The Sun.
London, England, 1856-11-25 00:00:00

COURT OF COMMON PLEAS.

(Sittings in Banco.—Michaelmas Term.—Before L-rd
Chief Justice Cockburn, arid Justices Cresswell, Crow-
der, and Williams.)
MATHER V. LORD MAIDSTONE.

This was an action on a bill of exchange for 1,0001.,
to which the defendant pleaded that it was drawn for
the accommodation of the 11,,u. F. Villiers, and ac-
cepted by the defendant, of which the plaintiff had no-
tice ; that it was given to renew another similar bill for
1,0001. for three months which was due and payable,
and the defendant; believing that the bill so renewed
was one of two bills for a similar amount accepted by
bins, paid interest for the renewal and received no other
consideration ; and that the bill of exchange so renewed
was Tint either of the two bills before mentioned, but
was a f rged bill, and was not accepted by the del, nd-
ant. The Chief Baron told the jury that the action was
brought on a genuine acceptance of Lord Maidstone,
and the defence was that it had been given to take up a
forged bill, aad, although that would have been a good
defeat: on the forged bill, it was no defence on the bill
for whin,' the action was or•ught if the plaintiff were a
bona fide holder for value, and to make that out he must
make out that he was a bona fide holder of the forged
bili for value.

Mr. Edwin James, Q.C., Mr. Serjeant Ballantine, and
Mr. Holt were heard on Saturday to show cause against
a rule for a new trial, obtained on the ground of miadi•
rection, and that the verdict was against evidence ; and
Mr. M. Chambers, Q.C., and Mr. Lush were partly
heard i❑ support of the rule.
To-day Mr. Lush finished his argument.
The Chief Justice said ne was of opinion that this
rule should be discharged. In the first place, he ,was
of opinion that there was no misdirection on the
part of the learned judge. The plaintiff brought
hie action on a bill of exchange which the defend-
ant adruitted was accepted by him, but said there
was no consideration for it, but that it was given
to renew a bill which was a forgery. The plain-
tiff, admitting that this state of facts would
entitle the defendant to the judgment of the Court if
he could not answer them, said that be was a bona fide
holder of the forged bill, and that the defendant, instead
of declining to pay it on the ground of it being forged,
gave a fresh acceptance in lieu of it, whereby the plain-
tiff was deprived of his remedy by the delay caused
thereby, against the indorser of the forged .bill to him,
and he looked upon this as consideration giVen fur the
second bill, The plaintiff had raised the question whe•
ther he was a bona fide holder of the first bill, and that
question had been left to the jury. But it was said
that the onus of proving that the plaintiff was a bona
fide holder of the first bill ought to have been thrown on
the plaintiff, and not on the defendant. If it was shown
that an acceptance was tainted by illegality or fraud a
presumption that consideration was given for it no longer
arose ; and the learned judge was therefore right in
holding that the onus of proving consideration was
thrown from the defendant on to the plaintiff, and that
it was incumbent on him to prove that he was a bona
fide holder. He could not say also that the jury were
not perfectly warranted in the verdict they had found.
A man who is told that the acceptance on witch he
sues is a false one ought to come forward to give the
most complete explanation of the circumstances under
which he became possessed of it ; and if be left his ex-
planation incomplete or unsatisfactory, it was strong
presumpt on against him that he was not a bona fide
holder of the bill. Then, it was said that the plaintiff
was surprised is the evidence. There was no affidavit
of that. The application for a new trial was simply on
the ground that the verdict was against the evidence.
The application was not brought before the Court in
such a fotru that it could grant a new trial on the ground
of surprise, or on the ground of fresh evidence having
bee❑ found.

Mr. Justice Cresswell and Mr. Justice Crowder en-
tirely concurred in this opinion.
Rule enlarged.
IM THE MATTER OF THE MIDLAND AND GREAT NORTHERN