The Sun.
London, England, 1859-01-11 00:00:00

RIDDLE V. JACKSON.-PETITION.

This was a petition of a ward of court, married fourteen
days after attaining majority; to draw a reversionary in-
terest of one-third part of the sum of £l,OOO stock, £lB7
consols £96 17s. 6cl. reduced, and £1 Bs, sd. cash.
Mr. Deane appeared for the petitioner, and referred to
the following decided cases in support of his application—
Long v. Long—Chancery Reports, Lord Lyndhurst's
opinion, 123, Stewart and Chambers. Ball v. Hughes,
Money v. Money—Milvoy, Chambers' Reports, 98-2 d De
Gex, Macnaughten, and Gordon. Longbottom v. Person,
sth March, 1858.,

Lord Justice Knight Bruce said that his difficulty in this
case was whether in a promise of marriage to aninfant ward
of Court, carried into effect in majority, the Court could
act upon the consent of • the wife ; or, whether the Court
should not deal with such a case as if the marriage had
taken place in minority, and act accordingly ? As a matter
of feeling, so far as his lordship was concerned, he would
not grant a warrant of committal in this case, separately
and distinctly from the matter of right. In the
case of Flanders v. Flanders, before the Master
of the Rolls, the Court refused to grant the
order. It was clearly proved that proposals for
marriage were made and accepted during the wife's
minority. It was arraigned enter ae that a part of this
money was to be paid to the mother.
Mr. Deane proposed to take a reference to chambers.
Lord Justice Knight Bruce said that it should be dis-
tinctly understood that the wife was not bound to make a
settlement of her reversionary interest unless she pleases,
and the Court were not at present prepared to pay her the
money. It, was arragned that the case would be again
mentioned on a future day.

The Master of the Rolls is expected to give judgment to.
morrow morning in Swinfen v. Swinfen.

CITY SHERIFF& COURT.

EXTRAORDINARY ACTION UPON A BILL OF EXCHANGE,

-CAUTION TO ACCEPTORS.

At this court, yesterday, was tried (Mayhew v. Sheppard)
the following singular case, involving a novel point in the
law of bills of exchange, and a most important judgment.
The plaintiff is a solicitor, and the action was brought to
recover a sum of £lO 4s. 6d. due upon a dishonoured bill of
exchange, drawn by one Bolton, accepted by defendant,
and discounted by plaintiff. As the bill was in
defendant's possession, he gave the first version of
the transaction as follows :—Being in want of a sum
of £5, he called upon Bolton, who was clerk to plaintiff;
and whom he had known for a long time, and asked him if
Mr, Mayhew would lend him £5. Bolton said, "He won't
lend so little as. that, but £lO he will advance if you will
give him a bill." Bolton then drew and defendant accepted
a bill for £lO 4s. 6d., and it was handed to plaintiff, who
cashed it and paid it to his bankers. Of the proceeds Bolton
kept £5 and4defendant had £5. The bill became due on the
9th Aug. last, and was on the 10th returned from plaintiff's
bankers dishonoured. It appears that Bolton had communi-
cated with defendant on the 9th, and defendant called at
plaintiff's office on the 10th and paid Bolton £5, and
received the bill from him. He, (defendant) did not see any
harm in paying Bolton. Bolton agreed to pay his share.

Mr. Mayhew, as plaintiff, stated that Bolton came to him
one morning, and said he was in great distress, and wanted
to borrow LW. As he had been some time in plaintiff's ser-
vice, that person agreed to lend him the sum if he could
get a responsible person to accept the bill. Bolton proposed
defendant, and Mr. Mayhew agreed to take the bill. He
(Mr. Mayhew) looked to the defendant as the respon-
sible party. Now, when the bill was dishonoured,
it should have been handed to the plaintiff, and
most certainly Bolton had no right with it. He was not
authorised to receive money. He had robbed plaintiff, and
was now in the House of Detention awaiting his examina-
tion, which would take place on Friday next at Bow-
street. The first intimation plaintiff had that the bill had
been dishonoured was in going through his cash accounts.

He contended that defendant had not obtained the bill in
the usual course and that he was still responsible. '
His Honour thought so too. In any instance, even if Bolton
had a general authority to receive money, in the present one
he was theifery last person to whom defendant should have
paid money, as the drawer of a bill, as a person jointly liable.
Defendant knew a great deal better, though he talked about
paying his share. There was no such thing as shares in a
bill of exchange, and the acceptor was liable for the whole
amount. In this case defendant might have honestly ob-
tained the bill. Certainly he did not in the usual course,
and he must pay it now.

Defendant—What 1 all of it ?
His Honour—Yes; all of it. Mr. Mayhew will not be
hard. You can pay it by instalments.
An order was then made in favour of plaintiff, and de-
fendant was ordered' to pay the whole amount by instal-
ments.

POLICE INTELLIGENCE.-(THIS DAY.)

BOW-STREET.

ROBBERY BY ,A SERVANT -_William Day, a middle-
aged man, was placed at the bar, charged with robbing his
employer, Mr. Baldwin, a cab proprietor, of Southampton-
mews, Russell-square.

Mr. Baldwin said the prisoner was, up to the 4th of
September last, in his employ as
,horsekeeper. His wages
were 20s. a week with rooms for his family, and part of his
duty was to wait up once or twice a week to receive the
earnings of the men as they-returned home with their cabs,
On the 4th of September it was his turn to remain up, and
between one and two in the morning seven cab drivers
brought home their money, which was delivered to the pri-
soner, and the names of the men entered on a list with the
amounts they had paid attached to their names. The
prisoner it appeared received £3 ls., and next day it was
found he had gone off with the money. It was not thought
he had stolen it until in the course of the day the boxes,
into which the men always placed their money, were re-
turned, Ahrough the parcels delivery company, empty.
Information was then given to the police, but until yester-
day nothing had been heard of tho prisoner, when
he was taken into custody.
Henry Holt, a cab-driver, said,' on the morning of the
sth of September he left his money, box with the prisoner.
It contained eight shillings. It ought to have been de-
livered to Mr. Baldwin the same day.
William Greenwood gave similar evidence.
contained nine shillings..

His box

Sergeant Lambert, of the E division of police, said he
took the prisoner into custody yekerclay, at Notting-hill,
Bayswater. 'He was at the time working in one of the
omnibus yards of the General Omnibus Company., He told
Day he was a police-constable, and that he must consider
himself in custody'on a charge of robbing Mr. Baldwin.
He said he had taken £3 ls., and it was a bad job.
Mr. Jardine asked the prisoner what he had to say to the
charge.
Day said he had nothing to say, excepting that he had
had the money. Drink had led him to commit the robbery.
He lost part of the money, and got drunk with the rest.
Committed for trial.

ROBBERY IN ST. GILES'S.—John Donovan, James
Jones, and Ann Leary were charged with robbing Ignatz
Welszheim, a German, of 14s. 3d.
The prosecutor, a poor deplorable-looking object, whose
only covering consisted of tiny bits of cloth sewed together,
and strips of dirty calico bound round that part of his body
not covered by his other tatters, said he lived in
Church-street, Bloomsbury. On Sunday last, about 11
o'clock he was partly imdressed—(laughtei)--and about
going to bed, when the three prisoners burst into the room
and commenced searching for his money, which just before
he had put into a bag and placed under his bed. One of
the prisoners held him fitmly down, whilst the others
rummaged the place about, and having found the bag con-
taining twelve shillings, two sixpences, twelvepen.ce in cop-
per, and a threepenny piece, they left the room. All three
of the' parties lived in the same house as he did,but till 'the
robbery he had never seen them before. He was certain
they were the people who robbed him.
On being asked what they had to say,

Donovan (a big Irishman) said—Rob him, indeed S.—the
poor devil; who'd ever think he'd got any money? I've no
occasion to take his dirty money: He's been telling great
lies. All I know about the business is that I was called to
his room in consequence of hie throwing this Weinan on liiri
bed and swearing she'd got his meney. Thedirty
I got his money I why I know no more about it than the
most innocent thing unborn. (Laughter.) Got his money I
Well, I like that. (Laughter.) He was taking liberties
with the woman, and I went to see what he was about,. I
never went into his room. There were four other people
sleeping in the trenchman's room, and they were all wide
aivake. I never. had his money. (Laughter.)
The other prisoners also denied .ull knowledge of the
rebberY, .
The Prisoners were remanded for a week.' '