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

COURT OF EXCHEQUER.

(Sittings in Banco, before the Lord Chief Baron
and Barons Martin, Watson, and Channel!)

CARTER AND ANOTHER V. HUGHES-HER MAJESTY'S

THEATRE.

This action was brought by the plaintiffs, John
Carter and Alexatlder Angus Croll, to recover
1151. ss. 6d., alleged to be due by the defrn.lant,
William S:.mtiel Price Hughes, t theal as sneriffi
of Middlesex, for poundage on 4..1, o writs ,tf elege:,
for 6,0031. 10s., and 1,4111. resp:ctively. Th- c.tuse
was tried at the Sur: ey assizes, i t the summer of
1856, before Mr. Justice Ede, when a v,.r.dct was
taken for the plaintiffs subject to the t pini.tu of this
Court on a special case. it app, areal 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 writs of eleget for 1, 1431. 10s.,
6,0031. 10s., and 1,4111. With respecr, to the two
last wits 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 wr7t, but this return was sub-
, sequently altered at Mr. Hughes's request, by in-
serting the statement that tl:e 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 seeind and
third writs.

Mr. Henyman argued the cas.3 for the plaintift!,
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 nethiug which the law recognisel as
an interest left in the debtor after the execution of
the tic st 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 ITARRIAGE.

An app!icatiou having been made by Mr. 13Dvi11
to their lorthhips to take a particular case on Mou-
thy, 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 rygght to flow the example.
Mr. Baron Martin—l undersiarad that Lord
Campbell has decided on Bitting, having s4ii4ied
himself that there is no precedent for closing the
courts on such occa4ious. We shall lose four days
of the term if we do not sit on Monday, es TiIUT'S
day and Friday are devoted t o error, and on Satur-
day we shall be called upon to make up a criminal
court.
The Lord Chief Bar .n—This Court will not sit.
There is a maxim of the law—" Equitas sequitur
legemn." I think we ought o invert that rriaxiin
on this auspicious occasion, arid follow equity.
(Sittings at Nisi Puns, at Guddhall, before Mr.
Baron Brarnwql and Common Juries.)

SMALL AND OTHERS V. JOHNSON-BILLS OF EX-

CHANGE.

This was an action brought upon two bills of ex
change fa 4531. 13, 3d. and 3961. 1.2;. 6d. by the
plaintiffs, A endorsees, against the defendant as
the acceptor. The bills were alleged to have been
drawn by Messrs. Taylor and Bright upon, and ac-
cepted by, the defendant, endo.seit by the drawers
to the Hull Flax and Cotton Mills Company, and
by them to the plaintiff's, Mes,rs Smith anit Co.,
the bankers at Hull. The defendant denied the
endorsement of the bills by Bright and Taylor to
the Flax Company, and by the 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 coin-
pa.ny without consideration ; and that the plaintiffs
had taken the bills, well knowing the facts, with-
out consideration. _

Mr. Edward James an'l Mr. Cross were counsel
for the plaintiffs ; Mr. Lash 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. Co.)k, 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
1,2321. 12s. 3d. Bills endorsed by the plaintiffs,
amounting to 1,226/„ were given the same day in
exchange. The company were at that time indebted
to the plaintiff,i. The company were credited with
1,2321., and debited 1,226/.
Cross-examined—They had an account with Mr.
Bright ; also Bright was the clia4anan of the com-
pany, of which they had been the bankers ever since
its formation. The bills given to the conadany's
cashier were bills received by thellaintiffs in the
loourse 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 cow-
pang, and Whittaker was deputy-chairman. The
bills thought by Br gait were not acdounnodation
bills. Bright carried on business as Taylor and Co.
Mr. Lest), in addressing the jury for the defence,
said that if their vetdic' depended upon the fact
that the defendant had bseu swindled out f the
bills, he would be entitled. Hu was not in bu;i-
ness, and he bast been induced by Mr. Bright, who
was a shareholder and director iu several under-
takings, to give him bills for the purpose of pur-
chasing shares for him. Bright, however, had con-
verted them to his own use, and never gave John.
son any shares, or any other consideration fur them.
Johnson had reason to believe that Bright had been
dealing largely in accommoda
t,on
tobirit,lsp,ii:atteidsotlmiaet
the b:lis in question had been given
such bills held by the plaintiffs. After hearing the
evidence of the plaintiffs cashier, he could not deny
that they had given consideration for the bills.
He, must, therefore, rest the case entirely
on the third plea, namely, that the company
had not endorsed the bills to the plaintiffs, • and
in support of that he should show that, under

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. Ile would
show that by a certain resolution of the company,
pasted in March, 1856, in consequence of that act,
all previous resolutions of the company were re-
scinded, and since that period no resolution bad
been passel giving the requisite authority to any
person to draw, accept, or endorse bills, notes, or
cheques. Under these circumstances Bright and
Whittaker hail no authority to endorse these bills
to the plaiutffs, and they were still the real holders
of the notes. The plaintiffs -therefore could not
maintain the present action.

The books Of the company were then produced,
anti proved the stitement.of the learned counsel.

Mr. Edward James then applied to his lordship
to strike out the endorsemeut, as the plaintiffs were
the bona fide 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 cage
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, uuder the stringent words
of the act, was sufficient evi 'erica 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 t i move the Court aboveupon
the questions of the authority to endorse and their
power to amend the declaration by striking out the
endorsement.
Verdict accordingly.