The Sun.
London, England, 1858-01-19 00:00:00

COURT OF OF EXCHEQUER.

(Sittings in Banco, before the Lord Chief Baron
and Barons Martin, Watson, and Channell.)
CARTER AND ANOTHER V. HUGHES-HER MAJESTY'S

THEATRE.

This action was brought by the plaintiffs, John
Carter and Alexander Angus Croll, to recover
1151. ss. 6d., alleged to be due by the defendant,
William St.muel Price Hughes, to thew as sheriffs
of Middlesex, for poundage on two writs of eleget,
for 6,0031. 10s., and 1,4111. respectively. The cause
was tried at the Surrey assizes, in the summer of
1856, before Mr. Justice Erle, when a verdict was
taken for the plaintiffs subject to the opinion of this
Court on a special case. It appeared that the pre-
sent defendant had in August, October, and Nov.,
1852, recovered judgments against Mr. Benjamin
Lumley, the lessee of her Majesty's Theatre, and
sued out three distinct wri ts of eleget for 1,1431. 103.,
6,0031. 10s. and 1,4111. With respect to the two
last writs of eleget, the plaintiffs made a return
that they were unable to deliver the lands and te-
nements mentioned therein to Mr. Hughes, by
reason of their having already delivered them to
him under the first writ, but this return was sub-
sequently altered at Mr. Hughes's request, by in-
serting the statement that the plaintiffs had caused
the same to be delivered to him by a reasonable
price, subject to the interest of himself and other
eleget creditors. The poundage on the first writ
was duly paid, and the question now for the opi-
nion of this Court was, whether the plaintiffs were
entitled to poundage with respect to the secmd and
third writs.

Mr. Honyman argued the case for the plaintiffs,
and Mr. Lloyd for the defendant.

The Lord Chief Baron said the Court were una-
nimously of opinion that the sheriffs were not en-
titled to poundage on the second and third elegets,
for there was nothing which the law recognised as
an interest left in the debtor after the execution of
the first eleget. They had handed over nothing to
defendant, and they had therefore no claim for
poundage.
Barons Martin, Watson, and Channell concurred.
Judgment for the defendant.
THE PRINCESS ROYAL'S MARRIAGE.

An application having been made by Mr. Bovill
to their lordships to take a particular case on Mon-
day, the 25h instant,

The Lord Chief Baron said—We cannot say we
will take that or any other case on that day, as the
Court will not sit. I understand that the Lord
Chancellor has intimated that he will close the
equity courts on that day, and I think the courts
of law ought to follow the example.
Mr. Baron Martin—l understand that Lord
Campbell has decided on sitting, having satisfied
himself that there is no precedent for closing the
courts on such occasions. We shall lose four days
of the term if we do not sit on Monday, as Thurs
day and Friday are devoted to error, and on Satur-
day we shall be called upon to make up a criminal
court.

The Lord Chief Baron—This Court will not sit.
There is a maxim of the law—"Equitas sequitur
legem." I think we ought to invert that maxim
on this auspicious occasion, and follow equity.
(Sittings at Nisi Prins, at Guildhall, before Mr.
Baron Bramwell and Common Juriei.)

SMALL ♦ND OTHERS V. JOHNSON-...81LLS OF E.X-

CHANGE.

This was an action brought upon two bills of ex-
change for 4531.135. 3d. and 3961. 124. 6d. by the
plaintiffs, as endorsees, against the defendant as
r the acceptor.i The bills were alleged to have been
drawn by Messrs. Taylor and Bright upon, and ac-
cepted by, the defendant, endorsed by the drawers
to the Hull Flax and Cotton Mills Company, and
by them to the plaintiffs, Messrs. Smith and Co.,
the bankers at Hull. The defendant denied the
endorsement of the bills by Bright and Taylor to
the Flax Company, and byline latter to the plain-
tiffs. The pleas then further alleged that the bills
had been obtained by Bright and Taylor from the
defendant by fraud, and without consideration ;
that they had been endorsed by them to the com-
pany without consideration ; and that the plaintiffs
had taken the bills, well knowing the facts, with-
out consideration.

Mr. Edward James and Mr. Cross were counsel
for the plaintiffs ; Mr. Lush and Mr. Mereweather
represented the defendants.

It appeared from the opening statement that the
plaintiffs were bankers at Hull. The bills were
drawn by Messrs. Taylor and Bright, the latter of
whom was convicted of forgery, and was now un-
dergoing imprisonment for the offence. At the
period when the bills were dated—June, 1857—
Bright was chairman of the Board of Directors of
the Hull Flax and Cotton Mills Company. The
bills in question were endorsed by Bright to the
company, and they were then endorsed by him, as
its chairman, and by a Mr. Whittaker. to the plain-
tiff; then bankers. It would be proved that the
plaintiffs had given consideration for the bills,
which they had received in the ordinary course of
business. They did not dispute the fact that the
plaintiffs might have been swindled out of the bills
by Bright, but denied that they had any knowledge
of the circumstances.

Mr. Cook, the plaintiffs' cashier, was called, and
proved that the bills in question had been paid into
their bank on the 30th of June, by the cashier
of the Hull Flax and Cotton Mills Company,
together with other bills, amounting in all to
1,232/. 3d. Bills endorsed by the plaintiff.,
amounting to 1,2261„ were given the same day in
exchange. The company were at that time indebted
to the plaintiffs. Toe company were credited with
1,2321., and debited 1,2261.
Cross-examined—They had an account with Mr.
Bright ; also Bright was the chairman of the com-
pany, of which they had been the bankers ever since
its formation. The Ella given to the company's
cashier were bills received by the plaintiffs in the
course of business. The reason they gave them was.
that the cotton brokers required bills endorsed by a
banker. Those bills had since been paid. Mr.
Bright managed the financial affairs of the com-
pany, and Whittaker was deputy-chairman. The
bills bought by Bright were not acdommodaton
bills. Bright carried on business as Taylor and Co.
Mr. Lush, in addressing the jury for the defence,
said th t if their verdict depended upon the fict
that the defendant had been swindled out cf the
bills, he would be entitled. He was not in 6usi-
ness, and be bad been induced by Mr. Bright, who
was a shareholder and director in several under-
takings, to give him bills for the purpose of per
chasing shares for him. Bright, however, had con-
verted thern to his own use, and never gave John •
son any shares, or any other consideration for them.
Johnson had reason to believe that Bright had been
dealing largely in accommodation bills, and that
the bills in question had been given to replace some
Such billshelddby the plaintiffs. After hearing the
evidence of the plaintiffs' cashier, he could not deny
that they had
given consideration for the bill&
H4e, • musts the rest the ease entirely
third plea,
had not endorsed the
Ala b.
on the, 'namely,that the company
to the plaintiffs, and
in support of that he should Show that, under

SUN, LONDON, TUESDAY E

the Joint-Stock Companies' Act, companies were
bound to register their resolutions, and that no
person could draw, accept, or endorse bills or notes
without a resolution being passed expressly invest-
ing such persons with these powers. He would
show that by a certain resolution of the company,
passed in March, 1856, in consequence of that act,
all previous resolutions of the company were re-
scinded, and since that period no resolution had
keen passed giving the requisite authority to any
pe.rson to draw, accept, or endorse bills, notes, or
the ques. Under these circumstances Bright and
WhAittaker had no authority to endorse these bills
to tho plaintiffs, and they were still the real holders
of the notes. The plaintiffs therefore could not
mairaain the present action.

The books of the company were then produced,
and proved the statement of the learned counsel.
Mr. Kiward James then applied to his lordship
to strike out the endorsement, as the plaintiffs were
the bona fi:qe holders and purchasers of the bills for
value.

Mr. Baron. Bramwell said he did not like to decide
the question there. It was an entirely new point,
and he should prefer the case being taken to
the court above.. He would just give his present
opinion, though. a very vague one, so that the per-
son who felt himself aggrieved might take his case
further. The point might be raised that, the
company's bills having been always endorsed
in a similar manner to those in question,
the public were at liberty to consider that
sufficient evidence of authority. He, however,
did not think that, under the stringent won's
of the act, was sufficient evidence of authority,
and he should therefore direct a verdict
for the defendant upon the second and fourth
issues, and for the plaintiffs on the others, with
leave to the plaintiffs to move the Court above upon
the questions of the authority to endorse and their
power to amend the declaration by striking out the
endorsement.
Verdict accordingly.

VW NXNG, JANUARY 19, 'ESN ,

manent duty at Newry, having sent Sergeant Dale
to desire that the magistrate would take steps to
recover from a pawnbroker in the metropolis, a
Crimean medal belonging to Joseph Sealey, late of
the 24th Itegiment of Foot, but now enlisted into
the aforesaid regiment of militia. The ticket was
dated Nov. 2, 1857, and on sending for Mr. Mel-
buish, the pawnbroker, he stated he would abide
by the magistrate's opinion, tho ugh he thought him-
self entitled to detain the medal, as Sealey had ori-
ginally pledged themedal with him about 14 months
ago, after his discharge from the 44th (which dis-
charge he then presented), and previously to join-
ing the militia. It was then frequently redeemed
and pledged up to November 2, 1857, on which
day Sealey marched to Newry.
Mr. Beadon now said—The real question is whe-
ther a soldier, on being discharged from the ser-
vice, has acquired an unqualified right to dispose of
his medal as any ordinary property t If he has, I
should be unwilling to convict a pawnbroker who
received in pledge after the soldier's discharge and
after joining another regiment, although the words
of the section would fully justify such a conviction.
This question then fully turns on the words of the
92d section of the Mutiny Act, 20 'Pict., c. 13,
which section was first altered in the act of 1856, in
consequence of the number of medals parted with
in the metropolis, and instead of any new section
being added to the Mutiny Act, the words " Medal
for good conduct or for distinguished or other ser-
vices," were introduced into the section relating to
Queen's stores and necessaries, which prohibits posi-
tively "the detaining, buying, receiving" from any
soldier, deserter, or any other person, under any
pretence whatever, necessaries, stores, &c., under
a severe penalty. Now, the effect of this clause is
not only to prohibit the detaining or receiving, Stc.,
of stores, &c., from a soldier or deserter, but from
" any other person whatsoever," and when it is
recollected that many of these medals are never
seen by the soldier, but are given to the widows
and mothers as memorials of his good conduct, it
is not surprising that the legislature should have
looked upon these medals in the nature of a dis-
tinguished honour which could not be parted with,
and render them (so to speak) heirlooms. I am,
therefore, of opinion that pawnbrokers are at all
times prohibited from taking these medals in pawn.
This is the view also taken by the highest authori-
ties at the War Office, and although on the present
occasion no information for penalties will be laid,
provided the medal be given up, it is the intention
of the authorities of the War Office to seek for a
conviction in all similar cases that may be reported
to them.

Mr. Melhnish thanked the magistrate for the
trouble he had taken in the mattar, and expressed
his willingness to give up the medal.

SOUTHWARK.—Richard Bush, a young fel-
low about 22 years of age, wax brought before Mr.
Burcham, charged with the following impudent
frauds on two recruiting sergeants :
Sergeant James Pearce of her Majesty's 9th Foot,
said that he knew the prisoner. On the morning
of the 14th inst. he came to him at Westminster,
and offered to enlist. Witness gave him the shil-
ling, after his saying that he was free, able, and
willing to serve the Queen ; and then he sent him
to go before the doctor. Instead of doing so he
absconded, and he saw nothing more of him until
ho saw him in custody on Saturday night.
Colour-sergeant Coyne, 3d Royal Surrey Militia,
said on the morning of the 14th inst. the prisoner
came to him and said he wasfree, able, and willing to
serve the Queen in any regiment, aj he wanted to go
to India and thrash the sepoys. Witness asked him
whether he had enlisted before, and on his replying
in the negative, enlisted him and brought him to this
court, where he was attested. He received of wit-
ness the sum of Bs. 6d., after which he sent him to
Charles-street, Westminster, to be examined by
the staff doctor. He was then discovered by Ser-
geant Pearce, and sent over to th.s district, when
witness gave him into custody. He believed that
the prisoner was the party who had defrauded al-
most every recruiting sergeant in the same way,
and that he had been rejected at one time by the
doctor. Witness informed his worship that the
fraud was carried on to a great extent. Within the
last three months he had enlisted 120 young men,
and 70 out of the lot had deserted.

The prisoner made a very rambling defence, and
Mr. Burcham told him that at such a time, when
soldiers were required, frauds of that description
must be put down, as it was disgraceful in the ex-
treme. He should not be doing his duty unless he
inflicted a heavy sentence on him, therefore be must
be imprisoned in the House of Correction at Wands-
worth for three months, with hard labour.

THAMES.—Antonio Pinner, a Greek seaman,
aged 25, and Edward Mahony, an Irish labourer,
aged 23, were brought before Mr. Selfe, charged
with cutting and wounding Jeremiah Coghlan,
who is now under treatment in the London Hos-
pital, and in a very precarious condition.
It appeared from the evidence of several wit-
nesses that there had been a quarrel and disturb-
ance among some of he inhabitants of a disreputable
locality, called Perseverance-place and Palmer's
Folly, Rateliff-highway, at 2 o'clock on Sunday
morning. The wounded man Coghlan quarrelled
with two loose women, and prisoner Mahony inter
fered on behalf of the females, and struck Coghlan
and knocked him down, and when ho was down
kicked him in a savage manner about the body.
The bystanders called cut shame. The foreigner,
Pinner, joined in the quarrel, and plunged his
knife into Coghlan's body several times.
Mr. Selfe remanded the prisoners until Tuesday
next.

SP OBTING 'I N TELLIGENCE.