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

LONG-ACRE,

KALTF‘TANN and sITN, Tr, m Dresden. beg to announce
Vat the SECOND ;ItA STD NIUAE ;AL PEIVORIIANCE on their
new y invented Acoustical irismumnit•, on which they had the ho-
Lour of giving Two Concerts bntore her Majesty. at Buckingham
lalace, will take place THIS EVENING, June 30.
To min fleece at Eiebt o'clock p eel-el. •
Admits on :—Stalls, U,, reserved Seats. Cs. ; Upperrart of
Vs Hall, 2e. 6d., to be had at the 11 11, and of the principal 311131c-
-2e•lers.

RER MAJESTY'S THEATRE.
SOIREE: EXTRAORDINAIRE.
The Week's Performances will include the talents of Madame Son-
taq, Maine. Caroline Ouprez. Madame Florentint, Madame Giuliani,
Mane. Sofia Cruvellt, and Niadamis Ugal le ; Signori Gardmiii Cal-
So!art, Loblache, tilrtSgol, F. Lab ache, Colettt. Casmova,
Feapini, Lorenzo, Ferranti, ani Mr. Slims Reeves; Madlles. Ainalla
Ferraris, Marie Taaliiini, Caroline BOSMA, ALM. Charles, Elarick,
Goss:din, ant Paul Taglionl.

of the proceedings, which it bee taken many morehe
and the expenditure of several hundreds, 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. Csar, a soli-
citor representing the parties entitled to the money.
lu 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-
ment, 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. GAIT, in order to carry out
his fraud, subsequently forged the receipt of the
Accountant- General, an 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 for 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 any circumstances ; no matter
how satisfactory might be the reason assigned fur 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 chi que would not be liquidated without
an explanation as to the causes that led to the erasure
of the firm, or account to which the chug ue was first
croesei; and if that was satisfactory, as was almost inva-
riably the case, the cheque would then be paid. It also
came out in evidence that the cheque as crossed could
nut have been paid in to the credit of the Accountant-
General, it being the rule of the Bank of England to
teke 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
pstabishment. If Messrs. COUTTS and Co. 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 defendants even on this narrow ground
that they had exercised due and sufficient caution,
and were fully justified in paying the cheque,
t-ven if such a custom as that alleged
in the declaration 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 it
the custom was admitted, it would be contrary to the
statute law of the land, and would occasion innumerable
frauds on the revenue. As we have already
stated, a cteque cannot bea-nade payable to a particu
far person on his order. Sues a limitation requires
a stamp proportioned to the amount of the instru
ment, which 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 dudes 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 bad paid
more than six years since, but merely rest on legs
points that at once present themselves for oons
deration.