The Sun.
London, England, 1858-08-06 00:00:00

JONES V. CIIATAWAy.

Mr. Mellor, Q.C., and Mr. Wills were counsel for the
plaintiff; Mr. Macaulay, Q.C., and Mr. Field for the de-
fen lant.
This was an action on a bill of ee:chanee drawn by John
Bradhery and accepted by the defendant, and endorsed by
Bradbury to the plaintiff. The defence was that the signa-
ture was a forgery.
The plaintiff called some witnesses to prove that the
was that of tne defendant, but it turned out
that they had very little acquainaLca with her writing. A.
bill discounter named Eave', however, was called, who pro-
duced another bill fir £lOO, purporting to he accepted by
the defendant, which he swore had been signed in his pre-
sence at the shop of the defendant, who was the widow of a
respectable tradesman, and upon which he had been paid
£BO, by a transfer of a lien she bad upon s tale money of
13radbury's in the hands of an attorney at Coventry, and he
produced a document authorising the transfer which he
said had been given by her to him, after proceedings hail
taken on the bill. It was quite clear the aceep'ance
of the bill sued upon and of this bill were in time same
handwr:ting. It was else said that a bill undoubtedly
genuine, for £7O, which she had accepted for Bradbury's
accommodation, had been resisted up to the eve of trial on
similar grounds, and paid at last, with costs of suit.
Some similar evidence was given with respect to a payment
Of a £5O bill, also alleged by the defendant to be forged.
The defendant, on the other hand, swore that the bill she
hid accepted fir Bradbury, who collected rents for her,
was the only bill she had ever signed in her life, and that
she bad then taken a verbal lien frm Bradbury upon the
money at Coventry, by way of security. One stay Eaves
and Bradbury called upon her, and asked her if she would
let Eaves have her security upon that money, as he was
going to lend Bradbury some money to bring a Chancery
suit to a termination. Upon certain representations of
Bradbury she consented; but she had never on that or my
Occasion signed a bill or authorized him to do so. With re-
spect to the defence of the £7O bill she said that when it
became due she went to an attorney in Birmingham, whose
name we withhold fir obvious reasons, andwho owed her a
little money. Its questioned her about the matter, and said
he woad soon. pot it right for her. She swore she never
knew of or authorized any defence to the bill, but. on the
contrary, said it was hers and she would pay it, until she
was called upon to pay £39 taxed costs of suit, and £67
for her own costs, as well as the £7O, the whole proceeding
of the defence being the attorney's doing. As to the £5O
bill, she said that one day a Jew named Benjamin came
across from the opposite side of the street and said, "Here
is £5O for Bradbury; will you give it him when he calls ?"
After some demur she consented. Presently Bradbury came
over from the same place, and called far the money, which
he had. When sued upon the bill she went to the
same attorney, who said, " You must pay it ; the money
passed through your hands. I should not like to take it
into court," and she paid the £5O also. With regard to
Eaves's bill she swore that she never heard of it at all ;
that Eaves's call on her was before the bill produced
would have become due; and that all that passed was that
lie said he bad lent Bradbury £lO9, on her promise
about the security, and then she gave him the docu-
ment in question. The document, in fact, bore date the
29th of October, whereas the bill was not due till the Ist of
November. Bradbury had absconded before the 29th of Oc-
tober, and a warrant is out against him for forgery.
Mr. Macaulay, in his address to the jury, commented
strongly upon the dreadful web of fraud and iniquity which
had been woven by some one round this unhappy woman,
and called upon the jury to set her free from its meshes.
Mr. Mellor having addressed the jury in reply,
The learned Judge summed up with great care, and the
jury almost immediately returned a verdict for the defen-
dant.

The case did not conclude till past 9 o'clock.
AUGYST 4.
GOOLD T. DILL.
_

This was the last case of the assizes, and, although ex-
pected to be short, lasted kali 9 a.m. till halt past 4.
It was an action for the alleged breach of an agreement
to remove the "Sutton Grand Stand" from Sutton Cold-
field to Aston, close to Birmingham, on occasion of the
Queen's visit, at the opening of Aston-park, on the 15111 of
June last, whereby the plaintiff represented that he had
been deprived of very great profits. The question turned
upon the terms of the agreement, with reference to the pay-
ment of a sum of El% which the defendant alleged he was
to be paid by a certain time, as the condition of his pro-
ceeding with the work. After a great deal of evidence,
which was contradicory to an extraordinary extent, the
jury found a verdict tor the defendant.
Mr. Mellor, QC., and Mr. Field were for the plaintiff;
Mr. Macaulay, Q.C., and Mr. Wills for the defendant.