The Sun.
London, England, 1833-12-18 00:00:00

COURT OF EXCHEQUER, DEC. 16 17 AND

(Before Lord LYNnnunsT and a Special Jury.)
STEPHENS V. FOSTER.

This was an action of trover to recover the value
of five bills of exchange, drawn by Groucock, Cope-
stake, and Moore, on various persons at three
months, amounting in the whole to 2461. 175., which
were deposited by the plaintiff, a bill-broker, in the
hands of Messrs. Wood and Poole, bill-brokers,
some days previous to the 19th of November, 1831,
for the purpose of their procuring them to be dis-
counted. Wood and Poole were at the time consi-
derably indebted to the defendants, and to secure as
well that debt as a further advance made on the 19th
of November, 1831, they deposited these bills, with
a large quantity of other bills, in the hands of the
defendants. This deposit was not made until the
affairs of Wood and Poole were desperate, and
when they well knew that they must become bank-
rupt. It was not in the regular course of business,
but a fraud upon the plaintiff. No less than four
actions between the defendants and different parties
had been tried upon the same transaction, and it
was held in the last action, which was " Kaynes v.
Foster," by the Court of Exchequer, that a bill-
broker receiving bills for the purpose of being dis-
counted has no authority to pledge them. This was
done in the present case, and therefore the de-
fendants had no right to retain the bills. It would
also appear in the course of the evidence, that the
defendants, who had had many transactions with
Wood and Poole, and who had advanced money to
Wood and set him up in business, must have been
well acquainted with the state of the affairs of those
gentlemen, and well knew that the bills so deposited
with them were not the property of Wood and
Poole, but the property of their customers, who

. .
were not likely to receive anything for them.
After Mr. Sergeant WILDE had addressed the
Jury at some length, the following, among other
witnesses were called:—

Mr. Robarts, the banker—Had very considerable

transactions with bill brokers. It was every day's
practice for them to come and ask for advance of
money, upon the deposit of bills. He would regu-
late his conduct from his opinion of the applicant.
With good characters, he would deal without mi-
nutely inspecting the bills. He never inquired
whether they were owners of the bills, nor in what
light they came. He had advanced 100,0001. on a

lot of bills_together. He never inquired how the
money was to be applied. These transactions oc-
curred at all hours of the day; sometimes just be-
fore five o'clock. He believed that was the general
practice of bankers.

Cross-examined—He' should not make any diffe-
rence, if he had known the bill was left with the
broker to be discounted.
By the JUDGE—It was his custom to advance
money, in one sum, upon several bills of different
persons.

Mr. G. C. Glyn—Was in the habit of advancing
money to bill brokers. They lodged bills rather
beyond the amount of the loan. Witness advanced
upon a lot of bills. He never made any appropria-
tion. A bill broker must know that this was the
usage. Ile never asked a question as to the title of
the holder.
Mr. W. G. Prescott—Makes advances to bill
brokers. It is according to the course of business,
to advance on a lot of bills. Made no inquiry of
the broker•, when satisfied of their bills. This is

the known course of the city of London. The plain-
tiff has had advances, in witness's presence, upon
the security of bills. No inquiry was made of him.
He is an extensive bill broker.

Cross-examined—Knew nothing of bill-brokers'
ransactions excepting as between them and himself

as a banker. A bill•broker acting with bills is a
dealer in money, and the person who give the bills
are his creditors, unless he returns the bills. If

bill-brokers pledge or discount, they do what is
regular. They do not object to a trustworthy
broker to take the bill again. Never gave bill-
brokers their securities to keep in an envelope.
William Lawrence, chief clerk, Discount-office,
Bank of England.—They took bills as collateral
securities for brokers; knowing they had received
them for discount, they would not object to lend
upon them. They never made inquiries.
Cross-examined—The Bank of England never
allow securities to be out of their possession.
Mr. Kensington, a broker, formerly a banker,
used to make advances to bill•brokers upon large
quantities of bills brought at the same time. If he
knew them to he for the purpose of discount, he
would still make advances. It was the general

practice to trust the bills to the bill-brokers again
to get discounted, and to be replaced by others, or
to be returned. Should have trusted a broker with
whom he had an account.

George Frederick Butt, dealer in bullion—Would
advance on a lot of bills, arid never made inquiries
which were the broker's and which were left with
him for discount.

The Jury after evidence had been adduced gave
a verdict for the defendant.

PREROGATIVE COURT, DEc. 17.

(Before Sir JOHN NICHOLL.)
BOSANQUET V. GORING.
This was a suit commenced to try the validity of
a codicil to the last will of Susannah Curtis, de-
ceased, promoted by the Treasurer of the Asylum
for the Indigent Blind, which Society had been
largely benefitted by the last will of Mrs. Curtis.
The deceased died worth personal property to the
extent of between 14,000/. and 15,000/. ; and after
the payment of a few legacies she directed the re-
sidue by the will to be paid over to the Treasurer
on behalf of the Society. The codicil, dated the
27th of October, 1832, made a material alteration,
as it revoked the appointment of a Mr. Morant as
executor, appointed Mr. Goring, her solicitor, in his
stead, and gave him and Mr. Green 3,000/. each,
the residue going to the Asylum for the Blind.
The deceased died at an advanced age, and the
codicil was opposed by the Treasurer of the Asy-
-1 um, who is an executor under the will of the de-
ceased, on the ground that the deceased did not
know what she had signed when she executed the
paper, she being ill, and having died two days after-
wards.

Dr. LUSIIINGTON, on behalf of Mr. Goring, con-
tended that as the deceased was of perfect capacity
when the codicil was executed the Court must pro-
nounce for it.
The KING'S ADVOCATE, on behalf of Mr. Bosan-
quet, the Treasurer of the School for the It digent
Blind, said there had been a failure of proof to show
that the deceased knew the contents of the codicil,
and he should press the Court to pronounce against
it, and to condemn the party propounding it in costs.
Dr. ADDAMS will be heard o❑ the same side next
Court day.

THE LAW.—The Cheltenham Journal re-
ports a police case, in which Vincent Snooks was corn•
witted for one month for selling " inflammatory matches.'

INSOLVENT DEBTORS) COURT, DEC. 17,

The Rev. E. Martin, late Master of Durham
House Academy, Chelsea, was opposed by Miss
Zouch, whose name has been frequently before the
public, and by Mr. Strange, a baker.
Mr. Strange said he had trusted the insolvent
with bread to the amount of 221., in consequence of
his representation that he had 6004 a year from
Lord Lonsdale.

The insolvent said, he had only stated that his
Lordship Vcould probably lend him 500/. or 600/.
Miss Zouch, on stepping into the box, was told
by Mr. WOODROFFE that her claim was " all ima•
gination ;" but she haughtily denied this. She then
stated that the insolvent was married to a sister of
hers, who, as well as herself, had a fortune of
7201. at the death of their father, Richard Zouch,
Esq., of Dublin. Another sister, who also had
720/., died, and bequeathed her money in equal
shares to the insolvent's wife and a younger sister,
Augusta. She now wished to know what had be-
come of the younger sister's portion ; and she also
claimed for her father's picture and other valuable
articles, with which she had intrusted the insolvent.
The insolvent said the 360/. had been expended
on the child, who had been more than ten years
under the care of his wife. Lord Lonsdale had,
however, settled 50/. a year on the child. With
respect to the papers, they had, he feared, been de-
stroyed by fire at Bristol, during the riots. He
added, that he had been reduced to poverty in con-
sequence of giving his acceptance for 400/. to a
person named Richardson, and being obliged to
take up two bills for WU each, which Minter
Hart got from him, without giving him any conside-
ration for them.

The COURT ruled that Miss Zouch was no credi-
tor, and as to the papers, they, if they were found,
must be given up to her assignees, who had been
appointed when she took the benefit of the Act.

Miss 'Louth—That is precisely my object.
It further appeared that the insolvent had made a
defence to an action brought by Mr. Lambrooke, a
coal merchant, for .5/., whereby costs to the amount
of 281. were incurred.

The COURT adjudged him to three months im
prisonment for a vexatious defence.

The insolvent said that he was on a sick bed at
he time, and incapable of giving directions to his

attorney.