The Sun.
London, England, 1851-06-27 00:00:00

SAILINGS.

June 24. Stella cutter, R. Frankland, Esq., for Cher-
bourg; Merlin schooner, Colonel Markham, for Channel
Islands.

26. Brilliant schooner, G. H. Ackers, EN., for Cork.
YACHTS AT AND ABOUT THE STATION.

Alarm, Drift, Wizard. Elizabeth, Osprey, Gauntlet,
Lavrock, Turquoise, Aurora, Arrow, Gondola, Spider,
Maritana, Osprey, Nautilus, Ripple, Plover, Titania,
Magician, Leda, La,elia, Water Lily.
PUBLIC HEALTH.

The new boundary for the town of East Cowes was
arranged by Mr. Ranger yesterday; it originally took in
the whole parish of W hippingham, including the royal
grounds and part of the town of Newport; now it ex-
tends only to Spring-hill and part of East Cowes Park,
leaving out Norris Castle and grounds, Osborne Palace
and grounds, Osborne Villa, and the Prince of Wales's
Inn. East Cowes is to be tacked on to West Cowes for
the purposes of this Act, and there is to be only one body
of commissioners for the two towns; this is said to be
done to save the expenses of two clerks, two surveyors,
&c. &c., but it is doubtful how this complicated machi-
nery will work. If with the Public Health Act the inha-
bitants of the two towns had also the government of
their harbour in their own hands, now in the hands of
the inhabitants of Newport (an inland town at five miles
distance), they would, we have no doubt, contrive to
throw a bridge over the Medina and join the towns; but
having inland folks to govern seaports is like having
landsmen, who know nothing of the sea or the navy, to
govern the navy; and it is something like making judges
of our captains and admirals; they might think them-
selves sound lawyers for the sake of the salaries, but we
guess would make as queer work of it as some folks do of
ship-building.

LAW INTELLIGENCE.
COURT OF EXCHEQUER, June 26.
;Sittings at Nisi Prius, before Mr. Baron MARTIN and a

Special Jury.)

BELLAMY AND ANOTHER V. MAJORIBANKS AND OTHERS.

The Attorney-General, Mr. Knowles, and Mr. Un-
thank were counsel for the plaintiffs; Sir F. Thesiger,
Mr. Sergeant Channell, and Sir John BAyley appeared
for the defendants, who aro the well-known banking
firm of Coutts and Co.

This was an action of a most important character,
and possessed of great interest to the commercial world
at large, as well as to the banking circles. The decla-
ration of the plaintiffs alleged that they, having drawn
a cheque on the defendants in favour of one Gary or
bearer, for 2,596/. 175., according to the custom and
usage of bankers, crossed it to " the Bank of England, to
the account of the Accountant-General," whereupon,
according to such custom and usage, it became and was
the duty of the defendants, as the hankers of the plain-
tiffs, not to payisuch cheque except into and through the
hands of the Bank of England. Besides this special
count there was another on which no questio❑ turned,
and the usual money counts. To the first special count
the defendants pleaded that there was no such custom
and usage of bankers as alleged therein, and payment to
the money counts. These being the issues joined between
these parties, the facts out of which the action arose
may be briefly stated. The plaintiffs, who are both pro-
fessional men, are the trustees of the settlement entered
into on the marriage of the Rev. Mr. Franks, who died,
leaving issue, in 1834, after a commission of lunacy hid
been issued against him. Under the settlement the younger
children were entitled to the benefit of certain policies
effected on their father's life to the extent of nearly
11,000/., which sum was not realised by the trustees till
1843, when proceedings arose in Chancery, wherein Mr.
Gary, an apparently respectable solicitor, represented
the younger branches of the family. In the course of
June, 1845, it became necessary for the trustees under
an order to pay the sum or 2,596/. 17s. in the cause into
the hands of the Accountant-General, and Mr. Gary ac-
cordingly drew the following cheque, which he sent to
the plaintiffs, who had on the 21st of June opened an
account at the defendants':—

" London, Jun© 25, 1845.

" Messrs. Coutts and Co.—Please to pay Edward
Bryant Gary or bearer two thousand five hundred and
ninety-six pounds seventeen shillings."
The plaintiffs being desirous of insuring the cheque
from mistake, Mr. Bellamy added the words " General
unpaid costs account" to the body, and both having
signed the cheque, Mr. Bellamy crossed it !hus:—
" Bank of England.
"For the account of
"The Accountant-General."

This done, it was handed over to Mr. Gary, who erased
the crossing, and added the names of " Goslings and
C 0.," with whom he had a "respectable account," and
paid it into his account there. In the usual course the
cheque was paid by Coutts and Co., and for some time
it was supposed that "it was all right," but Mr. Gary,
on being pressed for the Accountant-General's certifi-
cate for the payment, was driven to forge it, and being
discovered was tried and convicted fir that offence.
The plaintiffs' account was afterwards closed at the de-
fendants', but no question would seem to have arisen
touching the payment of the cheque till a recent period,
when in 1850 this action was brought.
Mr. KNOWLES having opened the case, in the absence
of the Attorney-General, the following witnesses were
examined in support of the plaintiff's case. With re-
gard to the alleged custom
Mr. Srange, a cashier in Gosling's bank, proved the
fact that Mr. Straughan, now dead, presented this and a
smaller cheque, drawn in favour of Gary by the plain-
tiffs, for his own costs, to the defendants. He said they
were paid into our bank by Gary. I saw no difficulty
about this cheque. I have made payments to Accountant-
General present at Bank, and have always paid cash
with a memorandum of the suit. I saw no difficulty in it,
and did not consult my principals.
Re-examined—l consult them sometimes when I pay
double crossed cheques. Some are paid and some are
refused, according to the account the parties give. This
explains itself. I frequently get such cheques. When
the parties are respectable we pay without hesitation.
Cross-examined again—l should not have paid this,
as it is so large a sum, without inquiry.
Mr. Bevan, of the firm of Barclay, Bevan, and Co.—l
have been connected with that bank twenty years. The
rule for the clerk is to refuse double crossed cheques, and
never to pay to without reference to the partners. The
rule is stronger in the case of a large cheque like this. I
consider the first crossing is a special one.
Cross-examined by Mr. Sergeant CUANNELL—We
had an account with the Bank of England. Payments
to the Accountant-General are always made in cash; but
our own cheques would be received. I don't know the
process of payment. I always understood the rule to be

general.
Mr. Tap, chief clerk of the London and Westminster
Bank since its commencement—The custom of the Lon-
don banks is to refuse double crossed cheques. We in-
variably refuse them, even when presented by bankers.
Cross-examined—There are cases in which the cashier
will consult the principal.
Mr. KIRBY—I certainly should not have paid this
cheque without inquiry.
Cross-examined—If it had been explained that Gary
banked at Goslings' I should say the cheque would have '
been paid. Since this action our attention has been
drawn to the subject of crossed cheques. Before we
should have paid crossed cheques if they came through
any bankers.
Mr. B2utham, of the London Joint Stock Bank, stated
that the custom of bankers was nut to pay double crossed
cheques. Such is our custom.
Cross-examined—There arc cases in which reference
is made to the manager, but I don't remember any in
which payment was made.
Re-examined—We have received such cheques, and
taken our chance of payment. Some have been paid,
and others not.
Mr. Marshall, chief cashier to the Bank of England—
Our clerks are always directed to throw double crossed
cheques out of the charge of any bankers, and to refer
them to the principal of that office, who requires expla-
nation of the circumstances under which the double cross-
ing has taken place. Some are paid after explanation,
and I should say that, judging from the few cases of
reference to me, the explanation is goncrally sufficient.
I never knew of a cheque being doubly crossed where
the tirst crossing was a special one. The Bank would
iu such a case exercise special caution. The account
of the Accountant-General is limited to cash or its equi-