle. Europe
Amlaln'so*pihhistriyni India
elligent
has had her
men, China her men, Greece her men,
Egypt her wen, Spain her men. All these coun-
tries have pitaa.d away, because having arrived
at the first rank of industry and civilization
they
distrusted other nations; because
they placed round
their riches and their lab,ur isolation and pro-
tection, and they died of idleness and inertness on
their accumulated treasures. In our time, mat, is in
England and in America, because England and America
have no dread of war; be cause they put trust in liberty.
But do you not see that, with your arguments, it would
be necessary to build round France a wail ot China, and
that to the 500,000 soldiers, the ruinous tradition of the
Emperor's time, should be added 500,000 Custom-louse
officers? You said that a commercial midis would inun-
date France with manufactured produce, as kgrauce in.